Why Rachel Held Evans is Wrong to Tell Christians to Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part III [Seth Gruber]

(This is the third part in a three-part series responding to an article by Rachel Held Evans, which you can read here. This series is a joint effort between Seth Gruber and Clinton Wilcox. For part one in this series, go here. For part two in this series, go here.)

In our previous article, we responded to Evans' first two points. In this article, we'll respond to her last two points and wrap up with some concluding thoughts. The two points we'll be responding to are as follows:

3. Pro-life advocates should support, rather than oppose, efforts to help low-income families care for their children.
4. If we want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate in this country, we must support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.

3.  Pro-life advocates should support, rather than oppose, efforts to help low-income families care for their children

Besides saying that “many” conservatives have opposed such bills, highlighting conservative opposition to Obama’s “initiative aimed at improving the distribution of free or low-cost diapers to poor families struggling to care for their babies”, Evans provides no proof or evidence that pro-life advocates oppose efforts to help low-income families care for their children. If she is going to make such a claim, she needs to provide proof that such a dubious claim is in fact true.

Evans has often written about the importance of being consistently pro-life in all areas and living a life that reflects our belief in the importance and sacredness of all life! Evans, it seems, is working to expand the culturally accepted term “pro-life” from its “anti-abortion” meaning to include affordable health care, poverty alleviation, paid family and medical leave, helping families of special needs children, racial reconciliation, etc., but she does so at the expense of pro-lifers' central conviction. Jay Hobbs, editor in chief of PregnancyHelpNews.com, writes in his article responding to Rachel Evans entitled “No, Rachel Held Evans, voting for Hillary Clinton is not Pro-Life” that:

A pro-life conviction comes from recognizing the inherent value and dignity of every human life. That is why we oppose abortion in all cases. We can argue a bigger tent, but never at the expense of that central conviction. Here’s where Held Evans gets in the weeds, and it’s where she stays. In trying to expand the definition of “pro-life,” she’s doing the very opposite, redefining the term to exclude the one issue on which we “pro-lifers” unanimously agree.

By refocusing the issue on the importance of poverty, health-care, racial issues, etc., Evans compromises the very central conviction that unites pro-lifers (that abortion is an indefensible act of violence which takes the life of a defenseless unborn human person). She does this by encouraging us to vote for Hillary, who has shown her commitment to such issues. “Hillary Clinton has devoted much of her life to tackling these very issues, and she’s made them a centerpiece of her campaign” Evans says. The message Evans is sending to the Church is this:

If you are truly and consistently pro-life, you should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is committed to addressing issues that will enable us to care for families and children once they are born. Such a vote will help our country address the underlying causes that lead to unwanted pregnancies so that we can continue to decrease the abortion rate in America.

And our message for Rachel Held Evans and her like-minded friends is this:

Pro-lifers CAN’T support efforts to help low-income families care for their (born) children when it comes at the cost of electing a candidate to the highest office in the land who has also promised to fight for the “rights” of low-income families to take their unborn children to a clinic where a “doctor” will slaughter that child through dismemberment and use your tax-dollars to help pay for it.

Would we consider voting for Hillary Clinton if, while retaining all of her good policies to help low-income families, provide affordable health care, alleviate poverty, and bring racial reconciliation, she also promised to work tirelessly to secure and defend the rights of men to practice their bodily autonomy (without government interference) in how they choose to interact with their wives, be it physically abusive or not? I think not.

The bottom line is this: Pro-life advocates do support efforts to help low-income families care for their children, both before and after birth. The prominence of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in America is proof of this. Time magazine reported in 2010 that “recent estimates indicate there are now more than five times as many CPCs in the U.S. as there are abortion clinics”. Given that pro-life laws have shut down many abortion clinics over the last several years, it is likely that the ratio of CPCs to abortion clinics is even higher now. So while pro-life advocates care for and support efforts to help low-income families care for their children, we cannot vote for a candidate whose policies and promises to care for such families and children only begin at birth.

