When it comes to the tactics of the anti-abortion proponents I'm nearly always appalled at what they deem to be appropriate forms of protest. So when I read this article in my local paper yesterday I was surprised to see some of the pro-lifers actually showing something resembling compassion.
If anyone out there has been paying attention to my posts (and I don't know why you would), you might recall that I live in the great state of Mississippi, which receives a big fat F in women's reproductive freedom.* (Hell, we still have a compulsory sterilization law on the books!) And so you might understand why I remain concerned about what the good ol' (white) boys who run this state might be planning for my uterus. Turns out the pro-life tactic that was the featured in yesterday's paper was much more insidious than the ever-present legislative threat to outlaw abortion entirely and the side-walk protests which are commonplace not far from my home.
A righteous Christian husband and wife have organized a small home for pregnant women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term and give birth. The woman doesn't even have to keep the child - she can avail herself of the home's services during her pregnancy even if she intends to give the child up for adoption. She does, however, have to adhere to "a schedule of chores, Bible study, exercise, vocational planning and various life skills classes". Oh, and the home doesn't accept pregnant girls younger than eighteen. Apparently there are other such homes in my state, some of which assist pregnant girls under the age of eighteen, all of which have waiting lists and varying requirements for entrance.
I can't put my finger on it, but there's something about this pro-life approach that doesn't sit well with me despite its seeming benevolence. What happens to mother and child if, despite the assistance provided by such a center, they still have nowhere to live three months after the birth?
My ambivalence would indicate that I need to give this some more consideration. Won't you, dear progressiveU member, oblige and give me some food for thought?
: : : : : : : : : :
* In an effort to be fair and balanced, unlike some who shall remain unnamed, I'll readily admit that my source here is biased. Therefore, I'm providing this list of random pro-life links, too:
http://www.thechristmasvillage.org/
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Pro-life_Product/?id=7
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Anti-Abortion_Prolife/Anti-Abortion_Clinics/
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ERA/ERAreintroduced032707.html
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
great.. another ploy to get people to be Christian. Okay, so that was a little harsh but there is really no other way to say it. I suppose the idea of a "safehouse" or whatever is nice but why does it have to involve making the girls/women Christian?
At first glance, Christmas Village is a very nice idea. Then, when you think about the name and read the schedule, you start to get suspicious. What if a Jewish Woman wants to go there, or an Islamic woman? I'm sure that the couple thinks it's doing the right thing, but people have to realize that you don't need to be Chritian to lead a good life.
Those were my thoughts exactly.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!