The pro-life movement in America had a tremendous setback this week with the murder of Kansas abortionist, Dr. George Tiller. In the weeks and months ahead, the pro-life movement will, unfortunately, be misrepresented as condoning this sort of violence. In reality, it's only the disturbed extremists on the fringe who believe that the sanctity of life debate can be won by violence.
So what does it mean to be pro-life? This is an especially poignant question for Christians to ask, as America is now under the administration of arguably the most aggressively pro-abortion administration the nation has ever known.
A few months ago Dolphus Weary, former president of Mission Mississippi, was profiled in Metro Christian Living. MLC featured a question and answer section with Dolphus and local attorney Andy Taggart, and they were discussing the 2008 presidential election.
Let me begin by saying I have an enormous amount of respect for Dolphus. He spoke at my graduation from Belhaven College in 2005. He’s on the board at Belhaven, and he’s done tremendous work in the area of racial reconciliation. That being said, I was genuinely surprised by a couple of his comments.
When asked what was going through his mind the night that Barack Obama was declared the winner, he said, in part, “I was ecstatic…because…it shows that now even a black person can literally rise to the position of President of the United States.” I share his excitement about the U.S. having a black president, but shouldn’t that “ecstatic” feeling be tempered by deep sadness over the fact that we have arguably the most pro-abortion president the nation has ever seen?
Later on Dolphus addressed the divide between Christians who vote Republican and those who vote Democrat, often largely over the abortion issue. He said, “We are trying to get this community to look at the issue and ask the question, ‘Just because someone is pro-choice does not mean they believe in baby killing.” In response to a person who asked Dolphus how black Christians can, in good conscience, vote for somebody that “believes in killing babies”, he responded, “People like this do not want to believe in the big picture. They want to narrow it down to just one issue.”
I fail to see Dolphus’ logic on this point. If someone is pro-choice, this of course doesn’t mean that they want women to always choose abortion; it just means they want women to be given the choice. Does this equal to support for the “killing of babies”? Indirectly, I would say that it does. Being “pro-choice” means wanting women to have the final say-so as to whether or not their baby lives or dies. Hence, being pro-choice means you support women having the choice to have their babies killed, if they so desire. To say that you are pro-choice, and then to go and somehow distance yourself from the gruesomeness of it and say you are not for baby-killing—this is inconsistency and it glosses over the severity of the issue.
Furthermore, I fail to see Dolphus’ point about needing to see the “big picture.” What is the big picture after all? Refusing to vote for a politician who wants to maintain the legalization of killing babies isn’t being “narrow”—it is just sticking to principles, the principle that a person’s stance on the sanctity of life trumps all other issues. Abolitionists of the 1860s who were so vehemently opposed to slavery could’ve been accused by their political foes of being too narrow, of being “single-issue” voters. But, at the end of the day, some single issues are important enough to where they deserve to be the hinge, the litmus test.
If by the big picture, Dolphus means considering other matters of social justice (the AIDS epidemic, world hunger, poverty, unjust war, human rights abuses, etc...) as important too, and not merely stopping with abortion, I agree. Some of us act as if our responsibility, with regards to the abortion crises, begins and ends in the voting booth. If, by the big picture, Dolphus means that there's more to valuing life than just voting--there's also getting involved at crisis pregnancy centers, helping to educate young people about abstinence, etc...--then I agree. But to me this isn't an either/or proposition. Yes, there's more to valuing life than voting--there is a "big picture." But part of the picture, as I see it, is to vote against pro-choice politicians. It doesn't end there, but that's a reasonable place to start.
Father Frank Pavone, an outspoken pro-life advocate and Catholic priest once offered this analogy:
Imagine there is a political candidate who has all of the right policies on education, tax reform, immigration policy, health care, and the environment. But suppose that in addition to all of these right policies, this candidate also supported terrorism. Could you vote for such a candidate? Hopefully not! Why? Because his being a terrorist would overshadow any amount of good he did.