4.  If we want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate in this country, we must support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable

We have only one question for Rachel Held Evans on this point: What type of contraception are you referring to? Preventative or abortifacient? While there are many who oppose the usage of contraceptives on moral grounds, contraception is in a different camp than abortion because contraception is meant to prevent the conception of a human being, whereas abortifacients take the life of an unborn human being after it has begun. So even if someone has moral issues with contraception, we should not enforce that moral position in law. We should enforce the moral position that abortion is wrong and should be illegal in law because taking a life is still wrong, even if someone doesn’t believe they are actually taking a life (by way of analogy, we should still make infanticide illegal even though there are those who believe infanticide is morally licit and may want to take the life of their infant under certain conditions). Such non-abortifacient contraceptive methods should be accessible and affordable. And we agree with Rachel Evans that these methods do play a part in decreasing the abortion rate since many of the couples who would get pregnant without preventative contraceptives would most likely seek out abortion.

However, abortifacient drugs such as RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, Methotrexate & Misoprostol, and others, all have an abortifacient mechanism built into them. Let’s be clear: conception, not implantation, is the beginning of a new individual, a human person with intrinsic value and an inherent, natural ordering towards rationality. Abortifacient drugs are taken with the intent of causing an early abortion, and contraceptives are taken with the intent of stopping ovulation and blocking the sperm (thereby preventing conception).

If Rachel Held Evans is including abortifacients in her category of “contraception” when she says, “we must support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable”, then this is tantamount to saying:

If we want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate in this country, we must support efforts to make early-medication abortions more accessible and affordable.

Such a statement is clearly ludicrous because it is self-refuting. It can’t live by its own rules. We can’t reduce the abortion rate in America by supporting efforts to make early-medication abortion methods more accessible and affordable. Doing so only increases the abortion rate and makes it more difficult to track since many of these abortifacient drugs are available over the counter.

Rachel Evans has not specified what type of contraception she means, but there is good reason to believe that she is not opposed to at least some forms of abortifacients. We know this based off her admissions that she “believes the sacred personhood of an individual begins before birth” (no mention of conception), her statement that the “fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects dozens of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote”, and her questioning of whether we should count the loss of early embryonic life through natural miscarriages as deaths.

So yes, pro-life advocates should support efforts to make contraception accessible and affordable, but we already have a situation in which it is widely accessible and affordable. If you mean we should force the taxpayer to pay for it, that’s where we run into issues. Not getting it without paying for it is not the same thing as not being accessible and affordable.

Now, it is reasonable to believe that the use of such contraceptives will help decrease the abortion rate in America if the contraception we are discussing is purely preventative. If it is an abortifacient or has the potential to be abortifacient, then increasing the accessibility and affordability of such methods will only lead to the loss of more unborn life and raise the abortion rate in America.

A final word to Rachel Held Evans and like-minded progressive evangelicals…

We have posed the question multiple times.

If you believe that you can be pro-life while voting for a pro-choice candidate because you believe they will help keep the abortion rate lower and address the underlying causes that lead women to choose abortion in the first place, then would you consistently apply that same ethic if the social justice issue in question was spousal abuse?

Would you proudly blog about and encourage believers by saying:

So even though I think wife-beating is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it, I often vote for candidates who promise to fight to keep wife-beating legal, when I think their policies will do the most to address the health and economic concerns that drive men to beat their wives in the first place. For me, it’s not just about being pro-wife; it’s about being pro-life.

If not, then we demand a response explaining the fundamental difference between the two scenarios that makes the argument reasonable in the former, but not in the latter, case.

The only difference we can see is that if anything, our example doesn’t go far enough. Spousal abuse, while a horrific and morally disgusting practice, is not taking the lives of over one million wives each year in the United States. Abortion, however, is taking the lives of over one million precious unborn human persons each year in the United States alone, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and well over fifty-three million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since the legalization of Roe v. Wade in 1973.

