The glaring incongruity in the “Pro-Life” movement’s anti-abortion “strategy” has always been their irrational opposition to sex education and birth control. It always seemed to me that if you wanted to reduce the number of abortions, the first step would be to reduce unintended pregnancies.

This gap in logic is not merely intellectually inconsistent however, it is morally repugnant as well.

The most common argument the Conservative Right makes for opposing ready access to sex education and birth control, is their belief that without the foreboding possibility of an unplanned pregnancy, people of all ages would simply run out and have a lot of premarital sex.

They are saying that unplanned pregnancy (a.k.a. children) is a deterrent to pre-marital sex.

If pregnancy is a deterrent to people having “unapproved” sex, when that deterrent is ignored (by virtue of passion, puppy love, or lack of proper sex education) is the resulting child by these definitions, God’s punishment for his or her parents’ having sex?

Pro life my ass.

Has their nonsensical proscription in any way reduced the number of unintended pregnancies as measured by the annual number of adoptions, abortions and hastily arranged and statistically doomed marriages?

Supporting things that might reduce the number of needed abortions is a good strategy.