Monday, February 25, 2013

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion?

Planned Parenthood is attempting to redefine their organization by dropping the term "pro-choice". Polling data has shown them that this term is becoming out of favour, because the obvious question is what choice are you pro?  And then the dreaded word "abortion" is spoken and people back away. Even supporters of abortion don't really want to talk about it - most people are uncomfortable with the word and all that it conveys. If you don't believe me, try saying the word at the next exercise class you attend or drop it into the conversation at the next dinner party you are invited to.

There has been an equal reaction within the anti-choice side to steer away from the word abortion, such as the label "anti-abortion", and use the broader term "pro-life".

Today's newsletter from Human Life International has two articles on this very topic and the two writers are on opposite sides of the issue.

First, the article by Dr. Denise Hunnell, The Language of Life,  is quite convincing in its support of using pro-life to describe the movement.

She states that, even if abortion should be made illegal, the culture of death would pop up elsewhere, because what has happened is a societal change that has devalued life. It began with the contraceptive mentality, that separated sex from procreation, and has led to all sorts of life-denying attitudes, which lead to euthanasia, embryo experimentation, etc.

Kristan Hawkins in her article, Why I am anti-abortion,
says that mothers against drunk drivers don't call themselves mothers for sober driving, nor did those who fought for the freedom of slaves call themselves pro-free workers, but called themselves anti-slavery.

Two leaders with very different views on how to call their movement. So who is right?

I see a couple of things here. Dr. Hunnell says that those who came to Washington for the March for Life were

" not just marching against abortion. We were marching in solidarity with the unborn, the elderly, the disabled, the infirmed, and all the vulnerable whose lives might be deemed unworthy by a society poisoned by the culture of death."

But that is not why the March was begun. It was organized by Nellie Gray in 1974 precisely to be anti-abortion. The fact that people now include, in their cause, euthanasia and other issues should not change the original intent. Abortion is still the reason for the March and should be held as such, front and center.

The second thing that I see is that any people who have told me they favour pro-life over anti-abortion, are usually the ones who don't come out for the life-saving events. Along with choosing to be called pro-life is an unwillingness to confront the culture on the issue of abortion. Despite their beliefs, I find that they evade the confrontation and somehow the term pro-life gives them permission to do that. There is a desire to not offend anyone.

But the tragedy of abortion should offend all of us. I have to say that I think Kristin wins this debate.
We have to fight against the pro-abortion forces in our society with an aggression that most people don't want to be associated with. But we can't fight evil with a meek attitude. We have to fight evil by calling it what it is and by exposing it to the light so that everyone can see it.


"But if something is as evil as abortion, you should want to be clear about what you are fighting against. After all, the slavery abolitionists of the past were anti-slavery, not pro-worker freedom. The anti-smoking campaigns of the 1980s and 90s were just that, not pro-clean air campaigns. It’s Mothers Against Drunk Driving, not Mothers For Sober Driving. It’s anti-war, not pro-absence of conflict. If you truly believe in your heart that something is wrong, you must say it and not be afraid of putting it in a negative light."


h/t Human Life International

No comments: