Being Pro-Life: What it really means

So a few of my more, er, lefty Facebook friends recently posted this article to their walls. The title is intentionally provocative, and it worked: I read it.

It may not surprise you to see that I–and the Catholic Church–have a lot of problems with what’s listed here. The writer goes from 10-1, so that’s the order I’ll follow here.

10) You cannot support unrestricted, elective abortions, after the age of viability.  Well, obviously. I mean, pro-lifers are going to agree with you on this one.

9) You cannot oppose a livable, minimum wage. Actually, yes, you can.  Because it hurts employees by limiting the amount of people who can enter the workforce.

From Wiki:

according to a paper written in 2000 by Fuller and Geide-Stevenson, 73.5% (27.9% of which agreed with provisos) of American economists agreed that a minimum wage increases unemployment among unskilled and young workers, while 26.5% disagreed with this statement.[73] As a policy question in 2006, the minimum wage has—to some extent—split the economics profession with just under half believing it should be eliminated and a slightly smaller percentage believing it should be increased, leaving few in the middle.[citation needed]

Some idea of the empirical problems of this debate can be seen by looking at recent trends in the United States. The minimum wage fell about 29% in real terms between 1979 and 2003. For the median worker, real hourly earnings have increased since 1979; however, for the lowest deciles, there have been significant decreases in the real wage without much decrease in the rate of unemployment. Some argue that an increasing minimum wage might reduce youth unemployment (since these workers are likely to have fewer skills than older workers).[74] Furthermore, some economics research has shown that restaurant prices rise in response to minimum wage increases.[75]



Without choosing from among these perspectives, it is sufficient to say that minimum wage increases are unlikely to have a simple linear effect on employment. The interconnection of price levels, central bank policy, wage agreements, total aggregate demand creates a situation where the conclusions to be drawn from macroeconomic analysis will be highly influenced by the underlying assumptions.[79]

Basically, we don’t know what it will do to employment, because it’s not a linear thing. But it stands to reason that if you have a higher minimum wage, you’re going to be able to hire fewer people, because you, as an employer, don’t have the money to hire them without raising prices.

Also, minimum wage varies incredibly across the U.S., with the federal base of $7.25 being raised in Ohio to $7.85.

I’m not being purposefully against minimum wage; but most jobs do pay more. I’ve never made just $7.25 an hour. My brother and sister both worked in food service, and my sister was a waitress. I know that tips make up a huge portion of their pay, an that the “base wage” reflects that. So we always tip pretty generously. But I don’t think the minimum wage was ever meant to support a family. Now that maybe happening now, due to societal factors. But that may not be what it was intended for.

Of course we don’t want anyone to live in squalor. But let’s keep in mind what the policies are intended for. Also, teenagers, who need their first jobs are often disproportionately negatively affected by raises in minimum wage. So they can’t get the job experience they need in order to build a resume and get experience.

8)  You cannot advocate, support, or passively tollerate economic policies which oppress the poor, minorities, or any other marginalized group. - As my brother would say, “What does this mean?” It sounds nice, but what does it translate to in practicality? Various Popes have discussed economic policy; this First Things piece is worth quoting at length. (Sorry for the length, but it’s important. my bold points)




Pius XI explained (QA, p. 49):






The six encyclicals are : Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, in 1891; Quadragesimo Anno,published by Pius XI forty years later in 1931, Mater et Magistra of John XXIII in 1961, Populorum Progressio of Paul VI in 1967, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis of John Paul II in 1987, and Centussimum Annos in 1991,  of John Paul II.

So this is what we have from the Popes: Capitalism that respects the human element and sees the people are people, and not just the means for profit, is acceptable. People have a right to private property, but we must also take into account the common good.

I have no idea what system the author is talking about, but I like–and support–what the Popes have given us.

7) You cannot oppose gender equality

Sigh. Here we go again, this old hack. “Man and women he created them,” but no one is equal. The author talks about the pay gap in gender, but completely doesn’t mention why that exists.

From Wiki again:

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, The U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[19] Furthermore, The United States Government Accountability Office found in 2009 that when accounting for diminishing differences in variables including chosen occupation, education, and experience, the variable wage gap among federal workers can be brought to roughly 1-2%.[20]


The author also says “it gets more tough than that: as scripture teaches, there is no longer “male or female, slave nor free”, and as a result, we need to demand an end to gender based discrimination in our churches as well.” 

As a Catholic, that ain’t going to happen. We ARE male or female; the Church puts stock in those dull, material things. We like the material. There’s a reason it was a big deal that God Became Man. Male and female have different strengths and geniuses. We are not the same!

6) You cannot hold anti-immigrant sentiments or support oppressive immigration policies. 

CCC 2241:


‘Nuff said.

5) You cannot oppose healthcare for all

As usual when talking about health care, we’re dealing with things that don’t happen. It amazes me how these thoughts continue. The author uses the example of a woman not being able to get infant care for her child. There are programs in every state for low-income/poor mothers and their children, usually up to preschool or kindergarten age. There’s also CHIP

Now, I realize that there are “gaps” in these programs; too rich to qualify for assistance and too poor to actually afford insurance. I’ve spent a lot of my life getting my health care at a kid’s hospital. There are payment plans. There are programs. Sometimes your care can even be written off if insurance won’t cover it. There are ways to get things paid for.

As far as government run health care: People need to learn that this does not work for people who need health care. The average CF survival rate in Britain is ten years less than in the United States. Their hospitals are in the stone age; some of them still have CF patients on wards, with shared rooms, years after we learned that CF patients can share bacteria that is potentially deadly between them. There is a reason medical advances are made in the U.S. and not over countries.

This is where I differ with most of my conservative brethren, because I do think health care in America needs changed. But I don’t think that what we’re about to have is the way to go, at all.

From the CCC:



So yes, governments do need a safety net, of some sort. But I don’t think what we’re about to have is the way to go.

4. You cannot use dehumanizing language

Basically, we can’t be “mean”. While I support this, I do take issue with the author’s idea that we can’t use “illegal” to describe illegal immigrants! If you are in the United States illegally, you are an illegal immigrant. Fact.

3. You cannot support unrestricted gun rights

I basically agree with this one. Again, I differ from my fellow GOPers. But again, I think criminals do not follow the law. That’s what makes them criminals. So we can have all the rules we want, but criminals are going to get around them. I don’t really know how we’ll stop this. But yes, I do not think that everyone who wants a gun should be allowed to get a gun.

2. You cannot support the death penalty

Actually, yes you can. In very limited circumstances.





 1. You cannot support, advocate for, or participate in war 

Again….yes you can. CCC. And yeah I’m quoting most of a section here. Bold is my emphasis and notes (in the case of the just war section)

Avoiding war




2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: Also known as Conditions of Just War: 



- there must be serious prospects of success;










2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes.




So essentially: yeah, you can be pro-life, without buying this author’s arguments hook, line, and sinker. And if you’re Catholic, the Church basically disagrees with the author on several points.

About these ads

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s