I want to talk about a bill that has been submitted in Tennessee (and many states) – HB 570 – that would give equal protection under the law to babies in the womb. In other words, we are legally declaring that the baby in the womb is just as much of a person as a person outside of the womb. The point of contention for many is that this would mean that the mother who aborted her child could possibly be prosecuted for murder. So, I want to unpack this a little.
I’ve worked in the public policy and advocacy world now for about seven years. It has been my full-time job. I would never consider myself an expert. But I have spent more hours analyzing legislation and thinking about the implications than most ever will. So, I’ve learned a thing or two.
The main challenge you confront when analyzing policy from a broad spectrum of topics is being consistent. What I mean by that is, as all humans do, we care about some things more than we do others. So, we form emotional arguments for our beliefs. We are, in fact, emotional beings. But what you’ll find very quickly when analyzing policy is that your beliefs about one issue may not exactly line up with how you feel about another. And you begin to recognize that perhaps some of the things you believe are not rooted in truth, but rooted in your own perspective. Meaning, that some of your positions may not be principled in nature, but arbitrary. And that is a hard thing to admit.
Let’s make that application to how we look at pro-life policy and the things we confess we believe. Most people in the pro-life movement would confess that “life begins at conception” and that they believe “abortion is murder.” The problem becomes that I don’t think we all quite agree on the definitions of the words we are using.
So, what should “life begins at conception” mean? Well, to a Christ follower, that would certainly mean that God is the author of life and created that baby in the womb, in His image. It would mean that from the moment the spark of life ignites in the womb, this baby is fully human. The baby is a person. If we believe that all life has intrinsic and equal value, then we also have to believe that life in the womb is worth protecting. And, it therefore must be worth protecting at all stages. Otherwise, our belief now becomes arbitrary.
If, in fact, we believe something different, then we need to start using different words.
What about, “abortion is murder?” Well, if that is true, then both our faith and our legal system demand justice. What does that mean? It would mean that all parties implicated in the murder of a person must be held accountable under the law. It would mean that the life that was taken had value and demands justice for the shedding of blood. If, in fact, that is not true for abortion, if all parties are not accountable under the law for the death of a child in the womb, then abortion cannot be defined as “murder.” It must be something else. The words we use are important.
In terms of a belief that abortion is “murder,” how could it be plausible that the mother who made a decision to kill her child is not also a party to the murder? Well, under a law of equal protection, that would be up to a judge and jury to decide…just like any other murder case. It would stand to reason that some young women are duped into choosing abortion under duress. It is also true that some women have multiple abortions and are seen on podcasts celebrating the fact that they love abortion and love killing their children. It is also true that some women who already have children and fully know the gift of life in the womb choose to abort future children because of life circumstances. Perhaps the third child for a single mom is now simply, inconvenient. These are all real circumstances.
If abortion is “murder,” the baby in the womb in all of these circumstances deserves justice. And in our society, that justice is determined in a court of law. If that is not true, then I have news for you….abortion is not murder. If mothers are not implicated in the death of their unborn children, then you simply must call it something else. What you can’t call it is murder. We do not get to redefine words so that we feel more comfortable with what we believe. That is not operating in the truth. It is operating in a new reality that we make up to fit our own perspective. It is arbitrary.
As I’ve looked at pro-life legislation over the years, I now realize just how arbitrary our beliefs have become. The pro-life movement is your typical “big tent” political movement. It is anything but principled. You can simply be against partial birth abortion and be pro-life. You can support abortions at 16 weeks and be pro-life. You can only support abortions at 6 weeks and be pro-life. You can support heartbeat bills and be pro-life. You can support exceptions for rape and incest and be pro-life. The choices are endless.
But according to those who claim lead on the front lines of the pro-life movement, here is what you can’t believe. You can’t believe that abortion is murder. You cannot believe in any way that a mother can be held legally accountable for the murder of her unborn child. If you do, you must be exiled from the movement, and you must be sent away with scorn and shame.
I find that both interesting and perplexing. There are so many choices you can make to be considered pro-life, except for one. What I’ve come to understand is that in the world of public policy, there is almost nothing more arbitrary than claiming to be pro-life.
The arbitrary nature of our beliefs on abortion.
