A recent
trend showing up in evangelical circles is the attempt to broaden the tent
under the pro-life movement. Historically, the pro-life (also called right to
life or anti-abortion) movement has focused on the rights of the unborn. The
National Right to Life adopted the movement in 1973 following the supreme court
decision of Roe V Wade. While it’s hard to dispute that political parties,
particularly the GOP, have tried to monopolize the movement for political gain,
the movement in and of itself is both noble and necessary. Just this week, the
state of New York passed a bill that allows a woman to have an abortion anytime during her pregnancy. The law also protects abortion rights if Roe V Wade
is ever overturned. The governor of New York, along with other abortion rights
activists, gleefully celebrated the passing of the bill, highlighting the
horrific reality and the utter depravity of the pro-abortion movement. Unborn
babies murdered in the womb is the greatest act of oppression authorized by the
state, a movement to combat and oppose these atrocities is vital.
A new
tactic of the political left, and many in the pro-abortion movement, has been
to try and blur the lines of what it means to be pro-life. Charles C. Comasy, a
board member for Democrats for Life, suggested in a New York Times opinion piece
that “you cannot be pro-life if you are against immigrant children.” Women and
the poor have also been pushed to be included in the Pro-Life movement. Kristen
Day, an opinion contributor at The Hill states, “We are Pro-life
Democrats because we are committed to protecting both the lives of unborn
children and the lives of those who have already been born — and not merely
through charity… we believe in an active government
that safeguards that dignity and protects human rights.”
I don’t mean to say that those who push for a more inclusive definition of what it means to be pro-life aren’t
sincere in their concern for immigrants, women, or the poor. My point is to
highlight which side of the political aisle this push is coming from. As
evident by a recent tweet from Alyssa Milano (known for her extreme political views), moderates are not the only ones trying to blur the lines of
what it means to be pro-life. In it she says, “There isn’t a side in this
debate that isn’t pro-life. I am pro-life. I am also pro-choice. Those calling
me an infant killer are anti-choice. Once again, your religious beliefs do not
carry more weight than scientific facts and my physical autonomy.”
The
troubling trajectory is that this push to redefine what it means to be pro-life
has now crept into the church. Many Christian leaders, authors, and pastors are
now advocating that the pro-life movement include women, the poor, minorities
and immigrants. Phrases like “pro-life from the womb to the tomb” and “pro-life
for the unborn and born” are now being thrown around to insist the pro-life
movement include these other groups. Consequently, this new push has come while
many of these leaders have been more vocal on issues concerning social justice.
I would like to lay out my concerns and why I think this push to redefine what
it means to be pro-life is a fallacy and will have dangerous consequences.
My argument
is that there are two false equivalencies being made between the unborn and
those other causes. That they both are equally oppressed, and that they both
are equally victims. Let me explain.
False Equivalence #1 – That both are equally oppressed
To say that
the poor and the immigrant are on equal footing with the unborn is an obvious
fallacy. It is absurd to the think that not being allowed into another country
is equivalent to vacuuming your limbs, or not being able to live in a nice neighborhood
is equivalent to slicing your brains. Whatever you think of immigration or poverty,
there is no moral equivalency. One is eviler, much eviler, than the other. We
know that all sin is an offense toward God, however, scripture shows us that
there are different levels of offenses. In Luke 10:14 Christ says, “But it will be more bearable in the
judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.” And at the end of John 19:11 He
says, “Therefore he who delivered me over
to you has the greater sin.” We can see that although every sin will be
judged, some sins will face a fiercer judgment. The injustice towards the
unborn should be shown greater urgency than any other injustice. No one would
equivocate the holocaust to the food shortage of the Great Depression. Both
were serious humanitarian concerns. However, only one was a matter of pure and
unadulterated evil. Only one was so wicked that it needed to be addressed and
fought with everything we had.
By placing
other causes on equal footing with the unborn, we are saying that all
oppression is equal. In plain terms, we are saying that red lining, being
stopped at the border, or not having access to the best schools is genocide.
Yes, that is what abortion is, it is genocide! And this new push to redefine
pro-life wants us to make a moral equivalency. It wants us to believe that the
murder of 700,000 babies per year is the same as not having access to
affordable health care. That would be an utterly foolish claim. Furthermore,
for the sake of argument, I was including the immigrant and the poor under the
category of the oppressed, but not all are. This leads me to the second false
equivalency in this new redefining of pro-life.
False Equivalence #2 – That both are equally victims
The social
justice movement lives off the idea of class warfare. It categorizes the
oppressed and oppressor, the victor and the victim. If there is any poverty or
discrimination of any kind, then it must be calculated and systemic. In this
ideology, it is easy to view the minority, the poor, and the immigrant has a
victim of oppression. While there is clearly some lasting effects of racial
discrimination and unjust treatment from the pre-Civil Rights area, not every
minority or poor person today is a victim. However, every murdered baby is.
Some are indeed poor because of racial discrimination and unjust business
practices; however, many are poor out of wrong decisions, bad investments, or
even sinful habits. The social justice advocates love to point to the verses in
scripture that mention the cause of the poor (Psalm 103:6, Proverbs 31:8-9).
But they rarely mention verses like Proverbs 21:5 “The plans of the diligent
lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty.” Yes, many are poor due to
unjust dealings, however many are not.
In the same
way, not every immigrant is a refugee fleeing oppression. This is another
fallacy of the social justice movement. While many immigrants are fleeing
oppression and seeking refuge in America, many others are seeking a better way
of life or more opportunity. The latter is not oppression. And we know that
some indeed have sinister motives for wanting to migrate. My point is, there
are many things to consider when thinking of the poor, the minority, and the
immigrant. Not all are equally victims. By placing them under the same tent as
the unborn we are affirming that they are equally victims. We are not considering the different
layers of those other groups. The unborn have no layers. They are all equally
victims, all are innocent, and none have a voice. The fundamental problem that
Christians have with abortion is an ethical one. Though there may be levels of
difficulty and less than ideal circumstances for the pregnant mother, our
belief that life begins at conception causes us to view every abortion as
murder.
These two false equivalencies will have a
devastating effect on the pro-life movement. It blurs the lines and minimizes
the urgency to fight for the unborn. Let us be concerned for the widow, orphan, and
the poor, there are legitimate needs that must be addressed. This should be done as we live out God’s word in
the context of community. By loving our neighbor and taking
seriously the causes of the poor all around us. But that is not what it means
to be pro-life, that’s what it means to be a Christian. The pro-life movement
began out of a level of urgency. There is a clear other level of atrocities
that are being done in the name of abortion. Expanding the meaning of pro-life
may seem like a noble cause but it can have dangerous implications. Soon there will be a call for protection of LGBTQ rights under the umbrella of pro-life.
I
recently came across a tweet that read, “pro-life people who only speak out
on abortion need to rename their group; immigration is pro-life, sanctuary
cities are pro-life; helping refugees is pro-life, gun control is pro-life,
right 2 clean water is pro-life, ending police brutality is pro-life; equal
rights are pro-life” -@eliz18mcdermott . When everything becomes a pro-life
issue, soon nothing will be a pro-life issue. And then we can say goodbye to
the movement as we know it.
