An Empathetic Defense of Being Pro-Life

With many states passing “heartbeat” bills, I have seen many posts on social media stating that the banning of abortions is wrong. Women, such posts say, should have unlimited access to abortions, control of their own bodies, and complete freedom of choice in the matter. I would like to, in light of such claims, discuss the pro-life stance, acknowledging their concerns in the process, since such factors ought to be considered.

Bear with me before we begin, but I must defend my ability to speak on the subject. Often I have heard that, as a man, I should have no say or voice in this issue, since it involves women alone. This is, I would argue, an invalid argument for two reasons. Firstly, male children are killed in the abortion process and men are the fathers of all children; therefore, men are connected to the issue. Secondly, relatability has nothing to do with morality. While I am not a person of color, I should be able to speak out against the evils of racism, even though I am not a target of such attitudes. With these concepts in mind, let us proceed.

May I open this treatise with a statement of morality: murder is wrong. Now, I am a Christian, which means I believe that the taking of an innocent human life is an ultimate insult to our Creator, who hand-crafts each one of us with love. I believe that this human life begins at conception; to borrow an argument from John Stonestreet, there are only a few differences between a born child and an unborn child: location, level of development and dependency. With regards to location, it’s reasonable to assume that murder is wrong, regardless of where the child resides when it is committed. Concerning development: it would be wrong to murder a pre-puberty child just as much as a fully developed teenager; the child's individual biological development has no bearing on the issue. Finally looking at dependency: when somebody is in the ICU, we would still condemn a man who would shoot said invalid, even though the patient is completely dependent on machinery for life support. Considering these aspects, I would submit that the unborn child is just as much a person as those that are born. To take the life of an innocent person is murder, and murder is immoral.

This is a blunt statement of morality, which does absolutely nothing to consider the plight of a woman who is considering an abortion. This is so often overlooked by pro-life advocates, and it is to the viewpoint’s shame. When legislating or proclaiming right and wrong, we need to consider that we are not programming robots who have no fears, loves, dreams, or moments of weakness. I cannot, in good conscience, simply leave this statement as the conclusion. The women’s concerns must be addressed.

Let me first consider the issue of the control of a woman’s body. I am politically conservative, bordering libertarian, and I would argue that the government should have as little “control” over its citizens as possible. On this point, I have two comments. To begin with, except in cases of rape (which I hope to adequately address later in this post), the woman does have control of her body when she chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. She ought to know that such an act can result in conception, and she chooses to do so; in this way, she does have a choice. Secondly, on the topic of control: a murderer might condemn the government for “controlling his body” in the form of his trigger finger by outlawing homicide. The government should control citizens in situations of morality, in the same way that racism, sexism, and theft are all illegal.

A second argument for abortion-legality is the inability of the mother to provide for the child. I understand this concern – my wife and I have just had our first son, and the responsibility (financially, emotionally, and more) has only just begun to take effect. While we look forward to this phase of life, I understand the daunting task ahead, and I can only imagine its weight for a young, single, and/or unexpectant mother. A few thoughts on this issue, if I may. To begin with, I believe that the father should also be held accountable. Why is it – legally, culturally, socially – permissible for the father to be aloof? Men should be held accountable for their actions, including fatherhood; this weight should not be carried by the mother alone, but the aloof-ness of the father does not make this murder justifiable, even if it is understandable. Even if the child is going to live a deprived life, initially, this is not condemnation to death. We would condemn somebody going through slums and ghettos and murdering its inhabitants given their bleak financial or relational futures. Fortunately, there are numerous ministries and pro-life clinics (such as Pathways Pregnancy Clinic, for which I had the opportunity to sit on their board of directors) that provide emotional, financial, and other types of support to mothers in these situations, and these groups ought to be supported.

A third, and extremely valid, consideration is that of conception through rape. This is a horrendous crime and one of the few transgressions that dictated the death penalty in the Bible. I shall truncate my comments on rapists there, as I could get very carried away with my negative opinion of such criminals. Regarding the mother and child of such a horrendous situation, I cannot imagine the emotional destruction that results from such a horrific experience; she had no choice in the matter, her body was violated, and a great violence was committed against her. In the aftermath of this, she now finds that she is pregnant, but why should the child be condemned to death because of the crimes of her father? Why should the unborn daughter be held accountable for her father’s act? We would not argue that the born children of rapists should be killed simply because their father is such; why should the unborn be condemned to such a fate?

The final consideration is that of a life-and-death situation, where the mother is in danger of death if the pregnancy were to continue. Ectopic pregnancies are a prime example of this situation – there are few known cases where the child, and often the mother, survive the ordeal. This, perhaps, is one such case where an abortion could be morally considered, though I cringe even as I type this. An innocent life is lost in either case, and that concept grieves me. However, these situations are rare, and even if abortions were legal in this situation, it does not give credibility to the legality of any of the aforementioned scenarios.

