Jun
16
Pro-Life vs. Whole-Life: What Is Consistent and Doable?
“If you think that not paying someone a living wage is morally equivalent to dismembering a living human being, your moral compass is broken.” — Scott Klusendorf, president of Life Training Institute
As with last week’s “8 Things the Abortion Debate Is NOT About”, this post is brought to you via the excellent book, The Case for Life, 2nd ed., by Scott Klusendorf. This time, rather than giving the TL;DR version of a portion of a chapter, I felt I needed to cite much more in order to get across the full force of the arguments from both sides in this “debate”. I hope you will give it a read…
— — —
Redefining “pro-life” to mean equal support for all life issues, as well as changing “pro-choice” to mean equal support for all choices, are both examples of dishonest term-switching. Yet that’s precisely what some critics of the pro-life position are doing.
Progressive pastor John Pavlovitz is a case in point. According to Pavlovitz, you’re not truly pro-life unless you engage a host of other issues “as vigorously, passionately, and loudly” as you do abortion. He wishes pro-lifers “actually gave more of a damn” about kids once they’re born, and that all human beings mattered to us “as much as Caucasian embryos do.” If you were truly pro-life, then according to Pavlovitz, “You would want to do more than prevent abortions.” …
We’re told that Jesus cared about all marginalized people, not just a few, so focusing on the unborn is not enough. To be truly pro-life, so their argument goes, we must be “whole-life” — showing equal concern for all injustice, not just abortion. It means we treat racism, sex-trafficking, immigration, poverty, and care for refugees (among other things) as pro-life issues. Anything less than a consistent whole-life witness is a betrayal of our fundamental principles and will fail to convert skeptics.
Consistency is precisely what’s missing from Pavlovitz’s whole-life rhetoric. On one hand, he rebukes pro-lifers for not being more like himself. “I defend all life equally…. I protect it all passionately.” On the other hand, he’s pro-choice on abortion. His position is identical to nearly every other abortion-choice advocate in the country who personally opposes the practice, but says only women should decide.
However, if pro-life means “defending all life equally” and “protecting it passionately,” shouldn’t Pavlovitz defend the unborn “as vigorously, passionately, and loudly” as he does the victim of homophobia? Imaging him saying, “I personally oppose discriminating against homosexuals, but it shouldn’t be illegal to do it.” Pavlovitz’s failure to apply the same moral reasoning to homophobia that he applies to abortion proves that he’s cherry-picking his “life” issues every bit as much as he accuses pro-lifers of doing….
[S]ome whole-life advocates clearly do value the unborn and passionately defend them. Nevertheless, they insist that “pro-life” must mean more than opposing abortion. For example, one whole-life advocate who admirably adopted four children with special needs tells pro-life evangelicals that their passion for opposing abortion stands in stark contrast to their silence about catastrophes like genocide in Darfur. “To be pro-life, you must live pro-life” — which means being just as passionate about issues facing the born — homelessness, human trafficking, foster care, hunger, and end-of-life issues — as you are about saving the unborn. “We are a huge part of the problem,” she said, because evangelicals consider some as “unworthy” of our concern.
Meanwhile, the president and CEO of a large pregnancy center network insists the pro-life movement as a whole (not just pregnancy centers) must shift from “pro-life” to “pro-abundant life.” Saving babies is not enough. Instead, pro-life organizations must “programmatically” work to build strong families, secure religious liberty, promote healthy marriages, encourage responsible fatherhood, and help families thrive spiritually. The pro-life movement must devote operational resources to promote human flourishing in all these areas.
How is that even possible? Pro-life advocates just got saddled with a backbreaking job description not even Superman can pull off. It’s one thing for pregnancy centers to focus holistically on their clients. It’s quite another to tell the pro-life movement as a whole that saving children is not enough.
Pro-life advocates should reject the “whole-life” attempt to rewrite their job description. It places unfair demands on battle-weary pro-lifers, overlooks important distinctions, and won’t convert our critics. We should pursue realizable objectives.
Let’s get three questions straight.
First, what possible issue is more urgent than the state-sanctioned intentional killing of a million innocent human beings annually? The moral equivalency of whole-life advocates is breathtaking. While illiteracy, child hunger, gun violence, and forced prostitution are assaults on human dignity, our government has not legalized and funded them like it has abortion. During the five decades that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, 62 million human beings were legally killed in this country. That’s the Holocaust times ten. It’s Yankee Stadium filled 1,143 times over. And that’s just in the United States.
There’s plenty of injustice to go around, but none so egregious and violent as abortion. Nothing else comes close. That is reason enough for pro-life advocates to make protecting unborn humans their top priority. In short, if you think that not paying someone a living wage is morally equivalent to dismembering a living human being, your moral compass is broken.
Moreover, treating all “life issues” as equally important fails to distinguish intrinsic evils from contingent ones. Intrinsic evils are wrong on the face of it and must always be opposed. Rape and murder (among other things) fall into this category. Contingent evils are different. They may be wrong, but it depends on the circumstances. War, capital punishment, and police shootings are contingent evils. They aren’t wrong on the face of it, but turn on intent and motive. For example, a general in a just war can foresee that innocent civilians will die in securing a lasting peace, but he does not intend their deaths. However, the abortionist both foresees and intends the death of an innocent human being. Thus, participation in a just war and participation in abortion are not morally equivalent. The former is a contingent evil; the latter is an intrinsic one.
Failure to make this distinction results in political confusion. Many Catholics and left-leaning evangelicals mistakenly support a political party that promotes an intrinsic evil simply because its members promise to help us avoid contingent ones. This is bad moral thinking.
