Pro-Life or Pro-Birth? Answering Charges of Inconsistency
Pro-lifers are often caught flat-footed in light of these accusations...It is important we know how to respond.
We’ve all heard it.
Imagine you are a student in a public speaking class giving a presentation on why you are pro-life. You carefully lay out your scientific case, showing how the science of embryology establishes that each of us was a distinct, living, and whole member of the human family before birth. You also lay out your philosophical case, showing how there is no essential difference between the unborn entities we once were and the adults we are today, which would have justified killing us then but not now.
As soon as you finish, hands shoot up, and the questions begin flying at you faster than you can answer them. “Oh, so you’re pro-life? What are you doing about poverty?” “Oh, so you’re pro-life? How many kids have you adopted?” “Oh, so you’re pro-life? What are you doing about gun violence?” “Oh, so you’re pro-life? Do you eat meat?” “Oh, so you’re pro-life? What do you do for kids after they are born?” The accusations are endless, with every social justice issue under the sun being thrown in the face of pro-life advocates.
The tactic is nothing new. In fact, it has only grown in popularity over the past several years. Consider the words of Progressive Pastor John Pavlovitz in the weeks before the 2016 Presidential Election:
I actually don’t believe you’re pro-life, I believe you practice a far more selective and convenient defense of Humanity. From where I’m standing it seems as though “Life” for you, comprises a very narrow demographic—one that bears a striking resemblance to you. The unborn are easy to advocate for because you can idealize them into something palatable to you, something benign and comfortable, something in your own image. You see, it’s not that you’re really pro-life, you’re pro-straight, white, Christian fetuses.
Pavlovitz then goes on a rant against pro-lifers. According to Pavlovitz, if we were really “pro-life,” we would be doing more to combat gun violence, police brutality against black Americans, intolerance of gay people, and a whole host of other issues. Otherwise, we are just hypocrites looking to advance an illicit political agenda.
Pro-lifers are often caught flat-footed in light of these accusations. Very often, we get caught in the trap of explaining that we actually do care about people outside the womb and that we really are nice people. While this is often true, it doesn't meet the challenge raised by critics who often will just sneer and point out how (in their mind) we're still inconsistent. It is important we know how to respond.
1. The Power of a Single-Word Response
Let’s suppose John Pavlovitz and those who make similar assertions are right; pro-lifers are hypocrites. In fact, let’s suppose he underestimated how bad pro-life people are. Let’s suppose pro-life people are the worst human beings on the face of the earth. Maybe it’s true. Pro-life people are just inconsistent, hypocritical, fetus-obsessed jerks who don’t give a rip about children once they are born, or anyone else outside the womb, for that matter.
So?
Let’s go back to the essential pro-life argument:
It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being
Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.
If the premises of the above argument are valid, and the conclusion logically follows the premises, then the above pro-life argument is solid. How does the alleged inconsistency of the pro-life movement refute the above argument by showing it to be unsound or invalid?
It doesn’t. Even if pro-life people are the worst people who have ever lived, it doesn’t follow that the unborn are not human, or that if they are, we may intentionally kill them. In other words, critics of the pro-life view must do the hard work of interacting with the arguments made by pro-lifers instead of resorting to cheap character shots. Abortion could very well be an act of great injustice, so why don’t we focus on that? Critics must still show how our argument fails, not merely resort to painting their opponents as horrible people.
2. Calling the Critic’s Bluff
Maybe pro-lifers are inconsistent. Let’s suppose pro-lifers everywhere took this seriously and did everything our critics demanded of us. We oppose war. We fight against poverty. We protest against racism, homophobia, and we adopt every single child awaiting a family. We tackle every social justice issue under the sun. Would our critics then be willing to join us in opposing abortion?
Never in a million years. Instead, they will just come up with a whole laundry list of new complaints about why they won’t oppose abortion.
Just recently, I had a conversation that illustrated this. While doing pro-life outreach in a public area, a woman stopped by our booth and demanded to know if I had adopted any children. I responded I hadn’t, to which she began sneering and saying I had nothing to say worth listening to. Calmly, I asked the following:
“Tell me, suppose I told you I had adopted children. Would you then be willing to oppose abortion?” Her answer was an emphatic “No!” to which I responded, “Then why did you even bring it up, given that is not the reason you support abortion? If you have a good reason for supporting abortion, then why don’t you tell me what that reason is instead of attacking me personally?”
