PRO-LIFER OPINIONS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES OTHER THAN ABORTION

An acquaintance wrote a statement recently. It prompted me to think and to respond. He wrote, “Things I'll never understand: how American "pro-life" advocates can justify the violation of the right to personal bodily integrity to prevent abortion, but cannot entertain the thought of ANY violation of the right to access firearms that would prevent the mass murder of school children.”

Immediately thereafter, he added a second statement. “If you're "pro-life" in America, you are most likely fine with forcing a 13 year old rape victim to carry to term and give birth to the perpetrator's child, but vehemently opposed to restrictions that would limit access to fully automatic military weapons that kill thousands every year.” 

I enjoy thoughtful people whose minds stimulate significant discussion points.

Keeping in mind that both my friend and I are Canadians commenting on American values, my response was the following. “I have no difficulty recognizing and agreeing with you that you are experiencing a valid intellectual and moral conflict. You confess that you will never understand what you perceive as the moral inconsistency of pro-life advocates with respect first to abortion and second to firearms possession. You frame the pro-life position on each issue as a violation, first of personal (a mother’s) bodily integrity, and second as a violation of the right to access and bear firearms which have the potential of ending a life. Pro-life advocates will be eager to point out what they see as a false assumption that these are equivalent issues. They will say that they are not equivalent. Pro-life advocates will passionately argue that the life that is to be aborted is a human person possessing personal integrity for which abortion is a violation. They will contend if you do not believe that the beating heart within a fetal bodily form signals an as yet unborn human person, then your conundrum begins. These advocates will assert that school children as well as unborn human fetal lives are innocents underserving of arbitrary ending of their existences. They will maintain that there is no sustainable comparison between a constitutional right to possess a firearm that has numerous purposes not specifically to take a school child’s life, and legislation intended for one reason only, to permit a woman to end a life within her.  You’re right, you may never be able to understand their positions on these two issues and I don’t fault you if you object to the rhetoric that characterizes this debate.“

My friend tactfully responded to me. “Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Ron. I am of course familiar with, and sympathetic to, much of the pro-life rationale. The reason I compared the two issues here is that they both undoubtedly involve a need to weigh/balance (at least) two competing rights/interests. The problem I have with "pro-life" advocates in this comparison is not that they object to abortion, but that they don't see any problem with the total violation of the bodily integrity of the expectant mother on the one hand, while they resist even minimal restrictions on the rights of gun owners on the other. Such hypocrisy gives the lie to the contention that the ultimate concern is the protection of innocent life. And whether it's gun control, support for refugees, the treatment of migrant children, or even support for healthcare/education/poverty reduction, the idea that "pro-life" advocates are fundamentally motivated by the desire to protect innocent life seems to me to be highly problematic (to put it charitably). So what I will "never understand" is not the rationale for opposing abortion, but the ability to absorb that hypocrisy.”

To this I said, “When you string that long list of social concerns in front of me, I have nothing else to say because I share your frustration if not ire, that the welfare of needy and vulnerable people can be so easily ignored on various fronts for the sake of making America Great again, or for the sake of keeping a loose-cannon president in power, or for the sake of one’s own selfish ownership of a gun.”

My discussion partner then provided a URL link to an article by Jack Holmes, Politics Editor at Esquire.com., written in reaction to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey’s signing into law, a ban on abortions. With this signing Gov. Ivey stated, “This legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious & that every life is a sacred gift from God.” The online article strongly disagrees with that self-praise and pointed out many disturbing but true examples in Alabama where human lives appear as a secondary priority.   https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27491521/alabama-abortion-ban-sanctity-of-life-infant-mortality-life-expectancy/?fbclid=IwAR02T-WxXA3Ol30wHeaejP_dB2S-CSFaWCjb5rTeTzEycIfdf_3FlQ5UrX4

Jack Holmes concludes his article with the conclusion that it is the reactionary conservatism of White Evangelical Christians that dominates the Republican base that has taken power in Alabama and is now responsible for this ban and much more.  

My friend’s conscientious follow-up was, “taken in this context, I don't see how anyone can conclude that the legislation is motivated by the desire to protect the sanctity of life. So what is it motivated by? Who's crafting the legislation? Who's impacted by it? Hard to avoid the obvious conclusion.”

His concluding questions and assumed obvious conclusion cause me to exclaim, “I’m glad I don’t live in Alabama.” But that’s an inadequate response to this crucial dilemma. I am forced to accept that on points of Christian doctrine pertaining to God, sin, Jesus, gospel, pardon and heaven, I will likely find much agreement with Alabamian Christians. However, I place a higher value upon Jesus’ opinion about the sanctity of human life than that of Alabamian legislators even if they’re Christian. Therefore, based solely on the biblical record of Jesus relating to society around him, I would contemplate what Jesus would do if he were in Alabama. I believe he would make divine pronouncements and take supernatural action aimed at addressing the high infant mortality incidence; the appalling exemption of faith-based childcare from licensing and inspection; the unaffordable childcare costs for average income parents; the barbaric facilities and supervision within the prison system; the error inherent in cancelling food stamps for hungry children and families; the refusal to be generous with Medicaid for the neediest people. And much more.