OPINION: Pro-life, pro-choice, what about pro-child?

Feb. 22--Norma McCorvey died last week in Texas at the age of 69.

Norma who, you ask?

She is far better known by a different name, Jane Roe, as in Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

McCorvey was a 22-year-old pregnant with her third child in 1969 when she decided to get an abortion. She didn't abort the child, but instead carried the pregnancy to term and gave the baby up for adoption.

Her case, however, went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the rest is history.

McCorvey was a staunch advocate for abortion in the 1980s, but in the 1990s, she changed her mind and began working for pro-life groups.

Pro-life vs. pro-choice, those are the two sides in the abortion debate, which figures to only get hotter in the coming years as President Donald Trump begins to reshape the Supreme Court, giving pro-life forces hope Roe v. Wade may someday be overturned.

The term pro-life is misused, according to one woman who is staunchly against abortion.

Joan Chittister is a Catholic nun, and as such embraces the church's teaching on the sanctity of human life and the belief that life begins at the moment of conception.

Regardless, here's what she has to say in regards to the term pro-life:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Chittister's point seems to be, what good is it to bring a child in the world if that child will face abuse and neglect, hunger and hardship? The same lawmakers who are so anti-abortion don't want to spend money on social programs to aid young unwed mothers and their children.

The abortion debate in Oklahoma has taken a new turn in recent weeks with the introduction of legislation that would require a woman to obtain written consent from the man who impregnated her before seeking an abortion. The bill authored by State Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, also seeks to require women to reveal the name of their unborn child's father.

Would Humphrey's bill, which was approved by a House committee, also require said father to support the child, to love it, nurture it, spend time with it, to equally share parenting responsibilities and to be actively involved in the life of his offspring? No, which is one reason the measure, if it makes it through the Legislature and winds up on Gov. Mary Fallin's desk, likely will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Bringing a baby into the world should be the result of a thoughtful, carefully planned decision between two people committed to loving and caring for that child until it is old enough to take care of itself. Sadly, that is not real life, which leaves many women with the painful decision of carrying their unplanned child to term and either giving it up for adoption or caring for it, often alone.

It is a choice only a woman should make, but it is a terrible choice nonetheless.

Which only serves to point out the fallacy of the term pro-choice. The only one without a choice in the whole sad abortion scenario is the child itself.

Pro-life or pro-choice? What about pro-child?

Mullin is senior writer of the News & Eagle. Email him at [email protected] or call 548-8145.

___

(c)2017 the Enid News & Eagle (Enid, Okla.)

Visit the Enid News & Eagle (Enid, Okla.) at www.enidnews.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.