How Not To Be "Pro-Life"
A Case Study in the Moral Bankruptcy of Our Political Leaders on Abortion
No issue in this country is more divisive than abortion. Neither is there any other issue that demonstrates the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle. This past week has provided us with a case study in why that is so.
The Extremism of the Left
Those on the Left decided long ago that there is no limit to the extent they will go to justify killing unborn children, some of them even after birth. The “my body, my choice” mantra is their rallying cry — a motto that not only pushes human autonomy past any ethically reasonable limit but also denies the biological fact that there are two bodies involved in an abortion decision.
These folks used to claim to want to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” But the pseudo-sincerity of that claim evaporated anytime you tried to probe what it actually meant. It turned out “rare” was not a real criterion for them at all.
These folks will accuse pro-lifers of “forcing” women to give birth even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. The accusation is not only false, it is a tactic used to try to paint pro-lifers as extremists. But if you ask them if they’ll agree to limit abortion except in those cases, they never will.
Here’s the problem with that position: Less than 3% of abortions involve rape, incest, or a danger to the life of the mother. This means that the abortion rights crowd protects 97% of abortions by a disingenuous emotional appeal to something that almost never occurs.
So, who’s the extremist?
A Morally Reprehensible Foundation
Every defense of abortion denies the biological fact that the unborn is a living human being. Once you deny that, it’s easy to justify killing it by invoking a myriad of reasons you try to use to make it acceptable.
You focus on the outcome instead of the act.
Abortion defenders are masters at this. But, sadly, many pro-lifers are comfortable using the same kind of logic to a different end. Neither is morally acceptable. To understand why, look back to 2009.
After the 2008 presidential election, the Catholic Church spent a ton of money promoting its pro-life stance by running the following ad nationwide. This heart-tugging appeal to “imagine the potential” claimed to make the pro-life case by having us contemplate the life that would have been squandered if our newly-elected president’s mother had decided to have him aborted in light of the difficulties she faced bringing him into this world:
Though many praised the ad for the power of its message, thoughtful pro-lifers criticized it for good reason. It is based on a consequentialist ethic that can be used just as easily to make the opposite point.
Consequentialism is a view of morality that looks at results and makes ethical decisions based on whether or not we like the outcomes we achieve from them. In the case of the Catholic ad above, the preferred outcome was the first African American president. Because forgoing an abortion led to the desired result, it gave us a reason to oppose abortion.
This seems reasonable on the surface … until you think about it for more than 10 seconds.
What if Barack Obama had turned out to be a drug dealer who engaged in gangland violence and ended up in jail at age 17? Would hindsight have led us to the opposite conclusion? Would those negative consequences have been sufficient reasons to say that abortion is a great idea?
No.
Careful pro-life advocates insist that abortion is wrong not because of the possible consequences that may follow from it, but because of what it is in and of itself — the taking of innocent human life.
Abortion is immoral in the same way rape, or sex-trafficking, or child abuse are immoral. Abortion is an objective moral wrong whether Barack Obama becomes president of the United States or a gangland murderer.
So, why do I bring this up? A short history lesson will explain.
The Evolution of “The Most Pro-Life President”
Back in 1999, businessman Donald Trump told us that while he was personally against abortion, he was also “very pro-choice.”
Think about that. People who hold this view are saying that they see abortion as a grave moral wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human being … but that they don’t want to tell anyone else not to commit that grave moral wrong.
This is morally incoherent. But there’s more.
Fast-forward to 2016. When he decided to run for president, Trump claimed to be “very, very proud to say that [he is] pro-life.”
What changed?
Well, during the first Republican presidential debate that year, Trump explained exactly what changed:
“Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances ...”
Donald Trump was moved by the consequence of his friend’s decision not to abort their child because that child turned out to be a “superstar.” Please note the hollow consequentialism in Trump’s reasoning.
If you don’t see it, he cleared it up for us in a September 3, 2015 interview with the Daily Caller. That’s when editor Jamie Weinstein asked Trump specifically about his change of heart experience and if he “would have changed his view on abortion if the child [referred to above] had become a ‘total loser?’”
Donald Trump’s response:
“I’ve never thought of it. That’s an interesting question. I’ve never thought of it. Probably not, but I’ve never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he’s such an outstanding person.” (emphasis mine)
I have to accept Trump’s assertion that he has “never thought of it,” but I don’t say that as a compliment. As Yogi Berra might describe Trump’s “evolving view” on abortion: “When he sees a fork in the road, he takes it.”
But that’s not the end of it.
In February 2024, Trump signaled that he would support a nationwide 15-week ban on abortion. This was deemed an “extreme” position by abortion supporters (including the American media) who willfully deny the fact that almost every country in Europe has imposed a 12-week ban on abortion. But I digress.
Two months later, on April 8th, Trump delivered a widely-heralded statement clarifying his stance on the issue in anticipation of the 2024 presidential election. Unfortunately, neither the statement nor his subsequent actions clarified anything. Instead, they provide a case study in the moral bankruptcy our political leaders display on the abortion issue. Trump’s statement included the following:
“My view is now that we have abortion where everyone wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land … Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be. At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people …”
“The Republican party should always be on the side of the miracle of life.”
So, which is it? Should we honor the “will of the people” or should we “always be on the side of the miracle of life?” Because those can be two wildly different things.
Two days later, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that abortion in its state was prohibited at any point in a pregnancy, the only exception being to save the life of the mother. Within a few hours, Trump was asked if Arizona had gone too far.
“Yeah, they did,” he said, “that’ll need to be straightened out.”
Trump’s plea on Monday to let the states decide was overruled on Wednesday … when Trump didn’t like the way a state decided.
Is it any wonder no one takes him seriously on this issue?
In the previously referenced April 9, 2024 video statement, Donald Trump proclaimed that he “… was proudly the person responsible for the ending of … Roe-v-Wade.” The former president fancies himself as solidly pro-life because he appointed three Justices to a U. S. Supreme Court that eventually overturned Roe-v-Wade. But it seems that the pro-life victories that have been achieved since he did that have come about in spite of his personal convictions, not because of them.
Pathetic, Pandering Politicians
It wouldn’t be fair to isolate Donald Trump for criticism where this issue is concerned. The examples of political pandering on abortion from both sides of the aisle are legion (pun intended). Politicians on both sides of the aisle do it all the time. That’s the problem with consequentialism. You never know where you’ll end up when you follow it.
We expect this kind of degenerate moral reasoning from those who support abortion for any reason at any time. But for those who claim to be “pro-life,” they should be ashamed.
Here’s the problem: For the last 50 years, so-called “pro-life” politicians have been able to hide behind the smokescreen of Roe-v-Wade. While triumphantly claiming the pro-life label, they’ve used Roe as an excuse to do absolutely nothing to earn it. Abortion has been their election-time pugil stick — a toothless tool used to pander for votes. Outlawing the travesty of abortion never entered their minds.
Once Dobbs-v-Jackson removed the smokescreen, the moral vacuousness of their “thinking” was exposed. Today, we live with the consequences.
It shouldn’t be this hard. The moral reasoning behind the pro-life view is straightforward:
Premise 1: It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being.
Premise 2: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
Premise 1 is straight-up moral clarity. Premise 2 is a scientific fact. The conclusion follows both philosophically and ethically.
For the life of me, I will never understand why no politician even begins to make the case this way. But if you claim to be pro-life, I would encourage you to demand that your local representative start doing just that. Sixty-two million (and counting) dead babies is enough.
Except that the progressives reject the principal that taking an innocent life is objectively & morally wrong.
Excellent!