The problem that I have with the “pro-life” movement in general is that much of it appeals to the woman as being the victim/or merely the accomplice to the crime. Rather, the mother is the transgressor who in the majority of cases, knowingly tested positive in her pregnancy test and nevertheless, storms into the abortion mill with premeditated murder. Whether the sin is done in ignorance or not, she is still morally culpable before God. She is not a victim. To make matters more cumbersome, some in the pro-life movement, such as Dr. Albert Mohler (http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/04/01/the-briefing-04-01-16/), who is considered a stalwart defender of Christianity, says this shocking statement,
But here’s where the pro-life movement returns back to say, who is the guilty party in an abortion? It is the person who brings about the death of the child. The woman seeking the abortion is not without moral responsibility, but she is not herself bringing about the death of the unborn human baby. That’s the crucial issue here, and that’s why the pro-life movement has consistently sought to criminalize abortion at the level of the person performing the abortion. That is, unlike what Nicholas Kristof argues here, a morally consistent argument and it has been consistent over time.”
Really? Can an abortive mother who has malice of forethought be considered a victim and be morally responsible the same time? Morally responsible for what? when they are already deemed a victim. His words now hold no water. This statement from Dr. Mohler violates the law of non-contradiction. With all due respect to Dr. Mohler, there is not a shred of evidence given from Scripture. Simple logic obliterates this mentality. Imagine a young teenager who is desperate for money and convenience’s sake, bullies another teenager named David in school for his money. The bully bruises David and leaves cuts and scars on his face. The next day, the bully endeavors to beat-up David again. However, he is not at school. The bully is desperate and needs money soon. He finds out that David is at home with an illness. Since the bully is unable to drive, he calls some of his friends who lives in the same neighborhood to go into the home of David and rob him. The bully promises to give them movie tickets if they enter David’s home and rob him. Now, is the bully the victim? because he did not act out the crime? Of course, not! Yet, that is the absurdity of the lingo used by many in the pro-life movement when mothers abort their babies.
Here is the question I have for those who think abortive mothers are victims. When is the mother who hires the assassin, become guilty of murder? We have the audacity to label wives and mothers as guilty of murder for hiring a hit-man to murder their husbands and children, but we dare not label mothers who storms into the abortion mill for abortive services as murderers? Really? If that is the case, then the word victim has no meaning at all. We have committed fallacies and undermined biblical anthropology (Romans 3:23). I dare some of the proponents in the pro-life movement who advocate the notion that abortive mothers are victims share that with ardent pro-choice proponents at the abortion mill. It does more harm than good. How so? Take it from Kristina Harrhof:
I asked the pro-aborts in an abortion group the following: “What do you guys think of Cruz and Trump referring to those of you who have aborted as “victims”? Do you agree that that’s appropriate terminology to use for someone who is getting an abortion or who is post-abortive?”
Here were their responses:
— “No. It is not. Abortion is a choice. Not something that is inflicted upon you.” — Laura
— “No. Victims don’t have choices and don’t decide to be victims.” — Donna
— “Neither Trump not Cruz have a clue what they’re talking about. I’m not a victim. I exercised my right to choose and in return [obtained] the freedoms to pursue my American Dream. What they propose is just offensive.” — Susan
— “I emphatically disagree that it is an appropriate usage. It is a dishonest, manipulative, cowardly choice of words.” — Kurt
— “This is a long-standing tactic of theirs [to label us all “victims”]. Because of course women are too stupid to know what they’re doing.” — Evan
— “[Like] We are incapable of sound judgement.” — Cheri
— “Not unless the person was forced into it. Otherwise, they made a choice. If they feel regret, they’re not a victim, but I do feel bad for them.” — Sandra
— “‘Victim’ is only appropriate in a discussion about abortion for someone who is forced to have an abortion.” — Kristen
I then asked Kristen, “Do you think, by and large, that women are being forced to have abortions in the U.S?”
— “No, I do not. I believe that most abortions are taking place following a very tough decision that has to be made by the woman who is pregnant. I do not believe that the majority of abortions in the US are forced. Do I believe that some pregnant women are forced to have abortions? Yes I do. Because I know men controlling enough to do things either way. But that is why I do not support the use of the word “victim” to describe just anyone who has an abortion.”
Folks, even the victims here are denying that they are victims. In fact, they find it offensive terminology. It’s not winning them over; it’s making them feel like we’re calling them “idiots.”
And frankly, as my friend Patte put it in her video, there are some who are supporting the use of this term who should know better theologically.
Paul too committed sins in ignorance with his involvement in the murder of Christians. In his ignorance, he still labeled himself a “blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” (1 Timothy 1:12-13). He had no excuse for his nefarious sins. Did Paul shy away from biblical labels that could offend or strike a nerve? No! Because he upheld the doctrine of love, he was incited to tell the truth. Father of biblical counselor, Jay Adams has this to say about the significance concerning accuracy in labels:
In order to identify the cause of a problem, we need to decide whether the problem is an error, a wilful sin, or a failure to overcome a pattern. In doing so, we must recognize that if the Bible calls a given practice a “sin,” it is wrong to call it anything else. For instance, to call sin “sickness” or “immaturity,” or to use any of the other psychological or sociological jargon that distorts or disguises its true nature, is to lead yourself and your counselee astray.
Words, the semanticists tell us, are signs of the things they signify. But that’s not all. They are also signposts. Label a sinful action or practice a “sickness,” and you have altered the situation significantly. To call homosexual behavior “sickness” for instance, when the Bible calls it an “abomination” and “something worthy of death” is to point the homosexual in the direction of a physician for the solution to his problem. To call it “sin” is to point him to Jesus Christ. Labels, you see, are signposts, not merely signs; they point in the direction of a solution. Therefore, it is very important to give marriage problems either biblical or biblically derived labels. Other labels tell lies about problems and inevitably point to the wrong solutions.
Per Jay Adams’s words, they almost seem prophetic to this topic (not that he is a prophet). I am afraid, we have circumvented his wise counsel. I pray that Christian leaders divert from their errors and ask Christ for forgiveness. As teachers, we will be responsible before God for every careless word we say. Some words are minuscule in its implications and some are vast in its implication. There is too much at stake. Thousands of babies are murdered everyday. We need to be anchored in Scripture, not in the philosophies of the pro-life movement. At this juncture, I can say, I am pro-life, but I feel uncomfortable being part of the pro-life movement. There is too much toxic perspectives. Now in this milieu, to be pro-life, needs to mean something more than trying to preserve the life of the baby. To be pro-life, is to see the nefarious crime of abortion as murder.
An ardent upholding of the inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture demands that we be faithful with biblical labels despite the legal and political milieu in society. To go contrary to that is to be inconsistent and arbitrary.
Lastly, a lack of empathy towards preborn babies is due a logical fallacy that appeals to emotions rather to an objective standard. When one appeals to human emotion or political correctness, the victim who is the little image bearer is dehumanized, which inevitably fosters the perpetuation of child sacrifice.
I leave you all with a quote for further meditation concerning this issue:
For the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.” – John Calvin – Commentary, Exodus 21:22