What does Pro-Life mean? For some, Pro-Life means opposition to “choice.” This is how the media presents it. This is how feminists present it. Emotionally charged arguments are often successful not because they are rational, or have the best evidence, but because they aim at people’s feelings.
Currently, there is not a better time in our history than now to present such an argument. Children have been raised in a school system, and they have had various media/social media outlets pump their minds, with the idea that “feelings are what determine truth.” How a person feels has been the justification used by many to justify the redefining of marriage, of biological sexes, intersectionality, and recently the attempted impeachment of the currently sitting President.
A Prevailing Attitude
Sadly, this attitude has infiltrated the Evangelical Church. Often displayed in the common refrain: “This is what this passage means to me,” or “I feel like the text is saying this or that.”
Once I read a lady commenting on Jesus clearing out the temple with a whip of cords, overturning money tables and cracking animals and sharply rebuking people in anger. She said, “That just seems so out of character for Jesus.” More than likely it wasn’t the meek and mild and ever so polite Jesus that so many in the Church sing love ballads about that turned her off. Emotionally that type of Jesus just didn’t sit well with her.
She’s not alone. There are others that hate the idea that you should fear God. “Oh you must mean reverence and humility, not actual fear. We shouldn’t fear God, He’s too loving.” But that so far afield from Jesus who taught the exact opposite: “So have no fear of them [mankind], for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known…do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him [God] who can destroy both soul and body in hell[-fire]” (Matt 10.26a, 28; emphasis mine).
So, Jesus says to fear God rather than your peers (fellow human beings). The argument against this will say “yeah, but Jesus doesn’t really mean you need to fear God. He just means have greater reverence for God than men.” Actually, the context is in the sense of being afraid. Better to be afraid of God and the consequences of displeasing Him, than being afraid of any man, woman or child you come into contact with because God has the final say and will judge the motives of your heart (cf. Jer 17.10).
Variances in how such things are understood comes down to the use of language. Jesus being angry seems out of character for Jesus being love. Jesus telling us to fear God seems inconsistent with the knowledge of a loving God. In these cases, “anger,” “love,” and “fear” are emotionally charged words.
As it is with…
The same may be said when the debate regarding abortion arises. The debate is framed with emotionally charged language: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. But if we take care in defining our terms, while stepping back and looking at the situation as a whole we will find that both sides are actually pro-choice. The question is what are the two polarized positions pro-choice about?
“The semantic abuse in the abortion debate is even more clear. Abortionists do not call themselves “pro-death.” Rather, they choose words· that bridge religious and political lines of thought. Most Americans believe that they ought to have the right to make their own choices without interference from government. The pro-abortionists chose “pro-choice” to put the best face on their bloody business.”
To be Pro-Life means that you “choose life over and above death.” Pro-Life in this sense is “pro-choice,” but opponents in the debate want to form the argument in such a way as to demonstrate that Pro-Lifer’s are against something. If you can convince the populace of a negative in your opponent’s position then they are less likely to embrace it. Which is precisely the reason why Pro-Choice advocates don’t want you showing pics of little babies hacked to bits as they are torn from the security of their mother’s wombs. Better to keep that stuff quiet. Such “disturbing” imagery will present a negative view against abortion and the Pro-Choice movement.
What the Argument amounts to
If we are upfront with one another, then we ought to be able to admit that the argument is not a choice about science, or education, or philosophy, but one regarding ethical matters. In saying that I am not denying that science, education or philosophy having anything to add. They do. But by not focusing on it as an ethical issue—which is encased in a semantic minefield—we miss the point of the argument as a whole.
Ethics for Life…
The Pro-Life stance—those opposed to infant murder in the womb—say that it is wrong to kill one’s offspring. They also argue that it is wrong to profit off of such an industry. While opposing the choice of death via murder, they support the choice of life; even if that life must be given up for adoption, or living with various disabilities throughout the course of their life. The Pro-Life movement doesn’t hate women, but loves and cherishes them, including those who have yet to open their eyes and lungs to the world outside of the womb. Pro-Life exalts mothers as well. Pro-Life is about the choice of the sanctity of life, seeing it as precious. They do deny the choice of abortion, that is true, but on ethical grounds. “Thou shall not kill.”
Ethics for Self…
On the other hand, the Pro-Choice stance—those opposed to regulations on when pregnant women can abort their offspring—say that it is wrong for others to tell them what is right or wrong. While opposing, in most cases, death of those already born, they have no problem killing that which is alive and well until the point of violent removal. They say that it is wrong for another to tell another woman what to do with her body. They say it is wrong to remove the autonomous standard of self-governance without liability. This would include not only the termination of a pregnancy, but also restrictions placed on their libido.
The issue is that both sides of the argument see their position and the positions of those opposing them as right and wrong (respectively). Which makes the issue ethical, not anything else! Sometimes you will get an objection from well-meaning people that say that you cannot legislate morality, or that it is wrong for one group’s morality to be imposed on another. However, if we are honest and forthright, we ought to be able to recognize the folly of such a position. Someone’s morality is always being pushed on another.
If you have laws against stealing, then you are enforcing your morality against those who want to make a living through theft. The same might be said on a variety of laws and bylaws of a civil governing body or an institution or corporation. Some companies expect their employees to dress in a certain manner, and those that violate those bylaws are punished for failing to adhere to the moral standards instituted by them. Of course, you will always have those that want to cry out against such laws/bylaws, because they hate the idea that another has authority over them. Disobedient children who do not get their way in a store will throw fits, yell at their parents and fling themselves on the floor or hit anything that they think they can get away with (i.e., another sibling perhaps). Why? Because they have little desire to be governed by the ethical norms of their parents. Children want to legislate their own moral standard, but the loving parent forbids this and enforces those moral requirements necessary to raise a mature adult.
The question that needs to be asked is “Pro-What?” What are the “Pro’s” really for and what are they really against? We could sugar coat the issue. We could put some nice Invisalign forms on it and make it appear nicer than what it really ought to be. But the blunt answer. The answer that parties on both sides of the issue cringe over, because they would rather play nice that save that which is perishing. Better to keep face with our peers than risk offending someone. Better to make nice than to this vile practice what it is, and what those who support it are really for—“Pro-Death!”
Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates are fighting over choice. It is the difference in the choice that we ought to be concerned about. And if we really love those unborn that are being slaughtered under the guise of choice, under the protective blanket of supposed medical care, then we need to shine a spotlight on the fact that babies are being murdered. And the bright light needs to highlight not just the doctors or the politicians or wild-eyed liberals that are praising this sacrifice to Molech, but the mothers who mercilessly drag their children to the altar of death. What is abortion really about? Pro-Death.
I could offer some qualifications for those I just made uncomfortable, but I won’t. No qualifications are needed or warranted, but repentance is. And for those that fail to speak the truth (out of love), the blood of millions will be on whose hands, do you suppose? I think the answer is rather self-evident.
 All Scripture unless otherwise noted shall be of the English Standard Version (ESV).
 Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press & American Vision Press, 1988), 128.