If Clinton gets elected, as Evans hopes, she and the rest of the evangelical-left who voted for her will be in the difficult position of having to explain:

1. How you can claim God’s love for kids while voting for a woman who says that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights” ,
2. How you can claim to care for the defenseless and those on the fringes of society while voting for a woman who opposed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have made abortion illegal after 20 weeks, at which point substantial medical evidence proves that the unborn can feel the pain of dismemberment, while also accusing said bill of “not being based on sound science” ,
   
3. How you can claim to be for women’s rights while supporting a woman who champions and promises to continue protecting the rights of women to take their unborn baby girls to be slaughtered by abortionists,
   
4. How you can vote for a woman who defended Planned Parenthood after videos exposed the organization’s trafficking of aborted baby body parts by saying, “I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood has been the object of such a concentrated attack for so many years”,
   
5. How you can quote Bible verses like “love your neighbor” while voting for a woman who wants to continue defending and protecting the rights of women to abort their unborn children through dismemberment; children who are the most vulnerable members of the human family, and most in need of being treated as “neighbors”,
   
6. How you can support a woman who said about racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger, “I admire her enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision… I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life”,
   
7. How you can claim to be pro-life and vote for a woman who said in a video addressing the American people, “I’m proud to stand with Planned Parenthood, I’ll never stop fighting to protect the ability and right of every woman in this country to make her own health decisions”, when we all know that when Hillary says “health decisions”, this is what she really means,
   
8. How you can claim to want improved health-care options for all people, while voting for a woman who said, “When politicians talk about defunding Planned Parenthood, they’re talking about blocking millions of women, men and young people from life-saving, preventive care.” You know that “life-saving, preventive care" includes the option for pregnant mothers to pay an abortionist to slaughter their unborn child through dismemberment; which suggests that you really only care about improved health care-options for born people,
   
9. And lastly, how you can vote for a woman who, as Susan Michelle of Live Action News points out, “is willing to look past the illegal actions and indiscretions of Planned Parenthood”, given their “history of fraud, supporting sex-selective abortion, willingness to cover up child sex-trafficking, failure to report child sexual abuse, dissemination of inaccurate medical information to women, and even lying about providing mammograms”, while claiming that pro-life means caring for all lives, be they children, women, or the unborn.

Evangelicals, I implore you: Don’t support Hillary Clinton. Don’t support an ageist demagogue who won’t even acknowledge that the unborn person has constitutional rights. Abortion has been legal far too long and has taken the lives of far too many unborn children. Don’t claim to be pro-life and simultaneously vote for a candidate who is committed to protect the “freedom” and “rights” of women to take those lives you claim to care about to be torn apart by abortionists. Don’t claim to believe in the inherent value and dignity of unborn persons while lending your vote to someone who might decrease the abortion rate, while at the same time boldly promising to Planned Parenthood that she will always have their back and will be their “partner in the election and for the long haul”.

Too many precious unborn human lives are on the line for us to risk anything but outright opposition to a candidate who promises to increase funding and access to abortion, to ensure a woman’s right to take her unborn child to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider and have that child killed so that she may live the life she wants. We hope and pray that no Christian would ever think that support for a candidate like this is morally upright or permissible.

Why Rachel Held Evans is Wrong to Tell Christians to Vote For Hillary Clinton, Part II [Seth Gruber]

(This is the second in a three-part series responding to an article by Rachel Held Evans, which you can read here. This series is a joint effort between Seth Gruber and Clinton Wilcox. For part one in this series, go here.)

In our previous article, we responded to various points Evans raised in her introduction. In this article, we'll respond to her first two points, leaving the last two for the final article in this series. The two points we'll be responding to are as follows:

1. Voting pro-choice is not the same as voting for abortion.
2. Criminalizing abortion won't necessarily reduce abortions.

1. Voting pro-choice is not the same as voting for abortion

This is tantamount to saying:

Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice on wife beating is not the same as voting for wife beating.

Regardless of your pro- or anti-position on wife beating, a vote for a political candidate who believes that men should have the freedom to choose whether they want to beat their wives or not and has promised to do everything in his power to protect that right by law, would be a vote FOR wife beating. And we would discourage people from voting for such a candidate and would be appalled if our fellow believing brothers and sisters chose to vote for that candidate anyways.

In her first point, Evans mentions that the abortion issue doesn’t fall neatly into black and white categories but is much more complex. She seeks to illustrate the “supposed” complexities of the abortion issue by pointing to the frequency of early miscarriages, the historical disagreement among evangelicals regarding when personhood begins, and the potential consequences of criminalizing abortion.

