Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the guest author. Minor edits have been made for clarity.
Imagine being told you must advocate for solving a societal issue you might not even care about or agree with.
This is a common experience for pro-lifers; society frequently claims that pro-lifers can’t be “pro-life” unless they are also against things like war and the death penalty, or in favor of gun control, or taking a stance of some kind on a myriad of other issues that may or may not have anything to do — either directly or indirectly — with stopping the killing of preborn children by abortion.
Is this same type of analysis addressed to any other advocates of a specific cause? For example, are those seeking an end to breast cancer told their cause is invalid unless they also fight against lung, pancreatic, liver cancer, or any other health issue? Are those who try to end child abuse also told they have to actively fight against spousal abuse, human trafficking, or animal abuse — and if they don’t, their cause is moot?
To further illustrate the absurdity of this position: are abortion supporters told they also have to believe in aborting dogs, cats, or any other animal in the womb? Are they instructed that they can’t be in favor of the killing of humans in the womb who are an inconvenience to their lifestyle unless they demand the death of a born child who is inconveniencing them? Of course, few, if any, would propose that, but it shows the ridiculousness of their criticism of pro-lifers.
The bottom line of this and nearly every retaliatory statement against pro-lifers is one of distraction from what is being killed in the womb and what the abortion procedure does to the most innocent and defenseless in our society.
This method of distracting is another example of abortion supporters analyzing every pro-life defense to find a way to blow a hole in our beliefs. Even the term “pro-life” itself opens the door to this form of rebuttal by them. It seems more appropriate for us to label ourselves “anti-abortion,” which would narrow our focus and hopefully eliminate the silly arguments about being pro-life.
Unfortunately, some pro-lifers fall into line with the argument that we can’t be pro-life unless we are for the immigrants crossing the border illegally or against the death penalty, for example. Of course, they have a right to believe this and support these causes, but why implore others that they have to advocate for something else besides the destruction of unborn lives?
Some pro-lifers have also insisted that if you’re pro-life, you must also be a Christian. Kelsey Hazzard, President of Secular Pro-life, told me in response to an inquiry:
It’s gotten less common over the years, which I take as a sign of our effectiveness. But the attitude that pro-life = Christian is definitely still out there. We also see people equate being pro-life with supporting Trump or being conservative in general. There should be exactly one requirement: oppose abortion.
It is easy to go down the rabbit trail that is intentionally set to distract from the unborn and the suctioning or dismemberment of a fellow human that occurs during an abortion. Pro-lifers sometimes become defensive and start explaining their viewpoints on all these other issues that the pro-abortion crowd believes we have to be involved with to be pro-life. Don’t fall into that trap.
Whether you are for or against gun control, a specific war, legal or illegal immigration, the death penalty, etc., it is irrelevant when we are attempting to save the lives of millions of unborn children. We need to be laser-focused on stopping the worst human rights violations in our history and not succumb to whatever those supporting it throw in front of us. Keep fighting to save these innocent human lives, and do not be distracted!
