|
Pro-life
groups would make a fatal mistake The Report Newsmagazine For the past 27 years, pro-life advocates have argued that elective abortion takes the life of a defenceless human being. The rationale for that argument can be summarized in the following syllogism: 1) Intentionally killing an innocent human being is a grave moral
wrong. This simplifies the abortion debate. If pro-life advocates are correct about the humanity of the unborn, elective abortion is a clear moral wrong. If, on the other hand, abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being, it no more requires justification than having your tooth pulled. However, some people eschew simplicity. Speaking at last month's Alberta Pro-Life Convention, Calgary Catholic Bishop Fred Henry chastised right-to- lifers for being "the rudest people I have to deal with, and I don't like it." Why does he think pro-lifers are rude? Apparently because they focus too narrowly on abortion when they ought to consider the broader "life issues" such as occupational safety, AIDS, poverty and capital punishment. The result, Bishop Henry said, is a "fractured Christian witness that hurts the cause." The bishop is typical of many on the political left who insist that because pro-life advocates oppose the wilful destruction of an innocent human being, they must therefore assume responsibility for all of society's ills. In other words, you are not truly pro-life unless you treat the deforestation of the Amazon with the same moral intensity that you do the unjust killing of a human fetus. This is careless thinking and highly unfair to those who take abortion seriously. Imagine the gall of saying to the Canadian Cancer Society, "You have no right to focus on curing cancer unless you also work to cure AIDS, heart disease and diabetes." Or try telling the Canadian Heart and Lung Association, "You cannot reasonably oppose cardiac arrest unless you fund research aimed at stopping all loss of life." Ridiculous indeed, but how is this any different from what the bishop told pro-life advocates? Consider what he is demanding. Local pro-life groups must take their already scarce resources and spread them even thinner, fighting every social injustice imaginable. This would be suicide for those opposed to abortion. As Frederick the Great once said, "He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere." Ironically, be it noted that Bishop Henry has no problem with the Canadian Organization for Development and Peace, an international charity, granting over $100,000 to the pro-abortion Women's March 2000. Yes, the marchers support killing human fetuses, which the bishop claims to oppose; however, he justifies the grant by noting that the march does important work promoting other social justice issues for women. Well, let's consider that. If the Ku Klux Klan began offering poor women free Pap smears, would that make it a benevolent organization? Contrary to what some think, the abortion debate is not about poverty, capital punishment, redistribution of wealth or protection of the environment. It's about one issue: What is the unborn? The answer to that question trumps all other considerations. This is why secular objections to the pro- life view based on choice or privacy also miss the point entirely. Do we allow parents the choice to abuse children as long as they do so in the privacy of the home? Clearly not. If the fetus is human, we should not condone harm being done to it in the name of privacy any more than we would a toddler. No one is asking the bishop to surrender his deeply held (and laudable) convictions on these other matters. Each warrants careful consideration. But they are separate from the morality of abortion. To demand that pro- lifers equate unfair labour practices with the dismemberment of a human fetus is disingenuous, to say the least. It unilaterally disarms the pro- life movement of its most powerful argument: the unequivocal witness against elective abortion as a clear moral evil. In the final analysis, the bishop's remarks are not an outrage but a distraction. He sounds too much like secular critics who argue that right- to- lifers are hypocritical to oppose abortion unless they also adopt unwanted babies. Well, maybe we are and maybe we aren't, but how does my alleged unwillingness to adopt a child justify an abortionist killing one? Imagine how bizarre it would sound if I were to say, "Unless you agree to marry my wife, you have no right to oppose me mistreating her." Or, " Unless you agree to adopt my toddler by noon tomorrow, I shall execute him ." Either way, if you reject my ultimatum, it does nothing to justify my evil behaviour. The culture tolerates (indeed, promotes) abortion because it does not agree with us that killing a fetus is the same as killing a toddler. If pro-lifers want to change that, they must focus public attention on just one question: What is the unborn? But that takes time and money; and meanwhile, there's a women's march to plan. Scott Klusendorf is director of bioethics at Stand to Reason in San Pedro, California. He trains pro-life advocates throughout the United States and Canada to defend their views in the public square. E-mail: Scott@str.org Courtesy of LifeSite Daily News, a production
of Interim Publishing. |