Regarding early miscarriages, Evans says:

The fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those “natural abortions” as deaths?

To be clear, Rachel Evans is talking about miscarriages, the spontaneous yet unfortunate death of the early embryo, who has already come into existence, and is itself a distinct, living, and whole human being with a “dynamic orientation towards self-expressive activity” (Kaczor, 93).

Christopher Kaczor makes the simple observation that “death rates have no relationship to personhood” (Kaczor 131). High early embryo mortality rate does not raise any such question regarding when personhood arises in the early embryo. “For centuries throughout the world, indeed until the twentieth century, the rate of infant mortality was more than 50%” (Kaczor 131), but no one would question whether such infants were persons or point to the complexity of determining the line for personhood.

So why does Rachel Evans do this with the unborn? Does she not believe the unborn is entitled to rights of personhood from the moment of conception? She hasn’t said so. What she has said is that for her, pro-life means to “believe the sacred personhood of an individual begins before birth”, but not necessarily at conception. The belief that life begins at conception and that the embryo we once were began at that moment is the most fundamental pro-life belief, so it is deeply troubling to us that Rachel Evans has not claimed to believe that.  And the failure to confess this foundational, pro-life belief is perhaps what enables her to assume that a high early embryo mortality rate translates to confusion over when personhood arises, even though she wouldn’t dare pose such a question in regards to high infant mortality rate.

So yes Rachel, we do count all those “early abortions” (or miscarriages) as real deaths.

Regarding the historical disagreement among evangelicals on when personhood arises, Evans says,

When does personhood begin—at fertilization? implantation? the presence of brainwaves? the second trimester?  There is disagreement among Christians about this, (and historically, even among evangelicals), so is it really my place, or the government's job, to impose my beliefs on people of all faiths and convictions?

Pointing to historical disagreement among evangelicals regarding when personhood arises does absolutely nothing to prove that we don’t know when human personhood begins. We used to disagree regarding whether African Americans were full persons and whether women were entitled to the full rights of a man. Yet, we look back at those events and wish that the correct view had been “imposed” on the rest of society, because we were imposing our incorrect view of human personhood on blacks and women by depriving them of rights they deserved intrinsically.

Rachel Evans, we appeal to you as brothers in Christ and gently remind you that it is your place as a follower of Jesus to love your neighbor and speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves. So are the unborn our neighbors from the earliest stages of development (i.e. conception)? The science of embryology is clear that human life and development begins at the moment of fertilization (even abortion-choice advocates know this) . We then look to philosophy to answer the question of value and personhood. (See the 5-minute pro-lifer) If you don’t ground the genesis of human personhood at conception, then you are espousing a performance view of personhood that says we are only valuable because of arbitrarily-determined capacities or characteristics. Why? Because if human personhood is not grounded in the human being’s nature, which comes to be at conception, then what explains value? What determines personhood? If it’s not intrinsic (the unborn being valuable by virtue of the kind of thing that it is), then it has to be something the unborn can do, perform, or realize at a later stage in its development (quickening, ability to feel pain, detection of brain waves, memory, etc..). And if the latter is true, then we must be prepared to accept that there are many born people who don’t have such capacities and abilities, and therefore, we must also call into question whether they are full persons yet.

So yes Rachel, it is your place and our place to “impose” the belief that human life and personhood begins at conception and it is wrong to take the life of a defenseless, innocent, unborn human person through legalized abortion on the rest of society.

Regarding the potential consequences of criminalizing abortion, Evans says,

If abortion is criminalized, should every miscarriage be investigated by police? Should in vitro fertilization be outlawed?

If abortion is made illegal (“criminalized”), a miscarriage will still be a spontaneous and unfortunate loss of life with no one to blame. In a post-Roe world, miscarriages will still occur, and as long as such miscarriages are a spontaneous and uncaused event, then women won’t be charged or blamed, any more than we would charge a woman for murder whose son slipped and fell to his death while rock-climbing. Miscarriages are more often than not extremely traumatic and sad events in the life a mother, father, or couple and such an event should be acknowledged as a real loss for which grief is appropriate.

