Last week, I published a Daily Kos diary to announce I’ve solved the mystery of why Evangelicals are still supporting Trump — despite the fact that he insists on building great big walls when the Pope, himself, says that isn’t Christian; or the fact that he insults Gold Star family members; or the fact that he kicks babies out of his rallies; or the fact that he won’t rule out nuking Europe.
They’re still supporting Trump, because they refuse to support a pro-choice candidate. Don’t get me wrong … racism plays a part too, as many in the comment threads pointed out … but those in my particular social networking group are a lot less comfortable bringing that ugliness to the surface (i.e., they don’t like being called racists). So, shouting about “the babies!” is their last card to play.
I’ve engaged with forced-birth Trump supporters for this past week (thanks to all of you who shared my last diary … and I don’t mean that sarcastically even though it wasn’t pleasant at times, because I have to believe that honest dialogue moves things forward). As a public service, though, I’m sharing what I’ve learned. In case you find yourself in a similar situation, these are the “genres,” if you will, of the forced-birther comment:
1. The “Democrats like killing babies!” genre, which looks something like this:
Abortion used to be illegal in this country. Yeah, crazy as it sounds, the thought of killing your own children used to be repugnant to most people … I am no fan of Trump. But it is a binary choice now. I am so convinced of the diabolical nature of the left, that I consider it a duty to vote to stop them. Unfortunately in this cycle, that means voting for Trump. But if all he is able to do is get real judges on the bench … that alone is reason enough to support him over the alternative.
The first thing to point out: it is illegal to kill babies. Period. The term for the unborn (i.e., dependent on a woman/in her body) is fetus. Cue the freak-out at the “f-word,” but press on with the science:
Zygote is the scientific term for a newly fertilized egg; embryo is the scientific term for the more developed, 32-celled fertilized egg; fetus is the scientific term for an unborn human eight weeks&more after the zygote-stage. Baby is what we call the unborn human once born. Pro-birthers know what they're doing when they say a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus all = baby. When we're discussing complex topics, precise language matters. And, be sure to say that no, liberals don't like to “kill babies.” Killing babies is what happens when you’re pro-war, pro-gun, anti-refugee, etc. — because those are the actual living, breathing people being killed in the equation.
2. The “Jesus loves the unborn!” genre, which looks something like this:
Abortion rights up to 36 weeks for all is not Christlike … I've followed the Clintons for a long time and based on my Christian beliefs I must reject her as a presidential candidate.
The first thing to point out: Hillary does not want to abort fetuses at 36 weeks. In fact, she says she would support a late-term abortion ban, as long as a provision is made for life of the mother. Also, abortion was around 1,500 years before Jesus was born, and guess how much he said about it? Zero. His concern was for the living, breathing, suffering, and marginalized people with him. And if you really want to make them crazy, point out that the Bible recommends an abortifacient in Numbers 5: 11-31. But be warned: they’ll send you all kinds of articles from Bible-answer-men who will try to explain things away (e.g., one BAM, or Bible-answer-man, says that just because one recommends “the bitter water” that causes miscarriage doesn’t mean that you’re supposed to drink it, really). You can, of course, find more liberal Bible-answer-men, but it’s probably more useful to quote Rachel Held Evans, who describes herself as a pro-life Christian of the more sensible sort.
3. The “infertile families would adopt everyone!” genre, which looks something like this:
It should never be lawful to kill a baby who could be a wonderful adoption candidate for families who are wanting children [and can’t have their own].
As an adoptive mother, I bristle at the implication that unwanted children are for families who want children, because they presumably can't have "their own." I can have biological kids; I adopted because I wanted to. And both my children are "my own."
Left: Kazakhstan adoption, 2006; Right: Birthing, 2009Forced-birthers are wrong to assume that all the aborted pregnancies they mourn would have resulted in adoptable kids. If that were true, there wouldn't be 5,000 American kids photo-listed this very moment (that’s only the ones photo-listed, mind you), and there wouldn't be over 100 million orphans worldwide.
4. The “this premature baby survived, therefore!” genre, which looks something like this:
Just food for thought, when I worked at Greenville Hospital, I had the chance to assist with the birth of a 27 week baby. I was in total shock! The baby lived. He had problems, he didn't even have skin yet. But he lived! I cannot begin to tell you how excited those parents were. They had been in a car accident, it was all very touching. The doctor stated, "The Lord was in charge in that OR today."