What’s the point? I’m not saying that pro-choice voters or politicians are terrorists—what I’m saying is that abortion is as crucial of an issue as the threat of terrorism. The number of babies who have been killed since abortion was legalized at a national level in 1973 is higher than all of the fallen soldiers in all of America’s wars combined. The number of babies killed on an average day in American exceeds the number of those killed during the September 11 attack.
Alan Keyes, a conservative black politician, and Alveda Scott King, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, have both said that abortion is the biggest threat facing the black community specifically today. Due to abortion, the black population in America is about 33% smaller than it would otherwise have been. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was after all an outspoken racist. She said abortion would help “eradicate the Negro population.” It’s not eradicating it, but unfortunately, it is making it significantly smaller.
No wonder Dr. King’s niece has called the pro-life movement the “Civil Rights movement of our generation.” Yet, when asked what the number one issue facing America is, Dolphus responded by saying it’s the economy. Thousands of babies are being killed, legally, in America everyday, and yet the biggest issue facing us right now is the economy? This, to say the least, doesn’t add up to me.
So I have to express strong disagreement with Dolphus over his, what comes across to me, too non-chalant approach to the abortion issue. For all of Obama’s rhetoric about finding middle ground on the abortion issue, I would still have to say there’s no middle ground to be found. Either what’s in the woman’s womb is a human life or it isn’t. If it is a life, it shouldn’t be killed. In the “big picture” human life is more important than economic recessions. Don’t we all agree on that much?
www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/dolphus_weary/
Comments
I don't think Dolphus really meant it that way.. I know him personally and he is a great guy and a strong Christian.
Give him a break.. Quit casting stones man.
Quote, "Furthermore, I fail to see Dolphus’ point about needing to see the “big picture.” What is the big picture after all?"
-------------------------------
If you look at the big picture you'll see that George W. Bush claimed to be pro-life but did that stop abortions? NO
What makes you think that 1 person has the power to totally abolish abortion.
The president, whether republican or democrat, black or white, can not control a woman's actions.. Even it was outlawed, there would still be abortions taking place in this country whether a president approved it or not.
A Christian cannot tolerate abortion, once that heart beats, that baby is a living person and to abort it is murder plain and simple, Christians who do support murder will one day be judged.
Look at it this way: Obama doesn't believe in dropping bombs on pregnant women in other countries. And Keith is right...if it's outlawed, it won't prevent abortions - people will find doctors willing to do it secretly or they will do it themselves. Any change in the country needs to come from deeper places, not just hand-slapping when the "righteous" (give me a break) think it's deserved.
I am a Christian, but not an American.
I have seen the so-called pro-life and it is just nothing Christian to say the least. I am a Christian, I do not even have to decide whether to support abortion or not. Every sin is a sin and abortion is one of thing.
I will be more concerned about Christian committing a sin, and I do not thing the Christianity specifies a life a non-Christian should live.
Your country is a great exporter of sex, and you Christians there really see wrong with it, and you expected that when you export and promote sex for money, there will not be an unwanted pregnancy?
The funny part is making it political and supporting a political party for your Christian value. I do not know how this makes sense.
I will support those who will do something to reduce sin, helping the mothers who are caught up in the so-called capitalism to feed ther child and be assured of a good health.
I watched a video on health care at PBS, and I sympathize with moms in your country.
First, a fetus is not a baby. A fetus's life support can only be supplied by one single person; the biological mother. No one else. A fetus lives or dies with the mother while a child or incapacitated adult can be cared for by anyone.
So this is a unique situation. To use language such as "baby killing" is disingenuous and inaccurate.
Second, pro-choice. Free will is God given. Who's good, the person who doesn't kill because it's wrong or the person with hatred in their heart but doesn't kill because it's illegal?
Third, Christians have as many abortions as the general population. How about this: abortions for Christians are illegal? That would save about 600,000 lives; about a 75% reduction in abortions. Don't like it, join another religion. But you can't change religions during pregnancy.
Finally: The basic problem is unwanted conception. Modern methods are better than 99% effective. Stop conception and abortion is moot.