However, in a post-Roe world, if there were questionable circumstances surrounding a miscarriage that caused people to question whether such an event was spontaneous, than the police would be required to look into it, just as they are required to do so when there may be reason to believe that the death of a born child may be linked to a family member. In such a world, abortifacient “contraceptives” would also be outlawed, so inducing an “early-abortion” would require more old-fashioned techniques that would likely leave behind evidence of such an act. If such an investigation was warranted and led to the discovery that the “miscarriage” in question was caused and self-induced by the mother or someone else, then we would be required to charge said person with first-degree murder. If the early abortion was induced by someone other than the mother, a secondary charge for crimes against the mother would also be required.

So no, Rachel, if abortion were made illegal, not every miscarriage would be investigated by police, but only those for which there were good reasons to assume, or evidence to warrant an investigation, that the “miscarriage” in question was actually an induced abortion.

Regarding in vitro fertilization, it’s beyond the scope of this article to give a full treatment of the morality or immorality of the procedure. However, excess embryos are always created through IVF. This is because the process is very expensive and carries extreme risks to the mother in extracting her ova, so excess embryos are created to give the process the greatest chance of forming an embryo that will successfully implant into the mother. These excess embryos that are not ultimately implanted into the woman are either used for experimentation, or sometimes stored away. Since excess human embryos are created and ultimately destroyed, experimented on, etc., IVF, as it is currently practiced, is highly immoral and should be outlawed, even now.

2. Criminalizing abortion won’t necessarily reduce abortions

Evans’ argument here seems wrong, on the face of it. If people are generally law-abiding citizens, then most of them will follow the law. Of course a lot of women will still abort, but even those who do still abort should be punished when they do so. This is true whether or not the number of abortions have been reduced. The unborn are still full human beings, and taking their lives should bring with it legal penalties. Additionally, as was the case before Roe was decided on in 1973, women were often granted immunity if they released the name of the abortionist who did the procedure. There are bigger fish to fry, and going after the abortionist will save more lives in the long run.

The assumption in Evans’ argument here is that we shouldn’t make abortion illegal, because that won’t necessarily even reduce the number of abortions anyway, but instead should be “working to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies using the tools we already have”.

In the introduction, Evans wrote the following:

So even though I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it, I often vote for pro-choice candidates when I think their policies will do the most to address the health and economic concerns that drive women to get abortions in the first place. For me, it’s not just about being pro-birth; it’s about being pro-life.

But let’s think about that for a moment. Suppose we weren’t talking about abortion, but spousal abuse. We’re going to change a few words around. Let’s see if Rachel’s argument still holds up:

So even though I think wife-beating is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it, I often vote for candidates who promise to fight to keep wife-beating legal, when I think their policies will do the most to address the health and economic concerns that drive men to beat their wives in the first place. For me, it’s not just about being pro-wife; it’s about being pro-life.

If this argument doesn’t sit well with you, but you agree with the former argument as Evans presents it, then what is the fundamental difference between the two scenarios that makes the argument reasonable in the former, but not in the latter, case?

Evans points out that in areas where abortion is illegal and heavily restricted, their abortion rates were no lower than the rest of the world. She goes on to say, “In fact in Latin America, a region with highly restrictive abortion laws, one in three pregnancies (32%) ended in abortion in 2010--2014, higher than any other region”. Such thinking is dangerous as it often leads to asking this question:

If women are going to get abortions anyway, shouldn’t we just keep it legal so that it’s at least safe?

Frank Beckwith deals with this question by asking another question: “Should we then legalize child pornography and the hitman profession because we can’t stop all people from obtaining such ‘goods’ and services?” (Beckwith, 122). Clearly not. Some choices are wrong and require us to forbid them from being made for the very reason that those choices hurt or end the life of innocent human persons with intrinsic value.

Aside from that, Evans has not really proven anything. In fact, she’s guilty of cherry picking evidence in order to prove her claim.