Two types of people raise the inconsistency objection: Learners and Crusaders. They must be handled differently.
The Learner gets why you are pro-life and is seriously considering the merits of your view. However, what she sees as inconsistent behavior on your part troubles her. After all, why only focus on the injustice of abortion when there are a whole host of societal injustices to be addressed? Doesn’t being pro-life mean focusing on all issues pertaining to human life, not just those that happen to be within the womb? More on this in a moment.
The Crusader is having none of it. In his mind, the only reason a person could have for opposing abortion is if they are mean-hearted, stupid, or downright evil individuals who are just out to control women. His goal is not to think critically about the morality of abortion; his goal is to shut you up by painting you as a moral monster.
To put it differently, the Learner is someone seeking explanations, while the Crusader is someone seeking excuses.
Here’s how we know. Let’s go back to the question asked above. During another conversation with a different pro-choice student, she demanded to know what I was doing about other issues, such as racism and gun violence.
In response, I asked her the following question, “Tell me, let’s suppose I did more on those issues. Would you then oppose abortion?” The answer was an emphatic “No!” and a lecture on why abortion is a woman’s right.
I asked a straightforward question in response, “Then why did you bring it up to begin with? If you have a reason for why you support abortion, then why don’t you share this reason with me instead of calling me inconsistent, given that’s not the reason you are pro-choice?”
What we have here is a colossal attempt to change the subject by the Crusader to one he likes more. By painting the pro-lifer as a hypocrite, he can avoid having his own views called into question.
John Pavlovitz is an example of a Crusader. If pro-lifers were to do everything he demanded of us in our piece(he also never provides evidence to back up his attacks on pro-lifers), would he oppose abortion? No. Instead, we’ll get a whole new laundry list of excuses for abortion.
In regards to the Learner, it’s worth noting that while abortion is not the only issue in our day and age, not all issues are equal in scope, magnitude, or ethics. Many of the issues that are often labeled as “pro-life” actually involve a greater degree of nuance in order to properly respond to them.
On the other hand, pro-lifers actually do engage with a greater degree of consistency than critics often want to believe. National Pro-life Organizations, such as NIFLA, Heartbeat, CareNet, and the National Maternity Housing Coalition, run and operate thousands of locations nationwide to meet the needs of families who don’t get abortions.
In an article responding to slanders of inconsistency, authors at The Public Discourse summarize the issue: If pro-life Americans provide so many (often free) services to the poor and vulnerable—work easily discovered by any researcher or journalist with an Internet connection—why are they sometimes accused of caring only for life inside the womb? Quite possibly, it is the conviction of abortion advocates that “caring for the born” translates first and always into advocacy for government programs and funds. In other words, abortion advocates appear to conflate charitable works and civil society with government action. The pro-life movement does not. Rather, it takes up the work of assisting women and children and families, one fundraiser and hotline and billboard at a time.
3. Inconsistency Cuts Both Ways
Lastly, it bears mentioning that remarks about inconsistency cut both ways. Abortion advocates don’t get to be let off the hook as easily as they might believe.
If elective abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human being, then those(like John Pavlovitz) who accuse pro-lifers of being hypocrites while at the same time defending abortion are in the awkward position of touting their own moral credentials while at the same time supporting the intentional destruction of an entire class of innocent human beings.
Good deeds do not outweigh support for intrinsically evil ones. If pro-lifers are correct, and abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being, then the accusation of hypocrisy falls more heavily on the defender of abortion who parades their support for social justice policy than it does on the pro-life advocate.
The pro-lifer might owe an explanation for why they oppose a policy intended to address some social injustice, but the pro-choice advocate must explain why they support the policy aimed at helping people in one sense yet believes they can be killed outright in a different circumstance.
Critics of the pro-life view may push back at this point and point out that this is an unfair accusation because they don’t believe abortion actually kills human beings.
And this is precisely the issue. The abortion debate is not principally about who cares more about other human beings; rather, it is about who gets to count as human beings in the first place. We have to resolve the question, “What are the unborn?” before we can start talking about whether or not we may kill the unborn.