Pro-life, pro-choice, or other? There was a time when I thought the
first two were the only major camps. Sure, there were always variations
of people within each camp but, by and large, most people fell into one
of the two. However, I've recently learned of another camp. This
particular camp shares similarities with the religious zealots of biblical times.
For those who may be unaware, the zealots were those who were religious
fanatics to the point where they would murder the opposing government
officials. One could consider them religious assassins. While this third
category isn't necessarily out bombing abortion clinics (nor would they
advocate such tactics), their extremism is performed in a very
different, yet equally as dangerous, manner. So who is this mystery
category? It contains those deemed as abolitionists. The most prominent
group in this category is known as Abolish Human Abortion (AHA).
AHA
members come in a variety of shapes and sizes but they all have one
thing in common: abolishing abortion.
On this particular point, I have no disagreement. As
Christians, the complete eradication of evil should always be strived
for. However, we must also understand we live in a fallen world with
unregenerate sinners. Thus, it should also be understood that, this side
of heaven, we'll never achieve that end goal. AHA is an interesting
group as it neither falls under pro-life nor pro-choice. In fact, they
will openly proclaim that both movements entertain evil and are wicked.
Not so long ago, I would've been scratching my head asking myself what
else is left. Now, it's not quite as confusing. My end conclusion? AHA
is both misguided as well as dangerous.
When
I first heard of AHA, I decided to follow them on Facebook and even
shared some of their posts. Imagine my surprise when I heard they were
picketing churches and protesting bills that directly attacked abortion.
While it's easy to mischaracterize groups with whom you disagree, I
want to ensure I accurately portray their stance in this blog post.
Essentially, AHA members are abolitionists. Anything short of the
complete eradication of abortion is considered unsatisfactory. To this
end, I agree. Where we part ways is in the methods used to achieve such a
goal. While the pro-life camp is typically accepting of incremental
laws that whittle away at abortion little by little, AHA is
diametrically opposed to such bills. The main reason for this is because
they feel it's showing partiality toward some babies while showing
acceptance and compromise toward others. A perfect example would be the
recent "heartbeat bill" that multiple states are currently looking at.
The pro-life movement is generally in favor of bills such as these
because we're willing to accept baby steps. At no point are they deemed
satisfactory but they are accepted as first steps toward a more
comprehensive goal. However, as stated, AHA believes them to be wicked
bills that dehumanize and promote the murder of babies without
detectable heartbeats. While being a noble cause, it's misguided at best
and deadly at worst.
Before
we go any further, I find it important to remind us all that God is
sovereign in all He does. In His infinite wisdom, He has allowed
abortion is be legal in our country. Regardless what happens from here,
He's over all. That fact doesn't negate our responsibility to care for
the little ones and to be a voice for the voiceless (Proverbs 31:8-10). After all, that's
the entire position of the pro-life movement. Yet, AHA will openly
declare this to be a foolish approach. If one were to say the end goal
is to save lives, they'll openly deny such a charge. In fact, they
openly criticize pro-lifers as being willing to save lives at all costs.
By "all costs," they mean being willing to accept incremental bills.
While we declare incremental bills to be more palatable and more likely
to be passed (which, in turn, saves some lives in the process), they
believe, by promoting these bills, we're accepting evil and promoting
the deaths of other babies so long as we save some. With this outlook,
it's not hard to see why they believe us to be wrong. It sounds monstrous! Sadly, it's a
strawman. Allow me to explain.
Abortion
is currently legal in our country. We don't have to pass any laws to
legalize the murder of prenatal babies as it already exists. If a law is
passed that prohibits the murder of prenatal babies of whom a heartbeat
is detected, while allowing the murder of those of whom there is no
heartbeat detected, it isn't synonymous with newly creating a law that
legalizes their murder. Again, this is because that law is already on
the books. It simply means we've now saved countless babies in the first
pass and are coming back to save the rest in the next pass (or however
many passes it may take to achieve the end goal of abolition). It's
whittling away at existing law and removing its power little by little
when taking it head on would prove to be too much. A lumberjack doesn't
go into the woods and demand an oak tree be felled. No, he swings his
axe and, with each connection, removes a part of the tree. He continues
to do this until the tree is too weak to stand and, finally, falls under
its own weight. Just as an oak is brought down by incremental swings,
so the path to abolition will be through incrementally removing the
authority of existing abortion laws. By opposing such measures and
tactics, while AHA may be able to feel upright, just, self-righteous, and
treating everyone equally, all they really accomplish is equally leading
all babies to the slaughter. This isn't noble. It's illogical and
wicked. It has more to do with the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-11 who, in his
self-righteousness, was thankful that he wasn't "unjust" as the tax
collector next to him. While maintaining a feeling of righteousness and
pure justice, real human lives are being lost because they refuse to
allow any law to pass that doesn't include all babies from being rescued in a single pass. Again, in their stubbornness, it only results in no babies
being saved while they're afforded the opportunity to snub their nose
in the air and mock those who are making every attempt to at least save
one. Yes, if only even one is saved, it's all worth it as we continue
making progress toward abolition.
