Skip to main content

Response: Does the Pro-Life Movement Need a New Strategy?

By
Abortion has been relegated to the backseat in the general social arena in recent years. That is, until the current murder trial of Kermitt Gosnell once again forced it into the limelight. Largely lacking the mainstream attention of other potential social shifts, the abortion dialogue is being conducted through blog posts, counter-posts, response posts, and Twitter (#Gosnell). Along with it comes a familiar vitriolic output of both those promoting and condemning abortion.

In response to this reignited war of words, Donald Miller recently posted an article calling on the Pro-Life movement to proceed with compassion. More specifically, he calls for a display of love like that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and he calls for a voice like Dr. King's to lead the movement.

All of this is good and commendable. Abortion is a polarizing issue and often carries unfathomable secret and personal pain. A quick word or a sharp tongue can turn a civil conversation into a calamitous exchange destroying any opportunity for true discussion. Not to mention producing guilt or condemnation that immediately precludes any constructive exchange. In this, compassion is not only necessary, but vital in opening a dialogue on the issue. Because of this, Miller does a great service by calling for compassion.

However, compassion is only part of the equation of love. Speaking the truth is a major component. If you come across a man lost in the woods and listen to his story, but do not show him the way out, you have not loved him. Worse yet, were you to point him in the opposite direction.

Miller suggests that those opposing and those promoting abortion are two halves of the same coin – both seeking to "defend humanity." In doing so, he implies that both are standing on moral ground with the difference being the nature of the being in the womb. One defines this being as a human being while the other defines it as a developing clump of cells or a being not yet defined as human.

This distinction may seem innocuous at first, but the difference couldn’t be more striking. The first recognizes an innate humanity, one that is intrinsic to all human beings. This holds the humanity of the unborn child as equivalent to the mother's. The second lays claim to a humanity in the woman that supersedes any in the fetus. The fetus is allowed to be human when it fits the social, financial, and relational capacity of the woman as defined by society, but not before. When these things are not in place, the fetus is sacrificed for the sake of social, economic, or personal standing. In doing so, we as a society are telling a woman that she can only be a woman if she is able to control or eliminate part of the very thing that makes her a woman – only if she can make herself less than a woman. (Not to mention the effect on the child. But, that is beyond the scope of this response.)

In short, this argument divorces the biological and moral understanding of a human being. It reduces the decision of whether to sustain life to a mere socio-economic question and the woman to a mere market actor. It limits and even eliminates the humanity of both the woman and the child.

Yes, the consequences of abortion are nuanced and require great care. They need to be approached with great compassion and a great understanding of the burden carried by those who have chosen abortion. And with compassion, demonstrate the forgiveness that God so freely gives in Jesus Christ for those who turn to Him. But, abortion itself is a great evil.

If we do not speak this truth, we prevent women from fully embracing womanhood and we allow for the continued sacrifice of our children at an altar of self. Jonathan Leeman calls this failure to speak the truth inhumane. Dr. King did the same. His disappointment was not with those who joined him or fought against him, it was with those who did nothing – those who said "wait until things change."

Let us also not forget Dr. King wrote his letters from jail. He was not in jail because he listened to or sought understanding of his opponents. He was in jail because he spoke and acted upon truth. This was his first act of love. His incredible compassion for those who mistreated him and jailed him was his second. He did not retaliate, as some did. He humbly accepted the response of those who opposed his message, but never stopped speaking that message. In this way, Dr. King truly expressed love – which requires both truth and compassion.

So, yes, let us respond in compassion to those who confront us. But as we do so, let us also speak the truth about the inhumanity of abortion. And, in doing so, we may see that there has always been a voice like Dr. King’s in the Pro-Life movement – a quiet voice of numerous crisis pregnancy centers and thousands who have adopted. It is heard in the organizations that go to court to defend the voiceless and the politicians who are willing to lose the vote of their constituents to protect the innocent.

So, let us love – let us speak the truth, and, yes, Mr. Miller, let us have compassion.



C.F. Brake is a young attorney working to change the culture for the sake of our young men and women. Follow the blog on Twitter (@cf_brake) or e-mail C.F. Brake at cfbrakeblog@gmail.com.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Isolated Christian

By
Prov 18:1 “Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire;    he breaks out against all sound judgment” I have lived most of my life as a lone-wolf Christian. I attended church, went to small group, met up with an accountability partner. I even played the guitar sometimes for the campus ministry. I went on mission trips all over the world. I read the Bible with others and prayed with them. But I never allowed any of them to ever know me. Nor did I think that I needed them to. I figured I was smart enough to think things through on my own. That I could handle whatever came my way. Besides, I didn't want people to know who I was. I didn't want them to know that I was a sinner. And I didn't trust anyone to know me. I thought they just wouldn't get it, or they would expose me, or they would laugh at me, or they would try to change me. I though that they wouldn't love me. So, I put up a smoke screen and took a mask - giving just enough to make it look li...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Time for Choosing: Who Will You March With?

By
At the center of Washington, DC, is a battle. And at the core of this nation is war. Not for political parties or for financial gain. But for the very heart of this people. The very fabric of our existence. A week ago hundreds of thousands of women, and their supporting male characters, descended on the National Mall. Most, including girls too young to understand, wearing knit hats euphemizing a term that pornographers use to entice and enslave young men in sexual addiction. Speakers raged and pounded on the podium about how society has kept women down - yelling that the only thing that will free women is to reject the very thing that makes women unique. That sets women apart. That gives the world need for women. Screaming in the face of anyone, especially a woman, who would stay the hand of a woman from destroying her womanhood. And the world watches. Gathering in their collective throats an outcry of pent up rage that anyone would dare to keep a woman down. Would dare to stop her f...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Man's Stand Against Poverty

By
In 1964, Lyndon Baines Johnson stood up and declared in the most masculine of words: A War on Poverty. A manly pursuit. Never again would an American child lie down to sleep hungry. Never again would a mother worry about having enough money to care for her children. Never again would a family shiver through a cold, winter's night. Never again would a father...  Be necessary. For almost every one of the last fifty years, the United States has spent more money than the year before on programs to help grow out of poverty. Pretty quick, that has become more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS a year. And the results? In those fifty years, the percentage of children born to unmarried parents has climbed from less than ten percent to well over forty percent. And Supplemental Security Income, SNAP, Medicaid, and countless other programs have taken over where once fathers fought. It is not to say that these programs are bad in and of themselves. By no means. They have buoyed countless families in ...
Post a Comment
Read more