In my years as a seminary professor of ethics, I saw few things more sinister and devious than the seemingly innocuous statement, “a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end.” That’s not because life isn’t sacred from beginning to end, but because those who use it do so consistently to hide a serious ethical confusion.
Recently a group calling itself “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden,” spearheaded by long-time leaders of the evangelical Left Ronald Sider and Richard Mouw, released a statement that begins,
“As Pro-life evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe a Biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end.”
It continues,
“Poverty kills millions every year. So does lack of healthcare and smoking. Racism kills. Unless we quickly make major changes, devastating climate change will kill tens of millions. Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues.”
What many people won’t recognize is that this statement twists the meaning of “pro-life.”
As I demonstrated in my booklet “How Does the Creation Care Movement Threaten the Pro-Life Movement,” this use of the term “pro-life” runs directly contrary to standard dictionary definitions, all which define “pro-life” as opposition to abortion—not opposition to hunger, not opposition to poverty, not opposition to practices that lead to poor health—opposition to abortion.
Far worse, the new statement demonstrates serious ethical failures: the failure to distinguish between intentional and accidental harm, and the failure to distinguish between life and death, on the one hand, and better and worse health, on the other.
By so doing, it obscures the meaning of “pro-life” and undermines the pro-life movement. In abortion, every “successful” procedure intentionally kills a human being.
Poverty, lack of health care, and smoking often lead to poor health and sometimes to death, but none of them involves someone intentionally killing another person—and neither does climate change.
And while racial bigotry does involve unjust intent, it rarely leads to intentional killing. Another serious ethical failure in this statement is confusing negative rights (against harm) with positive rights (to benefits). As I demonstrate in my booklet Social Justice vs. Biblical Justice: How Good Intentions Undermine Justice and Gospel, negative rights are consistent and enforceable, but positive rights are inherently self-contradictory and unenforceable. Negative rights are the implication of true, Biblical justice; positive rights are the expression of Marxist/socialist egalitarianism.
All of what you say above is true.
There is another difficulty with the argument presented by this group. At no time in history has a society that turned to government control of the economy made life better, nor even made life expectancy longer, than contemporary societies with more capitalistic economies.
We are in a civil war and the woke Evangelicals above are on the wrong side. Communists has been using race to divide America since V.I. Lenin told them to do so.
Any Christian who supports communist front groups or ideals and not America and American ideals, such as the family or One Nation Under God, in this critical time, should be called out for it like you have done here.
“Far worse, the new statement demonstrates serious ethical failures: the failure to distinguish between intentional and accidental harm, and the failure to distinguish between life and death, on the one hand, and better and worse health, on the other.”
This was intentional harm and rest assured Trump will answer for it in either this life or the next: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/lawyers-say-they-can-t-find-parents-545-migrant-children-n1244066?fbclid=IwAR3xceAcdr0nYISWU8KvjHEGgxOop13oGoxwjbFZUbHR8P_7Do_kDjDKPuA
You’re right about terminology, so why not use the terms “pro-fetus” or “anti-abortion” instead? I mean, the term “pro-life” suggests that its adherents support ALL life beyond immediate birth and that’s clearly not the case, so it would be helpful if the ambiguity in language was eliminated.
Dear Concerned,
You are correct that the term Pro-life doesn’t exactly mean pro life under all circumstances. The term Pro-life should be understood to mean Pro-innocent-life as you know. The support of life “from conception through natural death” is often used to make a moral equivalence between the life of the innocent and the life of the guilty. This is what you are doing. You have made the case for the life of the guilty being of greater moral worth than the life of the innocent, in that, as the innocent have been killed, the guilty receive a defense from your words. You are saying a lot while being very careful to not be explicit. You are free to do so, however, please remember that the standard of justice that you recommend for others is the standard of justice that you endorse for yourself. If you are unwilling to protect the innocent, who will protect you when the time comes? I recommend that you pray for mercy as I do. As sinners, we all require the mercy of God for our eternal well being. I don’t think that you understand the gravity of the comments that you have made.
We affirm the principle you state—that justice applies impartially to all. We also recognize that we’re sinners, like everyone else, and, trusting in Christ’s righteousness and His atoning death on our behalf, we rejoice that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Your comment, however, involves what logicians call a petitio principii, that is, a begging of the question. It assumes that your view of the impact of the continued use of fossil fuels is correct while ours is wrong. Further, your comment also neglects the distinction between intentional injury and unintentional injury—the latter is still bad, but it is less bad than the first, and when it stems from true nescience (lack of knowledge) instead of from negligence, it is not sinful. Life is full of tradeoffs in which to enjoy one benefit, or a bundle of benefits, we risk some harm, or bundle of harms. When you get in your car to drive, you risk injury not only to yourself but also to others if you get into a collision you could not avoid. Yet you do it, thinking that the risk of harm is less than the promise of benefits. Similarly, we think the benefits of using fossil fuels far outweigh the risks—and there seems to be little evidence to the contrary, while the amazing improvements in human health and life expectancy directly traceable to the reliable, scalable, affordable energy derived from them constitute strong evidence for that view.