The term "Pro-Life" emerges from the debate surrounding the legality of abortion. In its most basic form it means the following:
“The right to life – the right to not be unjustly killed - is a basic human right. It should be protected by law for everyone from the beginning of life to its natural end.”Since the above position does not entail any particular economic worldview, a wide array of perspectives can fit under the umbrella of the Pro-Life cause.
You could be a Libertarian (someone who favors a minimalist view of the role of government) and affirm it because maintaining non-violence is a legitimate role of the State. You could also be a Socialist who thinks the State should take care over everyone's needs. Or many worldviews in between.
So Pro-Lifers might disagree wildly on tons of stuff, but they should be united on one thing: The conviction that pre-birth babies are real human beings and the legal institution of abortion is a human rights violation which needs to end.
Sometimes, sadly, the reality of American politics leads people astray. That's what I want to look at today.
A Political Dilemma:
The unfortunate thing in American politics is that one of the major political parties - the Democrat Party - is ardently committed to denying the rights of pre-birth humans. This includes their two contenders for the 2016 presidential ticket, who have both stated this explicitly.
Thus, the cause of recognizing the humanity of the pre-born is confined to the other major political party - the Republican Party. This means anyone wanting to vote for a Pro-Life candidate is also stuck with the rest of the Republican platform.
That is a hard sell for some folks. And it is only made worse when one is under peer pressure to support the more socially acceptable Progressive platform of the Democrats. This sends many in search of a way out.
Unbalanced Priorities:
In a previous post I mentioned how the Republican party is generally for capital punishment. This serves as a viable escape hatch for Progressive-leaning Pro-Lifers. Here's how it works:
Step 1: Equalize
The first thing a person does is treat capital punishment and abortion with equal in weight. You have the "issue" of capital punishment and the "issue" of abortion. They are both one standard unit "issue".
Step 2: Note the Dilemma
Then you note the dilemma being offered to you between the two political parties.
Step 3: Choose a Side
Lastly, you decide you cannot tolerate siding with people who favor the death penalty. Thus, you have to vote for the Democrats despite their enthusiasm for abortion.
The Problem:
However, this effort goes wrong from the beginning. Let me draw an analogy.
Suppose you had two diseases. One kills 35 people a year and the other kills 1.1 million. Which disease deserves more attention? Obviously the second. Only a fool would say they are of equal importance.
Well, those are the proportions for the number of deaths due to the death penalty in America vs the number of abortions. In the USA, the number of people killed by capital punishment in a year equals the amount killed by abortion in 17 minutes.
So the person who tries to equate the magnitude of the death penalty with that of abortion has abandoned any sense of scale.
Malignant Mission Creep:
The second tactic involves changing the meaning of "Pro-Life" by transferring support for the human rights of pre-birth babies to support of some other social policy. It works like this:
Step 1: Find a Policy
Identify some policy which you believe coheres with opposition to abortion. Perhaps it is federal tuition assistance for daycare. Or free diapers for parents. Or an increase to the minimum wage. Whatever it is, it must be something not all Pro-Lifers would agree about.
Attach this policy to your overall Pro-Life worldview.
Step 2: Make it Mandatory
Start seeing your policy as more than just an extension of a Pro-Life worldview. Let it become a necessary part of being truly Pro-Life.
Step 3: Alienate Other Pro-Lifers
You're going to get some pushback when you start proposing your policy as a necessary part of being truly Pro-Life, Now you start suspecting that Pro-Lifers really don't care about families or babies after they have been born. (Which is demonstrably untrue)
In any event, you begin to associate less and less with the mainstream Pro-Life movement and its central cause of recognizing human rights for the pre-born.
Step 4: Swap the Goalposts
Now your commitment to your policy has vastly overgrown your original commitment to the rights of the unborn. You barely see it as relevant.
If someone asked you if pre-birth babies have the right to be protected, you would say that question is missing the point. You reply that instead of focusing of the legal recognition of the humanity of pre-birth babies, the Pro-Life movement should be:
"pursuing policies which reduce the need for abortion."...which, naturally, would be the policies in your socioeconomic worldview.
Step 5: Conversion
In retrospect, your previous support for the rights of the unborn was a foolhardy preoccupation of uncompassionate ideologues. You don't miss them.
They don't understand how you can justify stumping for politicians who ardently support abortion... but that's only because they don't understand how Pro-Life you truly are.
The Problem:
Here is the issue; This progression involves a certain theory about why people procure abortions and what needs to be done about it.
Namely, it assumes people only get abortions because of economic reasons. Therefore, abortion would fade into a distant memory, if there was more income equality and a robust social welfare system.
Except... real world data does not support this theory. As I point out in my third pro-life presentation, countries which have world-class social safety nets continue to have world-class abortion rates.
Why? Two reasons:
First, because having a kid forces massive changes in your life. Children are expensive and compel us into a lifetime of added responsibility. No government program is going to change that. So it is natural for people facing an unplanned pregnancy to want the problem to go away... and quickly.
Second, because the law is a teacher of values. And when a society's laws say pre-birth babies have no rights or humanity, people will see no reason not to abort them. It is just one more option.
Put those two facts together and you get a robust abortion industry.
None of this is to say a robust social safety net is a bad thing. The policies we find in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway might be good ideas! However, without the consistent witness to the humanity and rights of pre-birth babies, those policies alone will do nothing to reduce abortion.
Functionally Pro-Choice:
Again, much of the reason why these transformations occur is because of the unfortunate nature of American politics. A person who is genuinely Pro-Life but prefers the economic policies of the Democrats really has no home in our electoral landscape.
(Sadly, the 2016 election cycle hasn't offered us any Pro-Life candidates from either major political party. Conservative leaning Pro-Lifers also find themselves out at sea.)
But here is my point in all this: No matter what our choices are at the ballot box, all Pro-Life people should be able to unite around the humanity of the pre-born, our duty to recognize their right to life, and opposition to the grave injustice of abortion.
Everyone who considers himself/herself to be "Pro-Life" should be willing to personally witness to these ideas. To argue for them. To act on them. And to even lose the esteem of friends for them.
What both of the above paths feature is a point where a person fundamentally gives up on that goal. A point where the voice for the humanity of the pre-born is silenced. That is where the person has seared his/her own conscience.
Someone in that position ought to do some introspection and ask:
"In what way do my actions distinguish me from someone who doesn't believe the pre-born are real humans?"And if real, practical answers for that question are not ready at hand... it is time to retrace one's steps.
No comments:
Post a Comment