First, you can’t just look at Latin America, with highly restrictive abortion laws, and argue, ipso facto, that abortion laws don’t reduce abortion rates. You have to look at a country in a state in which abortion is illegal, and that same country in a state in which abortion is legal, and compare the two. Only then can you know whether or not restrictive abortion laws have actually worked in reducing abortions. Even then, it’s difficult to get accurate figures because abortions are not always accurately reported, especially if they are illegal.

Second, Evans looks at Latin America, but ignores a country like Ireland, in which only 1 in 9 pregnancies end in abortion. This suggests that there are other factors at work which affect the abortion rates, such as the fact that there are many developing countries in Latin America, which means more poverty and other situations in which women might feel they need abortions. If abortion laws were less restrictive, the number of abortions in Latin America might be much higher.

This leads us to finally address Evans’ claim. Will making abortion illegal significantly reduce the abortion rate in America?

Evans’ arguments assume a view of the law that we take issue with, namely that the law cannot and will not change people’s behavior. Thus, Evans’ statement: “women will continue to seek out abortions even if they are illegal”. Obviously, people break the law all the time. So to an extent, laws won’t change people’s behavior, but that doesn’t mean they can’t change some people’s, or even a majority of people’s, behavior. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his address to Western Michigan University in 1963, “It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important, also.” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if stealing and murder were legal, we would see a huge rise in theft and homicide cases. But thanks to the law, people are less likely to commit the act to which they are tempted.

Beckwith adds: “[T]he function of law is not always to reflect the attitudes and behavior of society but to serve as ‘a mechanism by which people are encouraged to do what they know is right, even when it is difficult to do so’” (David Reardon, Aborted Women: Silent No More, Acorn Books, Springfield, Il, 2002, p. 319, as quoted in Beckwith, 122). Reardon goes on to point out that while law reflects morality (the laws we make are based on moral standards of living), morality can also reflect law: “Studies in the psychology of morality reveal that the law is truly the teacher. One of the most significant conclusions of these studies shows that existing laws and customs are the most important criteria for deciding what is right or wrong for most adults in a given culture” (Reardon, 319-320, as quoted in Beckwith, ibid.). In other words, most adults don’t make choices based on their moral intuitions, but based on what the law has said is right or wrong. So if and when abortion is made illegal, it is safe to say that we will see a significant decrease in the abortion rate in America.

Now that we've responded to Evans' first two points, we'll respond to her last two points in our next article.

Works cited:

Beckwith, Francis J., Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2007.
Kaczor, Christopher, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice, First Edition, Routledge, New York, NY, 2010.

Why Rachel Held Evans is Wrong to Tell Christians to Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I [Seth Gruber]

(This is the first in a three-part series responding to an article by Rachel Held Evans. This series is a joint effort between Seth Gruber and Clinton Wilcox.)

Rachel Held Evans, a Christian blogger and author, recently published a post on her blog entitled “So you’re thinking of voting for a pro-choice candidate” (we encourage you to read her blog post in its entirety before reading our response) in which she encourages Christians to cast their vote for Hillary Clinton. Her main argument is that:

Since abortion rates have dropped to their lowest numbers during the last eight years under a democratic president, and because democratic social policies do more to create a culture with less unwanted pregnancies, Christians should vote for Hillary, whose policy proposals will help address the underlying causes of unwanted pregnancies and continue to decrease the abortion rate in America.

Let’s be clear: This response article is not pro-Trump. By critiquing Rachel’s article and arguments in support of voting for Hillary, we are not tacitly supporting Trump. We are setting out to do what our title suggests: giving reasons for why Rachel Held Evans is wrong to tell Christians to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Evans offers four main points to back up her argument that Christians should vote for Hillary (who will do a better job at keeping the abortion rate lower by addressing the underlying causes of unwanted pregnancies):

1. Voting pro-choice is not the same as voting for abortion

2. Criminalizing (making abortion illegal) abortion won’t necessarily reduce abortions

3. Pro-life advocates should support, rather than oppose, efforts to help low-income families care for
their children

4. We must support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable if we want to
dramatically reduce the abortion rate in this country.

Before we address each of Evans’ main points, we must take issue with her main argument. Evans says that, “In the eight years since we’ve had a pro-choice president, the abortion rate in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest since 1973”.  There are three things we must examine here.

