A False Dichotomy?

 

One of the more common critiques I have gotten from my interview with Elijah from AAA, is that there is no real difference between the pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement, as they both have the same goal. It is a 'tautology' or a 'false dichotomy', some have claimed.

This kind of analysis is based on a logical error. For example, saying there is no difference between free will Baptists and Westminster confession Presbyterians because they have the same goal, is clearly false. It is an error of understanding and distinction. Taking a different approach to the same goal is by its very definition a difference. That's without even noting that the visceral reaction some people in these movements have to each other shows they clearly see and feel the differences.

But the more I investigate it, and examine the issue, for me the real difference comes down to strategy, and I think this difference might be more significant than some people realize. How we approach an issue of advocacy makes sense.

Let's just be brutally honest: the pro-life lobby in Australia has had zero success outside of individual anecdotes. Even claimed legislative victories look more like the political equivalent of controlled retreats, because overall access to abortion has sky-rocketed in this country. That's not the fault of the pro-life lobby, of course. It is just reality.

Naturally, someone or a group of people, were going to be prompted by this failure to take a vastly different approach. This is only rational. Correct? In fact, its irrational to say otherwise.

One of the biggest differences, for me, is the abolitionists stance on women who kill their children. Pro-life people tend to see such women as victims of bad fathers, boyfriends, husbands, the system, etc, etc. They may admit that yes these women are guilty of murder, or manslaughter, but they downplay this in public advocacy. They present themselves, in general, as rescuers of women.

Abolitionists see the accountability of abortion doctors and mothers as equally culpable and they major on it. Unapologetically. So much so that they are seen as too harsh by many. Yet, this is a necessary and vital change. It is almost impossible to bring conviction of sin if you downplay someone's sin, or if you don't correctly address it. How can someone be brought under proper contrition if they think what they have done is not that big a deal? In the vast majority of abortions the woman is the most guilty party. I am not just saying this intuitively, even though it is intuitively true. After all, what greater betrayal is there than a mother betraying the ward in her womb.? What greater disparity of power exists? I am making this statement after seriously examining the data, and you can read my findings here. It was necessary to do this, because I have seen pro-lifers who resist this reality until they see the data.

Pro-life rhetoric falls flat for the vast majority of women. Because most women who have abortions know they were not the victim in their abortion, they know, in the vast majority of cases, they chose to sacrifice the child for their own benefit. They know that it was a life they ended. Abolitionist rhetoric hits this nail on the head, as it recognises the importance of emphasizing this.

Let me illustrate how an unequal accounting of sin affects people on this issue:

-        If a woman gets up and shares how she killed one, two, three kids, in the womb but now regrets it and has repented, you will hear visible sounds of sympathy from mainstream pro-life advocates. I've seen it, often.

-        If a man gets up and shares how he abused his wife or kids by beating them, but now regrets it and has repented, he will get visible sounds of disgust and will be marked as someone to be avoided and never promoted in Christian circles. Even if his apology is accepted.

Until this difference is corrected, anti-abortion efforts in this nation will fail. Guaranteed. Because they don’t properly account for what is taking place. Pro-life advocates that I know will agree about the evil of the situation. They will acknowledge that abolition is the ultimate goal. But their presentation as white knights for the women who have had abortions, causes them to take an ineffective approach.

My hope is that some of the abolitionist’s critiques could be accepted by the mainstream pro-life community and they could adjust some of the strategies to more accurately reflect what is happening.

However, as the Proverbs say, one case seems certain till another presents their case, to this end in a couple of weeks I will be interviewing a prominent pro-life advocate so that I can give that perspective a full and detailed hearing. I think some of their arguments have merit, and they are often tireless in their advocacy for the unborn. So, I am looking forward to that. More to come soon.

In the meantime check out my interview with Elijah Harris, the future is bright in this nation, because young men are rising up in the Church with a heart for justice. You can watch the interview by clicking here.