SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 BY BOB SEIDENSTICKER
The most effective response to abortion is obvious, but pro-life advocates don’t see it.
This is the conclusion of our analysis of the question, “Does Pro-life Logic Mean Women Who Get Abortions Should Be Punished?” addressed by Greg Koukl of the Stand to Reason podcast. (Start with part 1 here.)
Pro-life advocates claim they want to reduce abortion . . . but do they?
Do pro-lifers really want to reduce abortion? I doubt it. Maybe some of those carrying the signs do, but their leaders, the ones pulling the strings, don’t. If they did, they wouldn’t be going about it in so inept a manner.
Suppose abortion really were murder. Pro-lifers would be really, really motivated to make it as infrequent as possible. Any little compromises would be insignificant concessions on the way to the big prize of a negligible number of abortions.
Here’s how to reduce abortion
They say that abortion in the United States is the equivalent of the Holocaust. But if they really believed that, they’d be focusing on steps that would actually work.
Koukl in his Pollyanna world pretends that making abortion illegal would eliminate abortion, but the statistics make clear that it would have little effect (see this recent post). What you want is to eliminate the need for abortion—only that will be effective.
An excellent article by Valerie Tarico outlines the steps that would plausibly reduce the U.S. abortion rate by 90 percent in “What a Serious Anti-Abortion Movement Would Actually Look Like.” And yes, she’s saying that the current anti-abortion movement is not serious.
Her recommendations are simple, and instead of fighting pro-choice advocates, pro-lifers would actually be allied with them. If pro-lifers could get over the novelty of cooperating instead of obstructing (and ignore their leaders whose existence sometimes depends on conflict), they might be amazed at what they could get done.
Tarico’s suggestions include getting over squeamishness about sex so that children and teens can get accurate and complete sex education in school and at home, focusing on sex education that works and discarding approaches that don’t, encouraging the best contraception, and making sure that women in poverty have access to health care and contraception.
Pro-life advocates, look at the abortion rate. Harassing abortion providers and seekers may satisfy some psychological need of yours, but that isn’t the way to reach your goal.
You want to reduce the abortion rate by 90 percent? Seriously? Then read and follow the guidelines in Tarico’s article and see how cooperating with pro-choice advocates would work. When you read it and conclude that you won’t take those steps, admit to yourself that you’re not serious about abortion.
How can you have a crime without a punishment?
I’ll wrap up this series by revisiting the inherent inconsistency underlying Koukl’s position, his avoidance of the punishment that goes along with the crime.
We don’t have to [determine the punishment] because that’s the second step after the first step has been solved, and this is something we are capable of doing and the rank and file too, and that is determining whether abortion itself is a genuine moral harm. (@22:13)
A “genuine moral harm?” Like what? Like murder? If so, then the punishment has already been defined, many times in many jurisdictions. Don’t call it murder unless you want to bring along the range of punishments that go with murder.
If abortion isn’t murder, then perhaps it’s manslaughter or some lesser kind of murder? Perhaps the woman isn’t a murderer but an accessory to murder? Punishments for these crimes have been defined as well.
If it’s not murder of any kind, is it perhaps the moral equivalent of littering or jaywalking? In that case, it’s insignificant and you’re wasting our time.
If it’s not something to be criminalized, perhaps it’s just a bad or immoral act that we don’t make laws against (lying, gambling, consuming drugs, or adultery might be in this category). If abortion is an example, don’t tell us you want it made illegal.
Koukl has painted himself into a corner. He desperately wants to say that abortion is murder (or something similarly bad), but he looks heartless if the appropriate punishment comes along. He retreats by saying that abortion is a “genuine moral harm,” but what is that supposed to mean? Moral harm like murder or moral harm like an unkind word to a stranger? Unless he tells us what abortion is (or at least what it’s like), the argument is just handwaving . . . but as soon as he does, there’s that unwanted punishment along for the ride.
We see this same problem with Christians opposed to homosexuality. They will point to biblical justification in Leviticus where God declares it as wrong. The problem is that God also gives the punishment: “[Both men] are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:13). You can’t have a crime without the punishment.
When faced with fundamental problems in their arguments, few Christians face the problem squarely and either fix the broken argument or discard it.
Read the first post in this series here.Some mornings it just doesn’t seem worth it
to gnaw through the leather straps.
— Emo Phillips
.
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/4/16.)
Image from Alan O’Rourke (license CC BY 2.0)
.
- TAGGED WITH:
- ABORTION