Sadly,
it appears the abolitionist movement is expanding into other groups and
is no longer limited to the likes of AHA. While many of these new
groups oppose the fanatical approach and tactics used by AHA, they've
begun to adopt the view that incremental bills are wretched. In many of
these groups, it's less of a sense of self-righteousness and more of a
belief that incremental bills won't work and that we'll lose precious time that
could've been spent working on abolition bills. While we disagree on the
likelihood of such "totality" bills passing, I can at least appreciate where
they're coming from. Unfortunately, it still tends to be illogical and
dangerous. For instance, one common objection to the heartbeat bill is
that, since it's the abortionist performing the heartbeat ultrasound,
he/she will be more likely to either skip the ultrasound altogether or
purposely miss the heartbeat by performing the ultrasound in the wrong
place. Essentially, the view is that the abortionist can't be trusted.
Therefore, the heartbeat bill is pointless and babies with a heartbeat
will be aborted anyway. Is there any credibility to this argument? I
dare so there's not. Let me explain why.
I
can understand the skepticism which would lead one to assume the
abortionist will purposely miss the heartbeat or perform the abortion
anyway. It's a healthy sort of skepticism. However, it's also pure
speculation rooted in presuppositional assumption. Think of it another
way. People are always trying to find mechanic shops who are willing to
fudge numbers to help a modified car pass a smog test. As much as
mechanics are generally automotive enthusiasts and don't particularly
like smog laws, finding a shop that will do it is extremely difficult.
This is because most mechanics aren't willing to risk losing their
livelihood and being unable to put food on their table over a random
customer. Another example is gun shows. We've all heard the "gun show
loophole" but it's also a myth. I've bought a gun from a gun show and, even
as active duty military, I had to provide certain paperwork in order to get one. They were adamant that they couldn't
sell me one without the paperwork being provided first to prove my
residency in the city. Most licensed gun vendors aren't willing to risk
losing their license and affect putting food on their table all for a
stranger. Will there be those who will do it anyway? Of course! However,
they'll be criminals and, if they get caught (be it by audit or by
investigation after probable cause comes to light), they'll face the
consequences. I'm very convinced most abortionists will play by the
rules out of fear of losing their livelihood should they get caught. To
add to this thought, if we're going to enter the realm of speculation,
imagine how many pro-life pregnant women will receive a positive
heartbeat ultrasound by a credible healthcare provider only to go to a
mill and feign wanting an abortion in order to "catch" an abortionist
telling her there's no heartbeat. They'd be too easy to catch and
prosecute. Again, most aren't willing to lose their careers and
negatively impact their family's way of life over a stranger. As it
stands, most of the remaining abolitionist objections are rooted in the
same flawed sense of logic.
As
I draw to a close, I want to reaffirm the fact that total abolition
should absolutely be the end goal. If an abolition bill were to go up
today, I'd be in full support of it. However, I wouldn't stop there, rest on my laurels, and consider my job complete. What if it fails? What if it fails repeatedly? Do we continue to play the same song on repeat or do we strategize and make a more effective plan? To
be honest, I wish the pro-choice camp had the same mentality as AHA and
other abolitionists back in 1973. If that were the case, they would've demanded
legalizing medical professionals to leave babies to die on a table
simply because they're unwanted. Unfortunately, the pro-choice movement
was rooted in incrementalism. What began as a divide within the church
over feminism then shifted into a right to privacy and doctor/patient
confidentiality in cases of abortion. This then paved the way for late term
and partial birth abortions. Today, babies are left to die if they
survive a botched abortion. Don't be fooled. It was incrementalism that
led us to the horrific place we're at today. They knew it would work and
they stood united in the cause. I say it's about time we steal their
playbook and use incrementalism against them until they no longer have
any power to stand. Instead of fighting the pro-life crowd at the expense of human lives, instead, stand united and take down the oak tree known as abortion, one swing
at a time!
~Travis W. Rogers