First, is this claim true? Is the abortion rate at a record low in the United States? Evans provides no evidence or proof to back up such a claim. The Guttmacher Institute reports that this is indeed the case, so perhaps this should have been Evans’ source. Yet, in this same article we read:

While the overall abortion rate continued to decline, the proportion of abortions that were early medication procedures continued to increase. An estimated 239,400 early medication abortions were performed in 2011, representing 23% of all nonhospital abortions, an increase from 17% in 2008. The study estimated that 59% of all known abortion providers offer this service.

An “early medication abortion” refers to an abortifacient pill that is taken orally which induces an abortion. So according to the Guttmacher Institute, there has been a huge rise in abortions due to abortifacients and those numbers don’t seem to be included in the overall abortion rate. Furthermore, Guttmacher Institute admits that, “early medication abortion has become an integral part of abortion care” (Abortion Incidence and Access to Services In the United States, 2008), so to suggest that the abortion rate is at record lows in the United States is to only acknowledge and account for the number of surgical abortions performed. But given that the CDC reports that 16.5 percent of the estimated 1.2 million abortions that take place annually in the United States involve the mifepristone drug or RU-486, it is safe to say that the annual abortion rate is much higher than Guttmacher would lead us to believe.

Second, Evans is guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc [1] fallacy (correlation doesn’t prove causation). Even if it’s true that the annual abortion rate in America has hit record lows under the Obama administration, this in no way proves that it was BECAUSE of the Obama presidency over the last eight years that abortion rates are at record lows. We have good reason to believe that the drop in abortion rates is actually due to the pro-life laws that have been enacted over the last decade.

Michael New, PH.d. (assistant professor at the University of Alabama) published a study on the impact of U.S. antiabortion legislation and found that informed consent, parental involvement, and public funding restriction laws all helped decrease abortion rates. Informed consent laws may include a counseling visit prior to obtaining an abortion, specific information about development in the womb, or even viewing photos of an unborn baby’s development. Such laws may result in a 3-7 percent decrease in the abortion rate. Parental involvement laws decrease abortion rates from anywhere between 13 to 42 percent. And according to the study, 37% of women who were abortion-minded ended up carrying to term when public funding was not available.

If Rachel Evans is going to draw a correlation between states of affairs, such as the Obama administration and the significant drop in the abortion rate, she needs to prove causation between the two.

Third, Evans wrongly portrays the pro-life movement’s goal. While we certainly celebrate declines in the abortion rate (if this is indeed the case), that is not our ultimate goal. Pro-life people are working to make abortion unthinkable with the ultimate goal of making the killing of innocent unborn humans illegal. Even if pro-choice presidents and legislators were responsible for a short-term decline in abortion rates, our ultimate goals are different. So if we were to stick with pro-choice presidents, assuming Evans is right, we might have short-term success but our ultimate goal will never be met, which means that looking at the big picture, we’ll actually be losing more lives than saving.

Now that's we've examined Evans' basic presuppositions in writing her article, our next response will engage with her first two arguments.

[1] “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.” The fallacy is made when you argue a cause and effect relationship between two events without drawing a link between them.

Tales from Q&A: How can you trust me with a child if you can’t trust me with a choice? [Jay Watts]

“How can you trust me with a child if you can’t trust me with a choice?”

This question came from a young woman in Northern California during a Q&A session following my presentation on the Case for Life. The room of nearly 1,000 students stirred and a few oooh’s told me that the audience felt this was a good challenge.

It isn’t a real challenge at all, but a blank assertion lacking any substance offered in the guise of a question. It is no different than when other people have responded to my talks by saying things like, “Women have a right to choose!” As Greg Koukl points out, if anyone said something like “Women have a right to take!” the immediate response would be to ask, “Take what?” The same response is appropriate for those making these sweeping assertions. “Choose what?”

My job was to help the questioner see the mistake that she made without embarrassing her or bullying her from the stage. Here is how I answered:

“I respect your freedom to make all sorts of choices. Where you choose to live, what you choose to study in school, and what clothing you choose to wear. But let me ask you a question. Do you think that you ought to be allowed to walk across the room, seize any item from one of your fellow students in this section over here, and keep whatever you take as your own without permission or consent from the previous owner?”

