Pro-life not just for believers

Nonreligious reasons for pro-life stance should be emphasized

By GREG PIPER, Staff Writer

Published: October 11, 2000

James Matthew Wallace gleefully calls himself "The Compleat [meaning proficient] Heretic." He is a proud "secular humanist" and atheist, writing on his Web site (www.compleatheretic.com) about "taking a wrong turn on the road to Damascus." Hmm, not the kind of guy most of us would want to sit next to in GROUP.

Yet Wallace has something in common with most Seattle Pacific University students that we probably would never guess: he is strongly pro-life.

Wallace founded the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-life League (AAPL) (http://www.godlessprolifers.org), which currently has 45 members and about a hundred guest book signatures, as an online gathering place for all nonreligious people who consider themselves pro-life. His main pro-life argument, from AAPL's library of atheist, libertarian, feminist, liberal and constitutional essays, is that legalized abortion contradicts the unalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" found in the Declaration of Independence. Personally, I find it refreshing to hear a pro-life view that doesn't rely on Psalm 139.

Not that there's anything wrong with using Scripture in defense of the unborn. Indeed, most of us at this evangelical university probably grew up in fairly conservative families and churches that shaped our views on cultural issues such as abortion. We have marched around streets and statehouses on the Roe v. Wade anniversary holding signs that read "Jesus heals and forgives" and held prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Confessing the name of Christ and pro-life convictions seem to go together naturally.

But is this tendency to equate one with the other appropriate for the pro-life movement in general? What about those persons or groups who are not explicitly religious or conservative, yet believe just as firmly as the late Mother Teresa that "the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion"?

Feminists For Life of America (FFLA) (http://www.feministsforlife.org) is one of those groups. Founded in 1972, FFLA builds on the work of 19th century feminist pioneers, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who combined their efforts at suffrage and abolition of slavery with uncompromising pro-life views based on the feminist themes of nonviolence and equality for all under law. My favorite FFLA statement reads, "We believe in a woman's right to control her body, and she deserves this right no matter where she lives; even if she's still living inside her mother's womb." This particular feminist position goes beyond usual conservative orthodoxy, equating the abortion culture with male dominance and corporate abuse, to name a couple. Stanton once wrote, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of [aborted] as we see fit." Pro-life feminist Kathryn Reed argued more recently in Feminism and Nonviolence Studies that "to defend abortion is to defend those who oppress women: the rapist, the abuser, the corporations, and the welfare plan that 'discourages' births."

The Democratic Party, whose national platform and majority of candidates are radically pro-choice, also has a sizable pro-life faction (estimated at 40 percent from Democratic surveys). David Carlin, a former Rhode Island state senator, argues for Democrats for Life of America (http://www.democratsforlife.org) that, politically speaking, the party's abortion position has alienated white Protestant voters from the South (once the base of the party) as well as to a lesser extent Catholics, especially its ecclesiastical leadership.

In addition, the pro-choice-dominated party has gradually switched socioeconomic constituencies with Republicans, adopting an increasingly "elite image" that drives the party masses to Republicans. If the party continues its abortion stance, Carlin fears, it could end up playing "second fiddle to the Republicans" again, just as it did for 72 years after the election of the abolitionist Republican Abraham Lincoln.

So what have religious conservatives done to thank their ideologically opposed but pro-life allies? Not nearly enough. Nat Hentoff, longtime columnist for Village Voice and the Washington Post and a self-described "Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left wing pro-lifer," recounted in The New Republic how he caused a near-riot at a Right to Life convention. His crime? Trying to show the mostly Christian audience the connection between capital punishment, Reagan administration policies and abortion. The crowd also didn't appreciate Hentoff quoting a gay Democratic congressman who said that conservative pro-lifers are such "only up to the moment of birth."

But in all fairness to religious conservatives (myself included), pro-choice organizations and the mainstream media haven't exactly helped the pro-life movement reflect its actual diversity. As Hentoff continued, "You won't see much about Feminists for Life in the press. When reporters look for pro-lifers to interview, they tend to go after pinched elderly men who look like [Republican Senator] Jesse Helms and women who wear crucifixes."

Perhaps most unfortunate is the fact that Christians and Jews can no longer stand firm and united on behalf of the unborn. Many denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, and Conservative and Reform Judaism, belong to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (http://www.rcrc.org) and are generally pro-choice. If this trend continues, the pro-life movement will die without unifying all its political and religious diversity -- atheist, feminist, libertarian and Democrat -- under a "big tent."

So what should the religious pro-lifer do? Recognize that God has repeatedly worked through those who never thought they were serving his purposes, such as the Babylonian and Roman governments, and unite with them. If Jesus can use a humble tax collector as a good example for a proud Pharisee to follow (Luke 18:13), then why shouldn't we religious pro-lifers correct our pro-choice brethren with our ideological and religious opposites as an example?

© 2008-2010 The Falcon        Contact        Advertise        SPU.edu