Readers Write: 4 responses to an abortion op-ed

Here are some of the most compelling responses to a recent web op-ed by Elizabeth Jahr, "Pro-life groups don't really protect the unborn."

4. Education, not anti-choice, is the answer

Paige Lindsey Smith, MDiv., MLIS

Florence, Ala.

What Jahr points out regarding the alleged "pro-life" movement is exactly what many astute proponents of both choice and even those on the anti-choice side have observed in the past: The "pro-life" movement is not about life. It is anti-woman and anti-child, and it is about depriving women of reproductive choices in their own lives.

Jahr is correct in pointing out how the vast sums of money collected by these organizations that claim to be "protecting" women do not go toward adequately assisting women who might want to have the child despite a pregnancy being unplanned. Yes, these groups will direct these poor women to an organization (staffed by volunteers) that might give them a used car seat, a second-hand stroller, and a free box of infant-sized disposable diapers. But where does the rest of the money these pro-life groups raise go? Certainly not to support these women and their children for the next several years. 

The "pro-life" (or rather "pro-birth") movement is about a political and social agenda. Jahr is right on target there. Too many pro-life proponents don’t seem to have ever faced the difficulties of raising their children alone or doing so without public assistance. Too many of pro-life advocates are the same people who are vocally anti-welfare, anti-public education, anti-social programs, anti-sex education, anti-birth-control, anti-public assistance of any shape or form.

Let's help single moms. Let's get young girls educated. Let's help women get jobs and get off public assistance. Let's put that energy – and money – into schools, into day-care, into job-training.

Paige Lindsey Smith has worked off and on in abortion counseling in New Haven, Conn., and Alabama since 1973. She and her husband, Dr. Pat Smith, were part owners of the clinic in Birmingham that was bombed in 1998 by Eric Rudolph.

4 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.