The Inhumanity of the Pro-Life Movement

If the damage weren’t so devastating, one would say that it is ironic that the movement to protect human fetuses, that brands itself “pro-life” and sprang from the moral and religious reverence for human life of the Catholic Church and Evangelical branches of Christianity, is in fact an inhumane movement.

The reader may well ask, “How can I call the pro-life movement inhumane?”  The dictionary definition of inhumanity is lacking kindness, compassion; being cruel.

Let me count the ways in which the pro-life movement is inhumane.

First, it is an act of cruelty towards the very lives that the movement seeks to save.  The life of a child is a difficult one filled with anxiety, insecurity, and fear.  Even when raised in what can be described as a loving family, things typically happen within the family that cause a child to suffer from these emotions.  And these are children who are wanted.

How cruel it is to force a child to be born into a family that does not want him or her.  How much more will that child suffer than the average child?  And if the child is given up for adoption or placed in a foster home, how much more will the child suffer? 

That the fate of these children once they are born is of no concern to the pro-life movement is itself an act of cruelty.  What’s worse, many of the same conservative Evangelical forces that are pro-life are actually in favor of reducing government aid to needy families with children.  Making it more likely that some of these saved children will suffer from malnutrition, poor health, and inadequate housing.  That some now offer short-term housing for women and their newborns is not an answer to the problem they have created.  

Second, it is lacking compassion for the living person, the woman who is bearing the child.  Any woman who makes the decision to abort the life moving within her struggles with that decision, not because of the pressures of society or family, but because of the biological and psychic bond between the mother and her unborn child.

It shows a total lack of respect for another human being, one who is living, to not acknowledge this decision-making process.  Whether she is in a bad marriage.  Whether there just isn’t enough money for another baby.  Whether she is at her wits’ end.  Regardless the reasoning, abortion is never undertaken lightly.

“Ah,” the pro-life advocate will say, “then she should have practiced birth control.”  Of course, the Catholic Church does not sanction protective birth control of any sort.  But putting that aside, this retort points to the third way in which the movement is inhumane.  

As has most recently been shown in the passage of a restrictive abortion bill by the Alabama State legislature, pro-life activists will not even allow an exception from their crusade for women who have been raped or been the victim of incest.  Such women had no choice to practice birth control.  But nevertheless the movement would force these women to bring into life children who were formed either by their rapist or their father or other relative who abused their trust.  If this is not a lack of compassion, if this is not cruelty, I don’t know what is.

Another cruelty, is that most pro-life advocates will not allow an exception for cases where the mother’s life is at stake.  They are pro-life for the unborn fetus, but anti-life for the living mother, who more than likely has living children.  They show more compassion for the fetus than for those living children; how will they be harmed by the death of their mother?

The Religious Right, as well as the Republican Party, has for the past several decades been extremely clever at setting the terms of debate, ever since the days of Lee Atwater.  At branding themselves in a way which comments favorably on themselves and branding their opponents, typically Democrats, in way which comments unfavorably on them.

Thus the recent pro-life hashtag, #EndInfanticide.  How in the world do you fight against the image that by protecting a woman’s choice, you are promoting infanticide?

I suggest that you fight fire with fire.  It is not enough to counter “pro-life” with “pro-choice.”  The slogans just don’t carry the same moral weight.

There are four strategies I would suggest.  The first is that Democrats and other pro-choice activists must make very clear that they are anti-abortion.  No one is pro-abortion.  Everyone detests the idea.  It’s just that in certain situations, some feel it is the lesser of two evils.  Thus the first new hashtag for the pro-choice movement should be, #antiabortion.

The second is calling the pro-life movement on the inhumanity and the hypocrisy of their position.  Thus I propose a second hashtag, #prolifeisinhumane.

The third is to bring the Christian denominations that have official policy supporting Roe v Wade to the forefront.  It must be clear that this is not a fight of the religious against the secular.  One can be Christian, religious and have a moral and religious reverence for life and yet support the right to end a pregnancy in properly limited circumstances.  This is not a contradiction.  Indeed, as I argue above, it is the pro-life position that is a contradiction.  Of course other religions should be included, but this should not be allowed to appear as a Christianity v other religions issue.

The fourth is to come up with a new name or names to replace “pro-choice”  as it just doesn’t have the necessary moral heft.  This one I had trouble with.  It has to have the right image, be short, and resonate.  Possibly “Pro-Mother” or “Pro-Child” with the accompanying hashtags.