True, abortion isn’t the only issue, any more than slavery was the only issue in 1860 or killing Jews was the only issue in 1940. But both were dominant issues of their day. Demanding that pro-lifers do more is like telling an abolitionist in 1860, “You can’t be against slavery unless you address its underlying causes.” Absurd. Slavery is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Neither statement requires further qualification.
Second, how does it follow that because pro-life advocates oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings, they must therefore take personal responsibility for solving other societal ills? Pavlovitz and those like him present no argument for this. Instead, they equivocate. They twist “pro-life” to mean quality of life for those outside the womb instead of protection of life for those still inside. Then they attack pro-lifers as hypocrites for not exhausting their scarce resources fighting every injustice imaginable. This is slanderous. Imagine saying to the American Cancer Society, “If you were truly against disease, you’d fight other illnesses as vigorously, as passionately, and as loudly as you do cancer.”
Moreover, why does the “whole-life” argument seem to be used only against pro-lifers and never against other groups who target specific forms of injustice? Suppose a local church is concerned about inner-city violence against grade-school kids, especially those with no father in the home. Acting on that concern, the church opens — at great expense — an inner-city daycare program for fatherless kids. The program operates from three to five in the afternoon on weekdays to get poor kids off the street and give their moms a breather after work. Imagine someone telling your pastor, “I wish you really cared about inner-city kids, but you don’t. Why are you open only three hours a day instead of 24/7? And why do you care about only elementary age kids and not older ones? High school students have problems too, you know. And what are you doing to stop gun sales in the city, as well as knife killings? And what are you doing to address wage inequities that force single women to work long hours away from home?” To level these charges against the daycare center would be insensitive and outlandish.
Third, how does Pavlovitz’s attack on pro-lifers refute their essential argument? How does it justify abortion? It doesn’t.
To review, the pro-life argument (syllogism) states:
1) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
2) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
3) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
Pavlovitz does nothing to refute the soundness, validity, or clarity of that argument. Even if pro-life advocates are as bad as he alleges, their argument still stands. His objection is completely beside the point.
Moreover, Pavlovitz is lying when he says pro-lifers don’t care. Pregnancy resource centers now outnumber abortion clinics by a wide margin. These centers — funded in large measure by concerned pro-lifers — provide pregnant mothers with abortion alternatives, counseling, parenting classes, baby clothes, and adoption services. That shouldn’t surprise us. Studies show that conservatives give more to charity than their liberal counterparts. According to an article in The Public Discourse, pro-abortion critics are engaging in a lazy slander of the pro-life cause….
According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, liberals are “bleeding heart tightwads” when contrasted with conservatives: “Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.” Kristof goes on to cite Arthur Brooks, who wrote a book on donor habits titled Who Really Cares? The data is striking. Households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A Google study found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
All this is very bad for Pavlovitz and totally discredits his case. Nevertheless, pro-life advocates should respond to him in this way: “John, maybe you can help me out here. Suppose I don’t give a rip about anyone but White fetuses. I’m that bad. How does it follow that the unborn are not human, or that intentionally killing them is okay?”
In other words, how does his lazy slander of pro-lifers refute their syllogism? Get ready for a massive attempt to change the subject.
It’s true that Jesus cared about all marginalized people, not just a few. Our Christian ethic should then be broad and inclusive. We should do what we can to resist human trafficking, alleviate poverty, promote fatherhood, and welcome genuine refugees. As the apostle James makes clear, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). Christians are supposed to reach out their hands to those in need.
But that’s distinct from making the argument that if you aren’t taking on other issues, you aren’t truly pro-life. While our Christian ethic is broad and inclusive, it doesn’t follow that the operational objectives of the pro-life movement must be broad and inclusive as well. Expanding those objectives will bankrupt the pro-life movement. As the old military adage goes, “He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere.”
When whole-life advocates tell the pro-life movement to broaden its operational objectives, I ask what that means in the real world. Should pro-life groups spend Monday fighting abortion, Tuesday fighting poverty, Wednesday fighting sex-trafficking, Thursday fighting economic injustice, and Friday fighting unjust immigration laws? When I speak in high schools, can I spend fifty minutes on abortion, or must I divide my time by five and cover other issues equally?
While the operational objectives of the pro-life movement do not compel my involvement in those broader issues, being a Christian does. As a Christ follower, I’ll engage many problems related to human suffering. However, pro-life advocates should stop buying the premise that because we oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings, we must take on other tragic societal ills under the banner of being pro-life.
We don’t establish pro-life credentials by diverting scarce resources from the unborn to take on issues that Christians with larger platforms and better funding are more than willing to address. For example, there are many agencies set up to alleviate the socioeconomic problems women face. There are, by comparison, relatively few pro-life organizations dedicated to engaging culture at the idea level, and they’re generally overworked and understaffed. Demanding that they do more will kill the pro-life movement….
Thankfully, you don’t have to radically broaden the operational objectives of the pro-life movement to assist other causes. You can link to them rhetorically, not operationally…. By linking abortion rhetorically to other examples of injustice, I give a genuine assist to outside causes and demonstrate concern for all human life. However, I do that without diverting operational resources from cash-strapped pro-life organizations.
— — —
Great job, Mr. Klusendorf!
Though Klusendorf didn’t say so, I think many people pushing the “whole-life” approach know it’s an overwhelming “ask” and want pro-lifers to divert their limited time and funds doing it, precisely because doing so reduces their overall effectiveness in saving unborn human lives. Pavlovitz and others like him are snakes.
It is so important that pro-lifers understand the above so they can see through the “whole-life” agenda and appeal.
