"Calling White Conservative Christian Heterosexuals 'Pro-Life' Is Like Calling O.J. Simpson 'Pro-Wife'"

White Conservative Christian heterosexuals can't run on what they are, so they have to invent a brand- even if it's entirely dishonest

One of the things that I’ve never been able to reconcile about White Conservative Christian heterosexuals is how they’ll argue in favor of the death penalty and then, in virtually the same breath, argue for “a culture of life.” So consider what they mean by “a culture of life” for a moment.

It makes sense only if you accept the reality that White Conservative Christian heterosexuals care nothing for ideological consistency. Their ideology has a “make it up on the fly” quality, so if conflicts and hypocrisies emerge along the way…well, only losers and Liberals worry about that sort of thing, right?

I’ve found myself thinking about what qualifies as “pro-life” these days, and I’ve come to believe that the White Conservative Christian heterosexual definition of “pro-life” has little, if anything, to do with life.

For example, White Conservative Christian heterosexuals are all about protecting conception and birth, but once a child exits a womb, they want nothing to do with it. No assistance for single mothers. No aid for complicated pregnancies and the issues that come after birth. No parenting classes. No food banks for parents- AND CHILDREN- in need. No housing assistance. No educational assistance. NOTHING.

It’s your kid, your responsibility. YOU take care of it. Don’t come crying to the government looking for help. If you can’t afford to raise a child, you shouldn’t have had sex in the first place.

White Conservative Christian heterosexual “pro-life” is just “pro-conception,” which is why Justice Clarence Thomas is talking about revisiting Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing the right to contraception.

White Conservative Christian heterosexuals don’t care that denying women access to abortion keeps many women and families in poverty because (White) women of means will always be able to obtain abortions.

The problem for White Conservative Christian heterosexuals is that their brand is abject cruelty, so they have to invent a brand that their candidates can run on. How about “a culture of life?” Who can argue with that, eh? White Conservative Christian heterosexuals will ALWAYS stand up for the rights of the unborn. (Sure, they won’t lift a finger for a child once it exits the uterus. But, if the mother can’t support it, then she shouldn’t have had sex in the first place. Hmm…where have we heard that before??)

So how about if we look at what being “pro-life” should mean? It’s not a difficult concept- unless you’re a White Conservative Christian heterosexual because many of its tenets are the things they oppose with every fiber of their being.

Being “pro-life” means working on getting guns off our streets and finding ways to keep weapons of war out of the hands of those who’d walk into a school and massacre children. (I call this the “Greg Abbott Clause.”)

Being “pro-life” means helping single mothers living in poverty ensure their children are adequately fed and housed. It means ensuring that they have access to contraception and that they understand the importance of using it.

Being ”pro-life” means ensuring that children of poverty have access to the same educational opportunities as any other child. It means helping children break the cycle of poverty, so they don’t have to live on public assistance with little hope of a better life.

Being “pro-life” means ending the death penalty and the “eye for an eye” mentality that dominates the thinking of so many White Conservative Christian heterosexuals who want to create a “culture of life.” State-sponsored vengeance doesn’t support their claim of creating “a culture of life.”

Being “pro-life” means advocating for more than just conception and birth. It means being there for children after they exit the womb. As things stand currently, most “pro-life” zealots don’t give a damn about children once they’re born. They’re all about protecting the unborn, but once they leave the womb, they want nothing to do with a child. Post-partum, they become the responsibility of the parents, not the government. Except that if we don’t collectively take an interest in the well-being of children, some will inevitably become the responsibility of the State as adults.

If those who consider themselves to be “pro-life” really cared about life, they’d support and advocate for activities that made life easier for children and families. They wouldn’t scream at women outside abortion clinics. They wouldn’t treat women like vessels but as human beings.

They’d recognize that there’s more to the world than their narrow agenda and that not everyone shares it. They’d treat those who disagree with compassion and understanding.

The problem is that White Conservative Christian heterosexuals are incapable of doing these things because of the required effort, thoughtfulness, and genuine compassion- all things they lack and are unwilling to expend. It’s so much easier to demonize women and to reduce them to the level of chattel. You aren’t treating women like property if you believe them to be property in the first place.

When you belong to a party that reveres abject cruelty as a prime motivation, compassion isn’t going to be very high on your list. So “pro-life” is merely a descriptor intended to motivate (or deceive) your base, who is every bit as cruel and heartless as the party itself.

Being “pro-life” shouldn’t be merely an agenda; it should be about people. It should be about life. Instead, it’s too often become about anything but protecting life. It’s about cruelty, inhumanity, and forcing one’s narrow, intolerant agenda upon those who happen not to think as they do.

That’s not “pro-life;” that’s “anti-compassion,” something all too characteristic of White Conservative Christian heterosexuals today.

Excellent branding, eh?