This point was echoed by Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress. In a September 19th piece entitled, “Can’t breed dogs?” Tanden not only continues to argue that abortion is better for American families than public assistance, she continues to use children’s lives as a debating point. She affirms she’s pro-choice, but then proves that by opening the argument: “We have the first industrialized society in history to deny not only abortion, but also to outlaw adoption.”
In other words, giving a woman the right to choose what to do with her body and who to spend it with. Tanden continues by suggesting to the elites of our society that puppies are a luxury to which only the affluent can afford. To others, Tanden insinuates that he dogs are a luxury to which not all dogs are entitled: “Even dogs. Or does [human life] have a value only reserved for us?” The reality is that not only are humans as important as dogs, but dogs too.
The root of the American experiment is a promise to each other that children and shelter are fundamental to the health of our society. Hiding behind the fact that many people cannot afford, in particular, to be responsible for these animals is a sneaky evasion of the truth.
But instead of looking for common ground on these issues, Tanden sets upon breeding as the only solution: “You don’t need to breed yourself to bring up your children, after all. You can give your dogs a good home, too.”
Asking children what they want to do with their lives is the American thing to do. Is it so outlandish to want to know what their future brothers and sisters will look like and be like? Sure, mothers should buy books for their daughters, and fathers should read to their sons. But while family should be a priority, pro-life perspective challenges the foundational essence of this ideal. To breed does not help girls feel they have choices. It doesn’t offer a voice to the voiceless. Breed, Tanden argues, offers protection to those who don’t deserve it.
It is a shame that so many Americans are so willing to argue in favor of a concept that does nothing to advance their families and little to advance the society they are charged to help. I’m not condoning a decision that is morally reprehensible, but I am standing in support of pro-life American parents.
Marc Scribner is the associate director of communications and public affairs for the National Right to Life Committee. The views expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the NARAL Pro-Choice America or the Center for American Progress. Scribner writes extensively on reproductive freedom and men and women’s rights, and is an occasional contributor to The Federalist.
The 114th: CQ Roll Call’s Guide to the New Congress Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call in your inbox or on your iPhone.