The Pro-Life Crowd That Isn't

Photo courtesy pexels.com

Yesterday, April 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona handed down a landmark ruling affirming that an 1864 law banning abortion was enforceable given the 2022 Dobbs decision and its overturn of Roe v. Wade. The reaction to the decision was predictable. The Left gave vent to its anger and outrage — Arizona’s governor and Attorney General quickly announced they would defy the ruling and refuse to allow any prosecutions related to abortion. Meanwhile, “conservatives” on the Right clutched their pearls, clucked their tongues, and demurred in grave and subdued tones — “When we said we were pro-life, that’s not exactly what we meant. We don’t want to be perceived as radical or fundamentalist. We’d hate to endanger our polling among the Gestapo because of unnecessarily expansive protections for Jewish and minority rights.” When “conservative” and “Christian” leaders insist that they favor a 15-week abortion ban, not a complete ban on abortion except in cases where it may be necessary to save the life of the mother, we may credibly ask: Exactly what is “Christian” about this position, and what are they preserving besides their position and influence?

Doug Ducey, Arizona’s former, Republican Governor, said:

“I signed the 15-week law as Governor because it is thoughtful conservative policy, and an approach to this very sensitive issue that Arizonans can actually agree on. The ruling today is not the outcome I would have preferred, and I call on our elected leaders to heed the will of the people and address this issue with a policy that is workable and reflective of our electorate.”

Why 15 weeks? Why not 25 weeks, or 5 weeks? What is the basis for the restriction? Either this is simply an elective medical procedure or it is the termination of a human person without due process. If it is the former, there is no basis for any restriction on the option, if the latter, any permission is unconscionable.

What if we were talking about a law to kill a mentally retarded child in the first 15 weeks after birth? You could have the kid and take a four month test run before deciding whether it is worth the hassle of caring for a special needs child.

Change the context slightly but keep it focused on abortion en utero. What if we were talking about a law permitting abortion based on the child’s sex? Sex can sometimes be determined as early as 14 weeks, so parents would still have a week to decide if they really want another boy or will instead dismember and flush this one and try again for a girl.

Kari Lake, a Republican candidate for the US Senate, responded to the ruling:

“I am the only woman and mother in this race. I understand the fear and anxiety of pregnancy, and the joy of motherhood. I wholeheartedly agree with President Trump — this is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people. I oppose today’s ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support. Ultimately, Arizona voters will make the decision on the ballot come November.”

So each state should decide for themselves… and Arizona did, 160 years ago. But times have changed, and now we realize that we should be more flexible and permissive when it comes to laws about taking human life, so we need to decide again, and clearly our Republican candidate believes a decision to uphold a total ban on abortion is wrong. It’s not that we think abortion is murder, because that would be wrong at any time. We just think it should be illegal at certain times, and perfectly acceptable at others.

This is the difference between being pro-life and being (arbitrarily) anti-abortion in some, but not all, contexts. It is the difference between believing abortion is a moral question and believing it is a medical one. If the unborn child is a human person, then his life is sacred from conception until death. Either it is a human being or not; there is no third alternative. What is the difference between a 15-week fetus and a 16-week unborn child? Why do “conservative” leaders think it is acceptable to kill one but not the other?

The “conservative, pro-life” movement is deeply compromised and has been for a very long time. While we should welcome (and support) any reasonable restriction on abortion, the goal must be its complete abolition. Either the unborn baby is a human being or not. Either abortion is murder or not. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that it is murder at 16 weeks but only an elective, medical procedure at 14 weeks. You must decide whether your position relative to abortion is based on objective, moral convictions or relative and arbitrary compromises that can be negotiated for political expediency. If the fetus is a human child, then no elective option to terminate its life is morally permissible. –JME

You can read the AZ Supreme Court’s ruling HERE.

The above reactions from Doug Ducey and Kari Lake were taken from HERE.

Roe v. Wade and Winsomeness

The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down the abomination that was the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions of 1973 and 1992, respectively. This has the effect of returning regulation of abortion to the states which will, inevitably, result in banning or severely restricting the practice in a number of states, thirty of which had laws against abortion on the books when the Court made its first, infamous, decision to legalize and federally protect it fifty years ago. The reversal of these decisions is a tremendous victory for constitutional law and is the result of decades of diligent pro-life advocacy and countless prayers. Even liberal jurists who supported the practice of abortion acknowledged that Roe was badly decided. While the Supreme Court’s decision is far from national repentance for the great evil of half a century of sanctioned bloodshed, it is a critical moment in restoring just laws and reversing federal overreach and protection of violence against the innocent. There is more work to be done, but overturning Roe and Casey is a major step in the right direction.