Here’s what you say: Uh huh. That's great. So glad that this family is alive and well and enjoying each other. But that has nothing to do with the fact that sometimes women need abortions and are unable to get them, because so many people share such stories as a political argument that ^this^ means abortions shouldn't be a thing. And that creates situations like Valerie Peterson’s, which she shared in The New York Times. Peterson’s from Texas, one of the most restrictive states:
The sonogram clearly showed my son’s brain hadn’t developed into two halves, and there was a hole between the brain and the spinal cord. My doctor confirmed the diagnosis: Alobar holoprosencephaly. My doctor gave me two options: I could try to carry the pregnancy to term, which would most likely end in either miscarriage or the delivery of a stillborn baby. At best, the doctors said the baby might live a couple of minutes. Or I could terminate the pregnancy. I was devastated by the diagnosis and these two terrible options. I knew immediately, though. Once I saw the pictures of his brain, I knew that continuing to carry this pregnancy would have traumatic emotional and physical consequences. And not just for me but also for my two children, who were excited about having another sibling. [...] After my doctor called the clinic, I was told I would have to wait three to four weeks for the next available appointment. There was no way I could wait that long. Not only would I be carrying a baby I knew wouldn’t survive, but that kind of wait could push me past the 20-week mark after which almost all abortions are illegal in Texas. My doctor was able to find me an appointment the following week instead. But when I found out the procedure would then take three to four days to complete as a result of other restrictions that include mandatory counseling, a required sonogram and an additional 24-hour waiting period, I broke down. I didn’t know how I was going to make it that long. One unnecessary additional day was one more than I could bear. Through a friend, I was connected to a clinic in Florida that caters to women who are terminating for medical reasons, and I spoke to the doctor and nurse there. The doctor explained that Florida didn’t have a 24-hour waiting period, and they could get me in the next day. I booked the first plane ticket I found. I got a hotel room and rental car. I flew to Florida on Friday, and my procedure was over by Saturday afternoon. Including the cost of the procedure, I had to spend close to $5,000. I remember thinking: What happens to women in my situation who don’t have the ability to do what I just did? My heart aches for those women. When I got back from Florida, I joined a support group for women who have ended wanted pregnancies. I shared my story, and ended up becoming involved in activism on behalf of other Texas women like me — women who needed abortion access, and couldn’t get it. I had never been involved in activism before. I didn’t know about these types of laws, or really have an opinion on abortion before I needed one myself. The restrictions on abortion procedures in Texas ultimately won’t lower the number of people who need the procedure. They will just force women to take drastic measures. In fact, there is research that shows that since the Texas law passed, the number of women self-inducing abortion has grown. Other women are risking their jobs, spending their life savings, driving hundreds of miles, crossing state lines as I had to — all to exercise a right that the Constitution protects.
Democrats are advocating for both mothers, like Valerie (because should a woman really have to pay $5000 and travel from Texas to Florida to get a dying fetus out of her body?), and the unborn children. Just because Republicans don't like the way we're advocating for them (i.e., trying to reduce abortions through increased access to birth control and sex education; empowering impoverished mothers; supporting adoption programs, including LGBTQ adoption; etc.) doesn't mean that we’re not advocating just the same.
5. The “abortion is the new birth control!” genre, which looks something like this:
Heaven forbid that this culture actually promote abstinence! … There are some who think of abortion as a means of birth control.
I don’t like to play with generalizations, but I have never once heard a woman say she’s excited to get a pap smear, so I can’t imagine women would prefer abortion (also invasive) to birth control. And the facts are in, folks, both about the success of free birth control initiatives (according to a Washington University School of Medicine study, free birth control decreases abortion by 68-72% and the disaster that is abstinence-only programs (68% of teens say they don’t use birth control, because they don’t want their [presumably abstinence-only] parents to find out they’re having sex). See also, Canada, the country with easier access to abortion … yet fewer abortions … than America.
So, there you have it. ^These^ are the genres you can expect if you wade into the water with forced-birthers. If you dare, God speed.
In conclusion, and as a final thought, I give you this: too many Christians who shout "I'm pro-life!" use it the same way they use "Praying for you!" — as an excuse to feel moral without doing anything actively helpful, anything that actually addresses a need or solves a problem.