In this post I’m going to give my impressions of AHA. I
don’t have an in-depth knowledge of AHA, so this is very provisional.
As abolitionists, we make no compromises, nor do we adopt a moderate or incrementalist position when it comes to the abolition of human abortion. We believe abortion is the most vicious act of dehumanization and oppression ever practiced in human history, and we advocate for its immediate and total abolition. We do not believe that the planned-and-paid-for-murder of an unborn human being is ever morally justified. Abortion is never the right choice, never the only option, and never the best solution to any situation.
This statement bundles two claims into one, so we need to
distinguish them to assess them separately.
i) One is a claim concerning strategy and tactics: “nor do
we adopt a moderate or incrementalist position when it comes to the abolition
of human abortion…We advocate for its immediate and total abolition.”
ii) I’m inclined to disagree with this position. Given the
current and foreseeable political climate, I don’t think the immediate and
total abolition of abortion is politically feasible. I wish it were so, but
it’s not. So I think an incrementalist strategy is the only realistic strategy.
However, I think AHA distinguishes between thinking that
incremental results are likely going to be the way it goes, and incremental
changes being our aim.
iii) I’m also concerned that the “uncompromising” strategy
of AHA will lead to disillusionment, just as some conservatives surrendered on
the cultural wars when the Reagan Revolution and the Moral Majority failed to
achieve its goals. If you set the bar too high, people give up.
iv) We also need to distinguish between “compromise in
reference to process and compromise in reference to principle. Compromising on
strategy and tactics is not a moral compromise. Strategy and tactics are means
to an end, not an end in themselves. These are inherently pragmatic and
adaptable.
v) I don’t think the prolife movement should set targets,
viz. targeted goals, where you specify what you expect to achieve or aim for.
Problem is, you don’t know in advance what is doable until you try to do it, so
I think it’s better to just do as much as you can rather than aiming for an
abstract target. The goal should be do accomplish as much as you can every
year.
vi) But in fairness to AHA, some things can be said in favor
of their strategy/tactics.
I think
one objective of AHA is to force nominally prolife politicians who pay
lipservice to the prolife cause by casting free votes and rhetorically
posturing to actually do something that makes a difference. Take effective
action.
vii) I believe AHA also thinks the incrementalist strategy
fosters a complacent attitude which results in some prolife organizations
becoming irrelevant self-perpetuating self-employment agencies that take in
donations to pay the staff, but have little to show for the investment in terms of
concrete progress.
I’m not qualified to comment on that negative assessment.
And I don’t think prolife organizations like the Life Training Institute are a
waste of time and money. It’s doing important work by intellectually equipping
believers.
I respect both Scott Klusendorf and Alan Maricle. I feel no
need to choose one over another. Both are doing fine work.
Like any coalition, the prolife movement has internal
tensions. Joining forces with prolife Catholics is a double
edged-sword. By refusing to allow for artificial birth control, Catholics make
the public case against abortion far harder. Evangelicals who are joined at the
hip with Catholics suffer accordingly.
viii) The aggressive tactics of AHA is doubtless a turnoff
for some people. However, I suspect that AHA is borrowing a page from other
activists, agitators, and pressure groups. Jewish, Black, and Latino activists,
LGBT activists, feminists, environmentalists, animal rights activists, and food
police employ confrontational, in-your-face tactics which may be off-putting,
but are also quite successful in advancing their respective causes. So AHA may feel the same basic approach
should be deployed in the interests of the babies.
Many Americans have no moral center. Just as they can be
bullied into taking the wrong position, they can be bullied into taking the
right position. It would be preferable if they did the right thing for the
right reason, but it’s better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than
doing the wrong thing.
ix) Beyond the process issue is the question of whether
abortion is wrong under all circumstances (“Abortion is never the right choice,
never the only option, and never the best solution to any situation”). I myself
think abortion is justifiable in cases where both the mother and child would
die absent medical intervention. I think the double effect principle is a valid
ethical distinction. In addition, you have hard cases like anencephalic
infants.
But elsewhere, AHA does make allowance for therapeutic
abortions, narrowly defined:
So I probably agree with AHA.
x) In
politics (as well as other situations), it’s often prudent to demand more than
you expect to receive. That gives you some bargaining room. In politics, you
usually get less than you demand, so if you demand less, you get less than if
you demanded more. If you demand more, you will get less than you demanded, but
you will still get more than if you demanded less at the outset. At least,
that’s how it often works out.
xi) AHA has been branded “anti-Catholic.” To begin with, I
can hardly fault AHA for being too evangelical or evangelistic.
xii) Moreover, Francis Beckwith is both a leader of the
prolife movement as well as an aggressive proselytizer for Roman Catholicism.
Well, if Catholics can combine prolife activism with proselyzing for their
faith, why not AHA?
xiii) Furthermore, I’ve read accounts in which Catholics
were using the Rosary as a weapon to shout down AHA street evangelism. Here’s a
reported example:
Well, tolerance is a two-way street. If Catholic critics of
AHA have weaponized the Rosary, then they are in no position to complain about
AHA. And I seriously doubt their bishops would approve of their obnoxious
conduct.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking an even-handed approach to assessing our ideology. Given the recent attacks upon our ideology and practice, this is quite refreshing.