Pro-life should start with anti-conc
@ j:
you bring up a good point about language. "Baby killing" sounds harsh and too direct, too common, whereas "fetal abortion" sounds distant, and impersonal - something only doctors in sterilized rooms do. We see "babies" everyday...who sees a fetus? And while I think "baby killing" is disingenuous, no less so "fetus," which implies a difference worlds apart. (And lets be frank, the separation is the point - after all, nobody wants to be a part of "baby killing." "Abortion" allows us some distance.) But if the language corresponded more with reality...what if, at first conception, we used the term blobby? From 1st trimester, bibby? 2nd, bubby? 3rd, bebby? Does saying that you support killing bubbies make you feel the same as saying you support fetal abortion? It's just as disingenuous to use language that supports the notion that the two are somehow infinitely separate or not related, and it reflects poorly on our language and, by association, those who (mis)-use it.
Johnson, the last thing I want to do is "cast stones" at Dolphus. I agree with you that he is a great guy. My challenging his comments about abortion is in no way motivated by animosity towards him as a person. I wrote a profile on him while working for the Jackson Free Press, and my respect for him as an individual is as strong now as it was then.
Keith, I'm not suggesting that one person (the president) has the authority to stop abortion. But he does have some influence, as was seen by the fact that Bush (for all of his faults) did limit funding for abortion, whereas Obama seems eager to remove all restrictions. I agree with you that abortion would still be going on even if it was outlawed, but that's no justification for it. We shouldn't legalize robbery or assault since people are doing these things anyway, should we? Matt, I agree with you in saying "Any change in the country needs to come from deeper places."
I know no pro-lifer actually pro-life. There are tens of thousands of lives die everyday because of poverty, wars, natural disasters, etc. Where are those pro-lifers? The majority of them voted for Mr. Bush, who killed tens of thousands of innocent people. Yeap, he was pro-life. Just his life, not anyone else.
Disagreeing with someone and casting stones are entirely different things.
It has always been up to a woman to have a baby or not. Unfortunately, accomplishing that before abortion meant risking your own life to end a pregnancy. Why should a woman have to choose her own possible death to avoid being a parent. Not everyone wants to be a parent nor should be one. If we would only worry more about the lives that already exist instead of the possible ones that don't, the need for the "choice" could be reduced tremendously! Population explosion is at the root of all of humanities problems right now. Whether you are Christian or not, there is not much doubt that the entire human population is at growing risk of extinction.
Hi Daniel!
The point of “choice” is that the actual individual women involved have the right to have control of their bodies beyond the imposing will of government.
An ovum and a sperm are "potential" human lives with unique DNA codes but are not “actual” human persons.
When these join together and form a unique DNA code they are still "potential" human lives yet still not “actual” human persons.
As a Humanist, I appreciate that this “potential” could be valuable, but the actual human person should have the ability to think, reason and factor in all unique circumstances to determine the greater good.
Notably this will always be a subjective view, I agree, and that is why the actual woman has more at stake than the government or society.
I understand that many disagree as I have even argued both sides of the issue and find "pro-choice" the most consistent on principle.
As usual there is religious scripture that can be argued to provide divine support to both perceptions on this issue depending upon what each personal opinion is looking to find.
Perhaps the participants of this thread will find interest in the following scenario:
You have saved several people from within a burning hospital and are running through the smoke and falling debris when you hear a child crying down the last hallway.
You enter a laboratory and find the child huddled in a corner sobbing in terror.
As you approach, your eyes meet hers and her face lights with hope. Before you pick her up you notice a battery-operated refrigerator nearby containing 24 fertilized human embryos identified with baby name labels.
You are very weary and can only carry the crying child or the container.
What do you do and explain why you chose to do it?
You know, I want to ask you... if you couldn't get abortion outlawed when you had a Republican president, Supreme Court and Congress, when WILL you?
And if you DO get it, what will the punishment be? Are yougoing to put women in jail? Doctors? For how many years? Or will you give them the death penalty, which is beloved by the same people who claim to love the fetus.