I want to talk about a bill that has been submitted in Tennessee (and many states) – HB 570 – that would give equal protection under the law to babies in the womb. In other words, we are legally declaring that the baby in the womb is just as much of a person as a person outside of the womb. The point of contention for many is that this would mean that the mother who aborted her child could possibly be prosecuted for murder. So, I want to unpack this a little.
I’ve worked in the public policy and advocacy world now for about seven years. It has been my full-time job. I would never consider myself an expert. But I have spent more hours analyzing legislation and thinking about the implications than most ever will. So, I’ve learned a thing or two.
The main challenge you confront when analyzing policy from a broad spectrum of topics is being consistent. What I mean by that is, as all humans do, we care about some things more than we do others. So, we form emotional arguments for our beliefs. We are, in fact, emotional beings. But what you’ll find very quickly when analyzing policy is that your beliefs about one issue may not exactly line up with how you feel about another. And you begin to recognize that perhaps some of the things you believe are not rooted in truth, but rooted in your own perspective. Meaning, that some of your positions may not be principled in nature, but arbitrary. And that is a hard thing to admit.
Let’s make that application to how we look at pro-life policy and the things we confess we believe. Most people in the pro-life movement would confess that “life begins at conception” and that they believe “abortion is murder.” The problem becomes that I don’t think we all quite agree on the definitions of the words we are using.
So, what should “life begins at conception” mean? Well, to a Christ follower, that would certainly mean that God is the author of life and created that baby in the womb, in His image. It would mean that from the moment the spark of life ignites in the womb, this baby is fully human. The baby is a person. If we believe that all life has intrinsic and equal value, then we also have to believe that life in the womb is worth protecting. And, it therefore must be worth protecting at all stages. Otherwise, our belief now becomes arbitrary.
If, in fact, we believe something different, then we need to start using different words.
What about, “abortion is murder?” Well, if that is true, then both our faith and our legal system demand justice. What does that mean? It would mean that all parties implicated in the murder of a person must be held accountable under the law. It would mean that the life that was taken had value and demands justice for the shedding of blood. If, in fact, that is not true for abortion, if all parties are not accountable under the law for the death of a child in the womb, then abortion cannot be defined as “murder.” It must be something else. The words we use are important.
In terms of a belief that abortion is “murder,” how could it be plausible that the mother who made a decision to kill her child is not also a party to the murder? Well, under a law of equal protection, that would be up to a judge and jury to decide…just like any other murder case. It would stand to reason that some young women are duped into choosing abortion under duress. It is also true that some women have multiple abortions and are seen on podcasts celebrating the fact that they love abortion and love killing their children. It is also true that some women who already have children and fully know the gift of life in the womb choose to abort future children because of life circumstances. Perhaps the third child for a single mom is now simply, inconvenient. These are all real circumstances.
If abortion is “murder,” the baby in the womb in all of these circumstances deserves justice. And in our society, that justice is determined in a court of law. If that is not true, then I have news for you….abortion is not murder. If mothers are not implicated in the death of their unborn children, then you simply must call it something else. What you can’t call it is murder. We do not get to redefine words so that we feel more comfortable with what we believe. That is not operating in the truth. It is operating in a new reality that we make up to fit our own perspective. It is arbitrary.
As I’ve looked at pro-life legislation over the years, I now realize just how arbitrary our beliefs have become. The pro-life movement is your typical “big tent” political movement. It is anything but principled. You can simply be against partial birth abortion and be pro-life. You can support abortions at 16 weeks and be pro-life. You can only support abortions at 6 weeks and be pro-life. You can support heartbeat bills and be pro-life. You can support exceptions for rape and incest and be pro-life. The choices are endless.
But according to those who claim lead on the front lines of the pro-life movement, here is what you can’t believe. You can’t believe that abortion is murder. You cannot believe in any way that a mother can be held legally accountable for the murder of her unborn child. If you do, you must be exiled from the movement, and you must be sent away with scorn and shame.
I find that both interesting and perplexing. There are so many choices you can make to be considered pro-life, except for one. What I’ve come to understand is that in the world of public policy, there is almost nothing more arbitrary than claiming to be pro-life.
Like this article?
Gary Humble
Gary Humble