I don’t have an in-depth knowledge of AHA, so this is very provisional.
If you desire to hear it "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak, either Alan or I will be glad to discuss the issues and answer any questions you might have. Also, we have a number of responses to recent attacks in the works that should clarify our position a bit further.
I do not speak for all abolitionists, but I believe that those I know best (who have been with AHA from the beginning and are responsible for the development of the ideology) would agree with the points of clarification I offer below.
However, I think AHA distinguishes between thinking that incremental results are likely going to be the way it goes, and incremental changes being our aim.
This is correct. Our anti-incrementalist stance flows from the belief that abortion is sin, and sin ought to be repented of immediately. However, we also realize that repentance in practice is often a process, and involves taking steps to turn away from sin. But even though we realize that repentance will probably involve steps in many cases, that doesn't mean our aim is partial repentance.
Our main emphasis at the moment is not political (though we have participated in political action, such as being a part of the personhood petition initiative that was struck down by the Oklahoma supreme court last year), though we do hope to become more involved in the political arena as 2016 approaches. Our main focus right now is to make (intellectual and spiritual) war upon the worldview that makes child sacrifice acceptable, and take an uncompromising position that abortion is sin. We also seek to encourage and exhort our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to likewise take such a stand.
We believe that political efforts will likely be successful only when the culture as a whole has changed. We believe that the Gospel has the power to do this, and so are our efforts are largely an attempt to demolish arguments and lofty pretensions raised up against the knowledge of God, and to subvert our culture with the truth of God's Word.
We also need to distinguish between “compromise in reference to process and compromise in reference to principle. Compromising on strategy and tactics is not a moral compromise. Strategy and tactics are means to an end, not an end in themselves. These are inherently pragmatic and adaptable.
We are not necessarily opposed to using various strategies and tactics in the political arena, as long as we are convinced that we can employ such tactics and strategies in a manner consistent with our principles. This will likely be a topic of further discussion the closer we get to 2016. Right now, however, we are focused on hashing out the practical details of our involvement in other areas.
Problem is, you don’t know in advance what is doable until you try to do it, so I think it’s better to just do as much as you can rather than aiming for an abstract target. The goal should be do accomplish as much as you can every year.
This is how we function in practice. We seek to be faithful to Christ with our time and resources, and trust God to use our efforts, in His providence, to effect the abolition of abortion at whatever time He has decreed in eternity past to do it.
I think one objective of AHA is to force nominally prolife politicians who pay lipservice to the prolife cause by casting free votes and rhetorically posturing to actually do something that makes a difference. Take effective action.
ReplyDeleteThis is also correct. We hold to a "no compromise" position out of principle, but we also believe that such a stance will have the effect of moving professing pro-life politicians who do not hold this stance to become more serious in fulfilling their stated goals of protecting the life of the unborn.
I’m not qualified to comment on that negative assessment. And I don’t think prolife organizations like the Life Training Institute are a waste of time and money. It’s doing important work by intellectually equipping believers.
We don't believe that all pro-life organizations are a complete waste of time and resources. Our main concerns with the pro-life movement in general are found in our "five tenets" of abolitionism, which set us apart from other groups. These are outlined here:
http://abolishhumanabortion.com/about/who-we-are/
A general concern that we have with non-abolitionist pro-life organizations is that we believe many of them "shoot themselves in the foot" by compromising in various ways, and are thus much less effective in the fighst against abortion than they could otherwise be.
The aggressive tactics of AHA is doubtless a turnoff for some people. However, I suspect that AHA is borrowing a page from other activists, agitators, and pressure groups. Jewish, Black, and Latino activists, LGBT activists, feminists, environmentalists, animal rights activists, and food police employ confrontational, in-your-face tactics which may be off-putting, but are also quite successful in advancing their respective causes. So AHA may feel the same basic approach should be deployed in the interests of the babies.
I don't think we generally think of aggressiveness in terms of borrowing from other modern activists. Our motivation comes mainly from desiring to follow the example of certain godly men in Scripture (such as Jeremiah and John the Baptist) who took an uncompromising stand against the evils of their day. We seek to be bold in our proclamation of truth, but this is probably more than anything because we are unashamed of it, and believe that the world needs to hear it. But though we seek to be bold, we do not want to be overbearing either. We believe that both Eph. 5:11 and Phi. 4:5 are true and applicable, and we seek to live in such a way as to be faithful to both.
But elsewhere, AHA does make allowance for therapeutic abortions, narrowly defined:
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2011/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-abortion.html
So I probably agree with AHA.
We have since refined our position on this, and should probably take that older article down. Our current position on this issue can be found here:
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2012/08/abortion-and-life-of-mother.html
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2012/08/defining-abortion-as-intentional.html
We believe that everything that can be done should be done to save the lives of both the mother and her unborn child in life-threatening situations. However, we would distinguish between medical procedures that are expressly designed to kill the fetus (e.g. by ripping him into pieces) from those that are not. We would not call the latter "abortions" when performed in an attempt to give both mother and unborn child the best possible chance at life.
We have since refined our position on this, and should probably take that older article down.
DeleteD'oh; I was the one who provided Steve that link. My mistake for forgetting about the latter, clarificatory articles.