Since the decision was announced on Friday morning, many winsome and irenic Christians have winsomely and irenically offered wisdom online to help their barbarian, fundamentalist brethren navigate the contours of this issue, nuancing our discussions of infanticide in a way that shows sympathy, empathy, and wimpathy to our neighbor orcs. Their wise counsel may be helpful in discovering other areas where Christians have been unsympathetic and unwinsome, viewing morally complex issues with the reductionistic language of truth and right and wrong, and going so far as to assert that our views are more just and moral than those of unbelievers. So in the interest of being similarly winsome, I would like to take a moment to encourage us all to be a bit more nuanced in how we think and speak about the Holocaust.

First, we should acknowledge that, speaking as Christians, we think that mass murder and genocide are wrong and sinful. I am not speaking to public policy, and my comments should not be taken as trying to bind the conscience of others based on my own religious convictions. But as a private citizen, I am entitled to have my own moral convictions, so long as I agree to keep them private. And I am here to state quietly but fairly clearly that I think rounding up Jews and other minority groups in order to incarcerate, torture, machine gun, or gas them is a very bad thing.

Second, we should be very aware of and concerned about the dangers of pride. It would be easy to look down on the Nazis and say, “God, I thank you that I am not like them!” We must not deceive ourselves. After all, who among us has not fantasized about conquering an entire continent and attempting to exterminate entire people groups from the face of the earth?

Third, we should remember that not all Germans were Nazis, not all Nazis were bad people, and even many of the Nazi soldiers, surgeons, and executioners who did bad things may have been very sincere, albeit misguided, in their beliefs and actions. Beware of thinking that it is obvious that raping women, separating families, transporting refugees in cattle cars, torturing the vulnerable, and sending millions to their death by gunning them down in mass graves or marching them into gas chambers is morally inappropriate. Many of those who did such things probably had difficult childhoods, undiagnosed trauma in the aftermath of the First World War, or found themselves in need of work and unsure of how else to provide for themselves. We need more sympathy, empathy, and wimpathy for those who found themselves in the difficult but completely understandable position of torturing and murdering the helpless.

Fourth, we should not be so crass and reductionistic as to imagine that the Holocaust was only about terminating de-humanized minorities. The Nazi regime was the largest provider of healthcare services in eastern Europe. Their relocation camps provided affordable housing for millions of refugees. Their government service programs employed hundreds of thousands of people. And their programs stimulated the American economy, ended the Great Depression, and created a boom in federal and military industrial complex production.  It would be hard to calculate how much good this regime did for the world economy.

Fifth, we should remember that while the Church has special revelation to guide her thinking on matters of morality and faith, the common kingdom is governed by natural law as perceived, understood, and applied by unregenerate people. Yes, there is a moral law, but it’s too much to expect unbelievers to know that it forbids things like murder. The Church is not to intrude in matters of the State, nor is the pulpit an appropriate place for politics. It is not the Church’s place to offer opinions on national policies for populations in places where it hopes to expand. Who are we to say what a government should do? Romans 13, after all. What we need is less moralizing application in the sermon and more reminders that we are only a pilgrim people and that while the gospel is God’s power to save, it isn’t very powerful beyond that.

Sixth and finally, Christians should never rejoice when wicked men are defeated. Do not boast when the wicked city which shed the blood of the innocent is cast down (Rev. 18:21-19:6). Do not pray for God to slay wicked and bloodthirsty men (Psa. 94; 139:19). Do not hate those who hate the Lord (Psa. 139:21-22), but rather love them, befriend them, and help them to see that we are allies who share the same values and concerns (2Chr. 19:2). The way some unenlightened Christians are celebrating right now, you would think they rejoice in vengeance and almost expect them to want to bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked (Psa. 58:10)!

Does this offend you? I truly hope so. You can be sure that when you speak about abortion in these ways, many of us are equally ashamed of you. –JME

Thinking Biblically About Abortion