Attempting to address this issue in such a short length does not do the crisis justice. Our son spent the first week of his life in the Neonatal ICU to address an infection he had contracted. While there, we observed dozens of infants that had been born nearly 20 weeks early - still very much alive, human, and precious. The idea that these children could be killed - in some states’ proposed legislation, even after they are born - is horrendous. The slaughter of children is perhaps one of the most heinous crimes that humanity can contrive. I empathize with the mothers that find themselves in a difficult situation mentioned above, but to kill a child is a terrible thing. This is not political, this is not patriarchal, this is not a power grab - as a Christian, my goal is to support these mothers and save these innocent babies. To legislate infants' destruction is not to be celebrated - it is to be mourned and reversed. For this reason, I am pro-life.

Christian Masculinity Part 3 - An Abrupt Conclusion

If you have been reading the series up to this point, you are either intrigued, searching for fallacy, or particularly bored.

You may or may not have noticed, but I have removed the previous posts related to this topic. This is not because I retract my statements or have had a change in opinion, but rather have had a motivation adjustment. I'm afraid that much of the content was a direct, negative reaction to KS, rather than a hope and love for him and his audiences. To this end, I have removed my comments. I may redress the issue in the future, but I'm the current train of thought will not continue.

In a short conclusion, understand why you believe what you believe. Have your definitions, concepts, and morality be defined by Biblical precepts, not men.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." - II Timothy 3:16-17

Cultural Hostage Crisis

There's a scene in the Batman movie "Dark Knight" where the main antagonist, the Joker, has taken civilians hostages and - by giving them clown masks, gagging them, and taping guns to their hands - has made it appear as though his own cronies - who have concealed weapons trained on the civilians - are the hostages. When the police SWAT teams are sent in, there is immediately confusion, since the people with evident guns in their hands are actually innocent, and are being forced to play a part in the Joker's overall scheme. The SWAT team is misguided - through no fault of their own - as to who the enemy actually is, and rather than actually impeding the Joker's plan, they are contributing to it by hurting the innocent and wreaking havoc among the ranks of the good.

There is a hostage crisis going on in our culture, but maybe not the one that is so clearly evident. Many Christian pastors and apologists - or SWAT teams of Christianity - today are eager to take a shot at the first clown-mask they see, claim a victory, and look for the next target. However, I think this is where we so often go wrong. We are quick to identify evil and attempt to destroy the person wielding it, but we don't often consider that the "evident" danger is actually being held hostage by the true threat.

"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will." (II Timothy 2:24-26)

Too often, our "evil opponents" are nothing more than hostage pawns in the hands of the ultimate Joker, sin. Many of them don't know any better; many of them are simply seeking self-preservation; many of them might actually take a shot because the last "police officer" that they encountered tried to kill them. But if we as Christians are in the business of rescuing hostages, these hostages need to be saved, not killed, even at the expense of our own lives.

It is unfortunately common to hear Christians and even popular "pastors" ranting and railing against individuals and groups today that they see as threats. Don't misunderstand - there are real threats from which pastors must protect their flocks. However, the hostage holding the gun is as valuable as the civilian safe at home. These angry men seem too preoccupied with destroying the clown-mask than actually saving the person behind it. Why is an arrogant anger the reaction to a person who is in desperate need of help, rather than compassion and understanding?

I teach apologetics. It provides logical, reasonable, and straightforward answers about reality and how it coincides with the Christian faith. It is fantastic ammunition in a theological, ethical, or philosophical shootout. It pains me though, when people with this ammunition begin blasting it at anything that moves, rather than clearly identifying dangerous targets.

That girl that got an abortion? She is likely held hostage by fear, gagged by social norm, and masked by a need to save face. Many people would present her as an evil witch that enjoys participating in a "pagan ritual". That guy that debated evolution till he was blue in the face? He is trying to find a place in the world, is interpreting data based on the only worldview he has, and was never told the ultimate ramifications. Some would showcase him as a example of evil naturalistic evil incarnate, trying to steal our good little homeschool children from us. That person who lives in an LGBTQ+ lifestyle? They have no reason to believe that what they're doing is wrong (and a red-faced, angry pastor reciting a 2,000-year-old document is no reason), have found some relief in this world, and are giving in to what the culture screams they should do.

I'm not saying that abortion, naturalism, and alternate lifestyles are correct or that we should shy away from discussing these issues and stating the truth. However, firing a volley of theological bullets will not rescue them. Are we accurately representing the One who came to save and heal? He came as a healer, teacher, and forgiver. When encountering these "armed enemies", our default should be to get up close and personal to see if they are actively gripping the gun, or if the Joker has taped it to their hands. We may need to undertake the delicate task of removing the gag to understand the real situation, rather than shooting the first clown-mask we see. In the paraphrased words of Ravi Zacharais, when engaged in a philosophical debate or discussion, we need to answer the question-er, not the question. Simply winning the debate helps nobody.

We are in the business of rescuing hostages, saving as many as we can, and snatching those stumbling toward perdition. Every single person is a masterpiece of our Lord; they are imago Dei. Do not, through your angry repulsion, kill them; help them come to their senses; aid them in escaping the snare of the devil; assist them from being held captive.

Let's go rescue some hostages.