The pro-life movement is, at least in America, allied with conservatism. This leads to an inevitable contradiction. Any additional law means more government. This is especially ironic now that we are about to save taxpayer dollars through welfare reform. Is there a way to radically decrease abortions without asking the government to do it? Adoption is often suggested here, and that is a good alternative, but I think there is another as well.
Marriage. I am not talking just about a return to the "shotgun marriage;" rather, I think an offer of marriage from a man who is not the father but who will assume all the traditional responsibilities of fatherhood would be accepted by many unmarried pregnant women.
The motif of a man proposing marriage to a woman pregnant with another man's child is a common one on soap operas. I was a fan of Love of Life1 and remember Ray Slater proposing to Arlene Lovett, "let me be the father to the baby," even though he knew that he was not the biological father. On General Hospital, Robert Scorpio married Holly Sutton when she was pregnant by another man. As of this writing, Neil of The Young and the Restless is willing to marry Victoria who has been impregnated by another fellow.2
Soap operas are a fairly good gauge of female fantasy. These stories represent the truth that many pregnant women don't really want to abort, and would not, if marriage and commitment were offered to them.
Grooms for Life could be facilitated on a practical basis by the computerized matching of pro-life single men with unmarried pregnant women interested in carrying to term. Certainly, the number of Grooms for Life would fall short of the million and a half abortions per year. However, making abortion illegal will not prevent all abortions, either. Additionally, female pro-lifers and married men could spend their time recruiting bachelors to their cause so that the screaming demonstrators outside abortion clinics would soon be replaced by swains in bow ties, carrying bouquets of flowers, holding rings, and serenading the pregnant women.
One objection to "Grooms for Life" is that couples would not be in love, so what chance would their marriage have of succeeding? It is a peculiarly Western - and modern - idea that marriage must be based on love. "Arranged marriages" are still common in many conservative cultures and their record suggests that romantic love is not the only basis for a lasting marital union.
Pro-life marriages would have major advantages over other unions: the men would know they have done a good deed in saving a baby from abortion and, thus, keenly look forward to the birth; the women would respect the moral sincerity of their new husbands.
A second objection is that if men offer to marry pregnant women to insure the baby's birth, women will deliberately get pregnant in order to nab a pro-life hubby. This is unlikely.
Most women are quite rational people and will realize that the number of Grooms for Life will not exceed the demand for them. Additionally, many women are pro-choice and, therefore, will have no incentive to abandon their current practice - whether it be celibacy, lesbianism, or contraception - in hopes of marrying a pro-lifer.
A previous version of this essay appeared online in a column called In My Humble Way.