It is past time for the tables to be turned on the Religious Right and for Democrats and other pro-mother/pro-child people and religious institutions to set the terms of debate.

How Democrats Should Talk About Abortion

As Democrats engage in special elections and prepare for the 2018 midterms, it is vital that they change the way they address the abortion issue.  This post is not about changing Democrats’ unwavering support of Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  What this post is about is how Democrats discuss this controversial issue with the public.  In 2016 we lost the votes of many Catholics who traditionally vote Democratic because our message on this issue was too strident and unnuanced.

First, it must be absolutely clear that Democrats are not pro-abortion.  It is a sad event for probably most, if not all, women because it is either emotionally or morally a wrenching moment for them, regardless how necessary they view it.  Ideally, no woman, other than for health reasons, would ever be in a position where they felt it was necessary to abort their fetus.

That brings up the second point: the Democratic focus needs to be on government, organizations, and people doing more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.  The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions.  One statistic:  Among unmarried, young (20-29) women who became pregnant between 2001 and 2008, 69% were unintended pregnancies!  A large percentage of those were probably unwanted as well.

How to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Two of the means are well known and straight-forward: improved sex education of young adults and easy access to contraception, both condoms and the pill.  

But both are controversial for some Americans for moral/religious reasons.  These are concerns we have to respect, but there is no question that teaching abstinence doesn’t work; so that is not the answer.  It certainly is appropriate, however, to teach youth to question requests for or desires for sex:  to ask “Is this something I really want to do?”, to think about what the role of sex should be and what the consequences might be.

Even with all these safeguards in place, there will still be unwanted pregnancies.  And in those cases, abortion needs to be a legal option from both a societal and a moral perspective.  

The world is full of neglected or unloved children whose psyches are negatively impacted by their experience.  There are few things more destructive for a child’s well-being and emotional health than to feel unloved or be neglected.  This has negative social consequences because of the life choices such children are more likely to make.  And morally, it is not right to place children, who after all have no say in whether they are born or who their parents are, in such a damaging situation.

When Democrats speak to this issue, this is how it should be addressed.  Yes, the bottom line is support for Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  But the issue is much more complex than that.  And nothing that I’ve suggested takes away from those principles.  It won’t win back all lost Catholic votes, but it will make a difference.

How Can Evangelicals Embrace Capitalism and the Republican Party?

Over the past 30-40 years, the Religious Right has gone from total noninvolvement with politics to total involvement to partial domination.  As a general matter, and more specifically in recent years, they have endorsed capitalism and the concept that each person is responsible for himself, they have endorsed a limited role for government, and they have tenaciously fought for the right to life of the unborn and against same-sex marriage or any kind of gay rights that gives homosexuals the approval of society.

As Christians who believe in Jesus, Evangelicals are fond of saying that we need to bring morality back into our government and our private lives, and that we need to bring God back into our government.  But do they practice what they preach?

What is the most central ethic of Christianity, or indeed of all the world’s great religions?  It is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  It is, “Love they neighbor as thyself.” It is viewing the community of man as one of shared responsibility.  From the Old Testament’s, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” to the many affirmative answers to that question in the New Testament such as that we are to “love one another” and that we are to “serve one another,” “bear one another’s burdens,” and “consider one another,” there is no question that to be Christian is to support the idea of a social contract among the citizens of our country.  

In ancient times it must be said that these sentiments were confined to relationships between those who were believers.  But in more modern times, as the world and its religions (not all) have become more progressive in their thinking, these concepts have been broadened to include a responsibility towards all humanity.  For if man is created in the image of God, then are we not all his children, regardless of our religion or lack thereof?  It is in this light that I will examine the positions taken by Evangelicals on several key contemporary issues.  

First, let’s look at capitalism.  While the commonly used phrase “Godless communism” refers to the fact that Marxist communism denies the existence of God and is, or at least used to be, totally against all religion, is capitalism any less Godless in fact or in practice? While it is true that capitalism is not against religion, history shows that the very premise of the capitalist enterprise is Godless in the sense that it is all about making the most money one can for oneself and ones associates regardless at what cost to others.  This is surely not behavior that Jesus would endorse.

In the first half century of the industrial revolution, unfettered capitalism showed it for what it was ... a rapacious system that would stop at nothing to make money.  Whether it was having no care for their workers’ safety, beating them, producing products that could harm the user, or fowling the air and water, capitalism showed a total disregard for the welfare of both its workers and the broader community.  