You know, my aunt nearly died in the 40s of a back alley abortion. You will NEVER stop it entirely, but you can stop MUCH of it. Support birth control. Sex education. Provide universal health care to help stop birth defects. Place unwanted children in loving homes, even if they are same-sex.
But no. People like you would rather use the weapon of "Pro-Life" for political purposes.
What would Jesus think?
Your quote about "Barbara Sanger" rang hollow. IF you mean "Margaret Sanger" as the founder of planned parenthood, you might have been correct. Look it up on wikipedia... "Despite allegations of racism, Sanger's work with minorities earned the respect of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr"
Counter spinner, thanks for pointing out that I’d gotten Ms. Sanger’s first name wrong—I’ve gone back and fixed this. Dr. King’s niece, Dr. Alveda Scott King, believes (and I agree with her) that her uncle wouldn’t have accepted Planned Parenthood’s award in the 1960s if he’d known of their pro-abortion agenda. It wasn’t until Dr. King died that they became so vocal and public about their pro-abortion agenda.
Keith, first let me say I'm sincerely sorry about what almost happened to your aunt back in the 40s. That must've been a terrible experience for everyone involved.
You said, "People like you would rather use the weapon of 'Pro-Life' for political purposes." I don't know what you're referring to honestly. You can ask anyone that knows me--I'm a very a-political person. I don't think politics is, or ever has been, the answer to America's problems. By the way, I've never voted Republican in a presidential election. I don't see the pro-life position as a "political weapon" as much as conviction about protecting life. Nothing short of the Christian principle of chastity will ever adequately solve the dilemma. Sex education can only do so much, nor do I believe the solution is homosexual parenting.
I don't at all advocate jailing women who've had abortions. The doctors? Yes. I don't know if abortion will ever be outlawd per se, but perhaps it will one day be returned to the state leve
Thank you Dan for such a great article. You were respectful in your disagreements with Dolphus, brought up some good questions and made some good points. I felt like this article was well thought out. I appreciate your courage to stand up and say some things that are not very popular in our currant culture. It is hard to do that... I know from experience. My respect for you grows each time I read something you have written.
Read what you want from your 2000-year old stories; humans are human. Your vain hope for a "Christian principle of chastity" has never been attained (not by the ever-shrinking sect of Christians, nor the rest of us) and never will be.
This is the real world. May you one day live to truly see it.
Hi Fonzo!
That is a very good point and one I'm sure that not too many Christians can abide by without falling upon the sword of "backsliding" to temptation and seeking prayerful forgiveness.
I am suddenly reminded of the Monty Python musical sketch "Every Sperm Is Sacred" for some reason.
;0)
Thoughtfully yours,
Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS
Fonzo, thanks for your comments. I agree that Christian chastity hasn't very successfully been achieved by society as a whole, but it is successfully adhered to by many individuals and families around the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "ever-shrinking sect of Christians." Christianity may be on the decline in the West, but it is exploding in Africa and parts of Asia. The Anglican Church of Nigeria now has 12 times as many members as they did 20 years ago.
I wish the Republican Party would take this issue out of their platform. There are many pro-choice Republicans and many anti-abortion Democrats. I feel that it should be a personal issue and that there is no room for the government in a woman's uterus. I resent that the country has become so polarized and I think much of it is from the terrible things that many so called born again ministers are saying from the pulpit. They have truly turned us against each other. This issue has been used by them to make people feel morally superior to others. Let the Lord sort it out and please spend more energy on the issue of poverty and problems in our country.
Shelley, thanks very much for your feedback. I wanted to respond with a couple of thoughts.
"There is no room for the government in a woman's uterus."
That is true, in so far as it goes, but the question as to whether what's in the womb is actually a human life or not remains. If it is, it has the same rights as you or me. Pro-lifers shouldn't smugly consider themselves morally superior and when they do, this is wrong. I agree with you that poverty is an issue that can't be minimized, but the issue of abortion can't be minimized either. If the church is approaching society with a holistic message, it will preach about poverty as well as abortion.
Thanks again, Shelley, for your feedback.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!