What I Mean by Pro-Life

Let’s be clear. The recent legislation change in New York is not about elective abortions for babies up to 40 weeks. This isn’t for those who have simply decided they don’t want to go through the hassle of giving birth. It’s supposed to be about babies who are suffering or dying already. It’s effectively euthanasia for the unborn. Having said that, I am still very firmly against euthanasia. This is why.

Let’s look beyond the extreme cases, the “dying anyway” and the “every moment is torture”. Many pro-abortion arguments center around a grayer form of euthanasia: the child will be born into poverty, or into an abusive situation, or with genetic defects or disabilities that will make life harder. We are presented with abortion as the compassionate choice, not necessarily for the mother, but even for the child. Arguments about the humanity or personhood of the unborn are rendered irrelevant. We have to deal with the question of suffering. In general, how are we to treat the suffering person? Do we try to mitigate their circumstances, or strengthen the victim to help them endure it? Do we try to make it more possible for them to continue to exist? Or do we give up, admit that existence under these circumstances are impossible, and end their suffering by ending their life?

It comes down to one question: to be, or not to be?

I see a trend in Western culture as a whole toward the negative. Abortion and euthanasia, as well as suicide and anti-natalism, declare that death or non-existence is better than life under given conditions. Even population control, promoted by such people as Bill Gates and David Attenborough, smacks of this attitude. And while it’s presented as compassion, it sounds to me like the extremist villain Thanos deciding for half the universe that dissolving into dust is preferable to living with scarcity. Or, for an older example, Ebenezer Scrooge: “If they [the poor] would rather die [than be exploited], they had better do it and decrease the surplus population!”

But these are fictional, obviously evil examples. Beyond that, deeper than that, what is wrong with the “not to be” attitude?

Fundamentally, it’s a question of control, authority, and value.

These utilitarian arguments assume a very high level of control. We want very badly to be able to control every aspect of our lives, to have a say in how much pain and pleasure we get. However, the truth is that we cannot know, much less control, what results our actions will have in the future. Causality is extremely complicated. Actions that were meant to relieve suffering may in fact cause it, and vice versa. Everything we do and don’t do involves risk, danger, and some amount of pain. If we try to take on the godlike responsibility of controlling all the consequences, of making everyone possible as happy as possible for as long as possible, then we break under the strain. More than that, we’re plagued by guilt over the unintended consequences of our actions (which they will always have), much like Tony Stark in Captain America: Civil War. While it’s true that we have some level of control, Captain America is wiser when he advises Scarlet Witch not to stress over other people’s reactions, but to focus on doing the best she can with her own knowledge, abilities, and character. That’s all any of us can do.

Making life-and-death decisions like this also assumes a high level of authority. This is where at least one of my Facebook friends makes her argument for being pro-choice: on libertarian grounds of autonomy, that the parent should decide what’s best for herself and her child. This is also where Christians and secular humanitarians differ. Autonomy literally means “self-law”, i.e. being a law unto oneself. For the libertarian, the only person I should have to answer to is myself. But for the Christian, I am not my own. Even apart from God, we are interconnected beings, belonging to everyone who cares about us or is responsible for us. Ultimately, we belong to the One who made us. He gets to decide how dense the population should be, how much suffering and pain to allow, and which individuals should be born into which circumstances. He is also the One in control of causality, able to take the worst of circumstances and shape them into the best of results. We who acknowledge His authority see every circumstance, wanted or unwanted, as an opportunity to see Him working out His inscrutable plan for His glory and the good of His people.

To decide who should be or not be, we also have to deal with the value of human life. What determines that? Again, under the utilitarian calculus, value is determined by the amount of pain eliminated or pleasure increased. In other words, if someone is not adding value to society or enjoying their own life, they have no reason to exist at all. This was part of Margaret Sanger’s infamous eugenic reason to start Planned Parenthood. The “inferior” types of human, the weak or the less intelligent, were not to be allowed to breed because they would be a drain rather than a contribution to the larger society. Along with many other eugenicists of the era, Sanger defined the “inferior” as anyone not white, strong, and healthy. Most of us would vehemently reject the racial component of that; but what about the rest? Do we dare celebrate with the Scandinavian countries that are eliminating Down syndrome by killing every fetus diagnosed with it? Do we imply to everyone currently living with a disability or genetic defect that they are a scourge upon the human race and we would rather they were dead? I think not. All of Western civilization is based on the idea that humans are valuable simply by being human, not for their usefulness. If we give that up, we are no better than animals.

This, then, is what being pro-life means to me. I disagree with abortion, euthanasia, suicide, and anti-natalism because I answer that it is better to be than not to be. Instead of trying to control every outcome of pain or pleasure, I acknowledge the authority of the Giver of life over life and death, and affirm the intrinsic value of every human person’s existence. The “thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to” are made meaningful, are made worth it, by the continued struggle of life against death and by the supreme working of God for glorious good.

Please note, I am not trying to condemn anyone who made a different choice in difficult circumstances. The great thing about God is that He can use even death in His great plan. But His plan is the eventual triumph of life. His plan is resurrection and eternal joy, bought through the suffering He voluntarily took on in Christ. With all of this in mind, I cannot condone or celebrate things that make death the easier choice.

“Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.” — Martin Luther