What is being "Pro-life"?

I guess it's worth it to articulate the "pro-life" position (again) in a post, partly because the "comment" feature is malfunctioning at present and partly because it's a big subject.

I know that Sharon Cobb is not a novice at public policy, so it surprises me that she cannot conceive (here) of any other feasible way (and moreso that she perceives "pro-lifers" have not grappled with the issue before reaching their policy position) to address welfare of children. Who knows what to make of "anonymous'" statement.

As an attorney who focuses on adoptions, I know that there is a great demand for children to adopt in America, and that large numbers of families who want to adopt look internationally to provide a needy child with a home. Gee, they perform abortions like ear-piercings in China and they still have to adopt them out, so I don't think that abortion serves the every-child-a-wanted-child (intone with a Dr. Joycelyn Elders accent if you will) proposition. Likewise, as an adoption attorney, I also know that government agencies devoted to protecting child welfare are incapable of doing so.

I also know, more from my involvement in policy, that we spend boat loads of money to pay for children that mothers and fathers "can't" or won't care for, and I am interested to see more than a vague accusation that any pro-life politician has voted against providing money for children in need. We've been fighting the War on Poverty for some time, and I'm curious as to whether you'd say it is winnable, is a quagmire, is time to redeploy, etc.

But, candidly, I'm not sure what you're speaking of when you talk about insufficient efforts or a lack of willingness by pro-lifers to care about children. We (American taxpayers) spend tons of money to promote the welfare of children; we make it possible to abandon infants on a fire station doorstep without prosecution; on the other hand we prosecute people who neglect their children; so why do we still have these problems? I'd say we have to acknowledge that there are limits to how effectively and to what extent "society" should take responsibility for non-orphans. I'd say we need to intercede in the extreme cases, provide a helping hand in many cases, try and promote healthy and responsible behaviors in all cases, and acknowledge that there are limits to how effectively and to what extent "society" should take responsibility for non-orphans.

On a personal level and more specifically related to abortion, I volunteer at a local ministry which supports, encourages and counsels women in making wise choices about sexuality--generally, and in a crisis pregnancy--in particular.

Regarding the challenge of "pro-life" hypocrisy from Anonymous, I have a couple of preliminary thoughts: first, "hypocrisy" is the perfect cardinal sin for a Liberal, because moral relativism and multi-culturalism and secularism set values and standards so low or so vaguely that it is difficult to ever be guilty of hypocrisy. Gotta admire that maneuver.

Second, it is astonishing--since we're taking off the gloves, "Anonymous," that people who apparently spend so much time e-sounding off about public policy make such ignorant or oversimplified or strawman or disingenuous arguments.

But surely you perceive an arguable difference between a capital murderer and an innocent human; between an inadvertent victim of war and an innocent human targeted for elimination; between funding/condoning/allowing partial-birth abortion and not being able to do the job of state and local officials in taking care of their citizens? The GWOT is not per se a war about religion, but as long as nation or movement is credibly threatening Americans with death unless we adopt their religion, then it is the President's obligation to neutralize that threat Ironically, you throw Darfur/Sudan in with your barbs about the GWOT, do you know much about the causes and interests involveind Darfur? I doubt it, as long as you purport it to be a Republican/Christian/Conservative/Rovian/blahblahblah problem.