It is only the presence of government regulation, which began in the early 20th century and has grown over the years, that has resulted in corporations [capitalists] being able to claim to be responsible members of society.  But they are not reformed.  Even today with all the regulation we have, if there is an area where there is no regulation, or it is hazy, or they dislike it, capitalists will do whatever they can get away with regardless of its impact on the broader society or their workers.  It is simply the nature of the beast.  

Bottom line, capitalism has no soul, and since it has no soul it is Godless.  As such, Evangelicals and other Christians should not embrace it uncritically but insist that if it be allowed to continue that it be strictly regulated in order to insure that workers, users, and the broader community are protected.  The role of government here is critical.

Then there is the issue of public morality.  When this issue is raised by Evangelicals, as in “the culture wars,” this means that they are against any rights for homosexuals and they are against abortion. Before commenting on their stands on these two issues, what is troubling is that Evangelicals do not seem to think that public morality includes the concept of doing to others as you would have them do to you, of loving your neighbor as yourself, of feeling a shared responsibility for the welfare of their fellow Americans, if not for all of humanity.  

This is clearly the position that Jesus would take, but not his most righteous followers today. Their emotional, if not rabid, fight on the issues of homosexuality and abortion seems to have blinded them to the true admonitions of their faith.  And so they have become the front line soldiers of the Right, backing the most radical Tea Party and conservative Republicans ... the new Republican Party ... because they have these two causes in common, even though their partners have no interest and disdain government involvement in the broader social welfare.

As regards their campaign against homosexuality, it is troubling on so many fronts that one hardly knows where to begin.  But perhaps most troubling is their, and others’, misuse of the Bible, much as the Bible was used for years to support slavery, segregation, and the submissive status of women.  

The Old Testament certainly has some bad things to say about “men lying with men as with women.”  But one must put this in context.  

The same sections of the Bible also have equally bad things to say about many other acts. In fact, the Bible terms more than 60 actions an abomination.  Included are:  lying (Proverbs 12:22), eating food that isn’t kosher (Leviticus 11), a proud look (Proverbs 6:16), lying with a menstruating woman (Ezekiel 18:6-13), and what is highly esteemed among men (Luke 16:15).  Likewise, it is not the only sin singled out for death.  The Bible says that anyone who curses his father or mother should be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and that a man and woman who commit adultery should be put to death (Leviticus 20:10.)  In Exodus 35:2, it says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death.  

Clearly, Evangelicals and the Catholic Church are against homosexuality ... plain and simple.  And so they conveniently pick sections of the Bible to use in support of their campaigns, ignoring the fact that no one today, except perhaps the Jewish ultra-orthodox, would call these other acts an abomination and seek to ostracize perpetrators.

The issue of abortion is a far more complex one.  If one truly believes that life, in the legal sense, begins at conception, then one can understand why that person feels that abortion is murder and should not be allowed.  The problem is that while it is a scientific fact that “life” biologically begins at conception, there is a major disagreement as to when a legal status attaches to the fetus ... when the fetus becomes a human life ... resulting in abortion being illegal.  There really is no resolution to this disagreement.

My take on the issue is more sociological.  There are few things worse then a child being born to parents that do not want the child, for whatever reason.  There are few things worse then children being raised in our chaotic foster parent system, since the majority of unwanted children carried to term are not adopted.  

Evangelicals, however, do not deal with this issue.  They speak merely of God’s gift of life.  And so if their will were law, hundreds of thousands of children each year would be sentenced to a living hell while their parents would be dragged down into a variety of wrenching problems.  It’s all fine and well to speak of the responsibility of the mother or parents.  But ultimately, the burden of the Right to Life position would fall most squarely on the children.  And I for one would say that it is better not to be born, than to be born unwanted.  Life is hard enough without that burden.

But the issues of abortion and homosexuality are digressions.  The point is that if one wants a more moral nation, a more moral government, a nation under God, then many aspects of our system need to be changed.  First and foremost would be changing from a capitalist system in which everyone is chiefly out for themselves with no sense of responsibility for their fellow citizen to a system of regulated capitalism and a commonly accepted social contract with government performing its function of leveling the playing field, guaranteeing that all have the opportunity to pursue their “inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  

The Democratic Party, in its own sometimes fumbling way, is trying to reach for that more moral nation.  As such, it deserves the support of all God-believing people and secular humanists alike.