Not really pro-life? How to answer the “you’re only pro-birth” argument
The argument, “You’re not really pro-life, you’re only pro-birth unless you…” has become common rhetoric in political discussions. The "You are only Pro-birth unless" argument says you are a hypocrite to the extent that you support life for everyone who suffers in life. Joe Heschmeyer aptly points out the problem with that line of thinking:
The right to life is an inalienable right.
The right to a life that is free of suffering is not an inalienable right.
How we care for others is negotiable. The right to life is non-negotiable.
Its true that caring for all life, from conception to natural death is a duty of all Christians. But that doesn’t mean that abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide is on the equal footing as caring for people in need. The right to life is foundational to all other rights because the intentional killing of innocent people is an intrinsic evil. How we care for others is negotiable. The right to life is a non-negotiable.
Heschmeyer says,
There are plenty of reasons to support a bigger social net, and you can’t read Matthew 25:31-46 and come away thinking that indifference to the poor or needy is okay. The relevant political question is what that net ought to look like, and who ought to be in charge of it. Christians have answered that question differently over the centuries, typically favoring private and localized assistance. What I’m challenging here is the idea that anyone who doesn’t want a large safety net manned by the federal government isn’t pro-life. That accusation is neither charitable, nor (as this post will show) well-supported by the data. Seven Arguments to “Pro-lifers are Just Pro-birth” argument
Joe’s article is a must read.
This is key: What I’m challenging here is the idea that anyone who doesn’t want a large safety net manned by the federal government isn’t pro-life. That accusation is neither charitable, nor well-supported by the data
Our duty help those who do suffer can be done in a variety of ways which are determined by prudential judgements.
As Christians, we can hold different opinions about things like whether the private or public sector does a better job of caring for the poor or what constitutes a just war, but we cannot hold different opinions about the intrinsic evil of abortion, euthanasia or assisted suicide. So you can really be pro-life and not agree with your neighbor about how the best way to promote the common good and care for people from conception to natural death.
This whole “pro-lifers don’t care about anything after birth” is a gross slander of a huge group of people, and appears to be rooted in exactly no empirical data.-Joe Heschmeyer
The truth is that a vast majority of pro-lifers donate their own time, money and resources to help provide pregnant moms and their kids. I have been personally involved in private organizations that help provide medical care, clothing, food, transportation, counseling services, job assistance, mentoring, baby-sitting and more. I have known of several doctors, dentists, counselors, families, churches and individuals over the course of many years who donate their services to people in need.
My husband and I adopted our son through a pregnancy outreach program that is run solely by volunteers-the woman who started it works full time hours and she doesn’t take a paycheck! After my son’s birth, our family, along with a local church, helped his birthmother get back on her feet by helping her get a job and move into a stable home near her family so she that could bring her children home to raise them. She eventually married a wonderful man and is happily married to this day. So I can say from years of first hand experience that the accusations are not based on facts about the pro-life movement.
What I’m challenging here is the idea that anyone who doesn’t want a large safety net manned by the federal government isn’t pro-life.
In “Do Democratic Presidencies Reduce the Abortion Rate?”, Heschmeyer demonstrates that is simply isn’t true that abortion rates go up under Republican administrations and down under Democratic ones. Even Snopes recognizes that fact:
It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties.
It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. -Snopes
The “you’re only pro-birth argument is illogical. Joe Heschmeyer says it well
Even if the charge that pro-lifers are only focused on birth were true, it would be a ridiculous argument. Imagine that you saw a woman save a drowning child. Are you really going to object, “Well, are you going to pay for his college education?”
Seven Answers to the “Pro-Lifers are just Pro-Birth” Argument.
Question: But what If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about "disqualifying issues" is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law. EWTN Catholic Voter’s Guide
Question: Well, but aren’t issues like wars and immigration also moral evils?
No. Those are issues about which we can make prudential judgements. The intentional killing of an innocent human is always an intrinsic evil. Consider that your act of charity may be a dangerous act of irresponsibility.
“Take the case of the British foster mother who discovered that the 12-year-old Afghan refugee orphan she cared for was actually 21 years old. A dental check revealed that the "boy" who shared a room with three of the woman's children was approximately a decade older than he had claimed. Moreover, a subsequent investigation found Taliban and child abuse material on his cell phone. His last words to the mother were "I'll kill you and I know where your children are."
This is not an isolated incident. Last year, of 574 "child" refugees whose age was called into question, 371 were found to be adults.”-When Walls are More Merciful than Bridges
Making prudential judgements means doing our homework. Statements like “Candidate X isn’t really pro-life because he supports kids in cages” isn’t based on facts. That type of emotional rhetoric has influenced some people to “compare kids being separated from their parents at the border to Nazi prison camps, but that comparison is ridiculous when one looks at the facts of the situation. As NPR, and even MSNBC, reported, there are no cages and the kids are well cared for”. The Truth About Kids Separated At Border Is Not What You Have Been Told
So instead of saying “pro-lifers only care about babies until they’re born,” a more accurate statement might be something like, “although pro-lifers disproportionately give more of their time and money, I don’t see eye-to-eye with many of them on the solutions to certain social ills.” But that argument would require nuance, and to view your political opponent as human, and as basically decent.- Joe Heschmeyer
Video and helpful links provided below
Read More:
Bridges and Walls: The Christian Response to Immigration and Refugees
Why Birth Control Doesn’t Solve the Abortion Dilemma
Are you Pro-life or pro-birth?
Don’t be misled by arguments like pro-life appointments to the Supreme Court have kept abortion legal. Trent Horn addressed these in his article Why pro-lifers shouldn’t get up on the Supreme Court