Anti-Abortionism and Family Values

Read Jacob Weisberg's piece in Slate called "Whatever Happened to Family Values: How the GOP Gave Into Anti-Abortion Absolutism." His argument is best summed up in the following two paragraphs:

In fact, these two conservative social goals—ending abortion and upholding the model of the nuclear family—were always in tension. The reason is that, like it or not, the availability of legal abortion supports the kind of family structure that conservatives once felt so strongly about: two parents raising children in a stable relationship, without government assistance. By 12^th grade, 60 percent of high school girls are sexually active or, as Reagan put it, "promiscuous." Teen-pregnancy rates have been trending downward in recent years, but even so, 7 percent of high-school girls become pregnant every year. And the unfortunate reality is that teenagers who carry their pregnancies to term drastically diminish their chances of living out the conservative, or the American, dream.

Forget the Juno scenario—in the real world, only a tiny fraction of unwed mothers give their babies up for adoption. If you do not allow teenage girls who accidentally become pregnant to have abortions, you are demanding either that they raise their children as single mothers or that they marry in shotgun weddings. By the numbers, neither choice is promising. Unmarried teenage moms seldom get much financial or emotional support from the fathers of their babies. They tend to drop out of high school and go on the dole, and they are prone to lives of poverty, frustration, and disorder. Only 2 percent of them make it through college by the age of 30. The Bristol Palin option doesn't promote family happiness, stability, or traditional structure, either. Of women under 18 who marry, whether because of pregnancy or not, nearly half divorce within 10 years—double the rate for those who wait until they're 25.

He then says:

I've long expected the Republican Party to resolve this conflict in its social vision by moderating its stance on abortion. Politically, pro-life absolutism has never made much sense.

Articles like these never fail to amaze me. For the sake of partisanship, for the sake of holding onto ideals that have become idols, some will throw out all standards, all logic. Now I could care less about the GOP. Though Weisberg is clearly dismayed at the supposed hypocrisy of the Republicans, that should not concern us. What should concern us is this issue. He says boldly, "You can't have your cake and eat it to." If we want nuclear families, we have give up our anti-abortion stance.

1. The logical absurdity of his argument leads me to believe he doesn't actually believe what he's arguing. Rather, he finds conservative values so bizarre and illogical that he thinks by being cute, he'll be able to expose us for who we are. Even so, one must answer the argument.

2. Nuclear families are a goal, not an absolute. Though we understand that kids are better off with a married mom and a dad, we of course realize that there are circumstances that do not always allow for that.

3. Ending abortion is both a goal and an absolute. We hope that abortions will decrease in America to the point where they are non-existent. However, we also believe that this issue has primacy over all other issues. It is absolute. Nuclear families are great and beneficial. Saving lives is much more important. That should be obvious.