She immediately objected, “That isn’t the same thing!”

“I didn’t say it was. I concede that it isn’t. The question still remains, should you be allowed to make that choice?”

Again, immediately she responded, “Of course not.”

I asked her another question. “Why?”

“Because that would be stealing.”

Here I asked for further clarification. “So. Why should that stop you? You may choose to steal. Why shouldn’t I trust you with that choice?”

She answered, “Because stealing is wrong.”

“I agree. Would it be safe to say that we both characterize stealing as immoral?”

She nodded, “Yes.”

“Okay. We have reached a good place of agreement here. We both agree that you ought to be free to make certain choices in your life. We both also agree that there are other choices that are immoral by their nature, like stealing, that you should not be free to choose.

You asked me a question, how can I trust you with a child if I can’t trust you with a choice? My response is that you never addressed the nature of my objection. I have no interest in limiting your morally legitimate choices. I just argued for an hour that that intentionally destroying the life of an innocent human being for elective reasons or reasons of convenience is immoral. I also argued using science and philosophy that the unborn belong in the family of intrinsically valuable human beings. (see Scott's Case for Life page here) If those arguments hold up to scrutiny then abortion would fall into the same category as stealing from your classmate. It would fall into the category of actions that we both agree ought to be restricted. My objections to abortion have nothing to do with any evaluation about whether you can be trusted. It has to do with an evaluation of the nature of the act of abortion.

You are now free to address my arguments about the nature of unborn human life and our moral duties and obligations to them. I would suggest that your best resource in this endeavor would be David Boonin’s book A Defense of Abortion. I think he makes as good a case as possible for people that wish to defend the right to an abortion, though I obviously feel his arguments are ultimately less than convincing. Francis Beckwith and Christopher Kaczor have provided strong rebuttals to Boonin that I find convincing (see here and here), but you should read them for yourself and make your own determination.

What you and I cannot do is offer assertions without content. We both have to resist the urge to shout slogans and respect each other enough to learn to engage against the best arguments available. This issue is too important to be so casually dismissed.”

Using a Tragedy for Your Agenda [Clinton Wilcox]

Early this morning, tragedy struck Orlando, Florida when a man, Omar Mateen, walked into a gay club in the city and opened fire. He killed 50 people and wounded at least 53, and after a three-hour standoff, police burst into the building and killed the gunman. Of course, there is much speculation about his motives. It's not my intention here to guess at what his motivations actually were. While many were quick to sympathize with those killed and urged us to mourn with them, many also took to social media to support their own pet agenda. One such tweet follows:

 

This gentleman took to twitter to compare the need for gun control to the need for abortion regulations. Of course the comparison doesn't make any sense, but it didn't stop him (and many others) from predictably arguing, following a shooting, that we need stricter gun control. Let's take a look at his claims.

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion..."

There's a very important difference between owning guns and abortion. The right to own and bear arms is a right that is specifically spelled out and guaranteed by our Constitution, ever since its inception. The text of the Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To infringe means to "Act so as to limit or undermine (something)". To institute these things (mandatory waiting period, doctor's note, etc.) would be clearly infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. However, the "right" to an abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, it was a "right" invented in 1973 by the Supreme Court. Killing an innocent human being is not a natural right, and our Founders knew that.

"It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right?"

Here Nev begs the question by assuming that abortion is health care. But if pregnancy is not a disease, then abortion is not healthcare. It makes sense to do this with abortion because, the immorality of the act aside, many women and young girls who abort do so out of panic, fear, and frustration. These limitations are put in place to allow these girls/women to have adequate time to calm down and make sure they're in a more rational frame of mind to make a decision about what they think they want.

"...no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

Well, more than 50 million women have killed their children in a manner of minutes in these abortion clinics.

Comparing gun control to abortion is simply a false analogy. If you institute gun control, the only people who win are the criminals, who will still be able to acquire guns. They will have an easier time because law-abiding citizens will be unable to protect themselves. Comparing gun control with abortion regulations is nothing more than exploiting a tragedy for your own agenda.