Do Pro-Lifers Not Care About People After They Are Born?

While scouring online, I found an interesting article entitled Why Do Pro-Life Activists Seem Only to Care About Unborn Lives?, written by an individual called Alan Levinovitz. This is a common objection to the pro-life argument (albeit often used as an ad hominem). Nevertheless, we pro-lifers are often accused of “only caring about the fetus” which could be considered something of a hypocrisy in the pro-life movement, so I might as well respond to it.

In my comparative ethics course, I use abortion as a case study. We consider Christian arguments, Buddhist arguments—yes, Buddhism has historically seen abortion as tragic—and secular philosophical arguments against the morality of abortion. I think the question is far from settled, and the definition of life is debatable. I strongly believe that those who are pro-choice, myself included, need to acknowledge this and seek out challenging dialogue partners to discuss it further rather than take the superiority of our position as a given. Fertilized eggs may indeed deserve more protection than they are currently granted, because there’s a solid case to be made for understanding them as unborn children.

The truth is that I want to engage in dialogue with pro-life advocates, but there are some questions that make it difficult for me to do so—and I expect that many other pro-choice advocates have them as well.

I could possibly say the same of pro-choice advocates. Nevertheless, I appreciate Levinovitz’ desire to have a productive discussion. I find it interesting that he says that “fertilized eggs” (the proper term is embryo, because by being fertilized, it is no longer an egg) might deserve more protection than they are currently granted. If there is even a solid possibility of them being children, then I do not think they should be killed, since I would rather pointlessly spare a clump of cells than accidentally kill a child.

Why, as I look out on the sea of signs at today’s the March for Life, do I see nothing about maternity leave, much less paternity leave? Why aren’t expansive parental leave policies front and center on every pro-life website, and on the lips of every pro-life politician?

Why does every speaker fail to mention contraception? Why isn’t sex education front and center on every pro-life website, and on the lips of every pro-life politician?

Why is adoption mentioned only in passing, if it is mentioned at all? As of this writing, MarchForLife.org’s “adoption” page still has “lorem ipsum” placeholder text. (Adoption was a focus of the 2014 march.*)

This is where I fear the ad hominem comes in, though perhaps not intentionally. Yes, I admit, some of these things, such as good parental practices, can be important, but in my mind, I think it is much more important to think about settling that it is always wrong to kill a child first and then maybe second we can talk about the alternatives. That seems to me the most reasonable, at any rate. As for contraception—I find abstinence and chastity rather frequently referenced by pro-lifers, which is generally more reliably effective than artificial contraception anyway, which can always fail.

Finally, in regard to adoption, I am unsure what Levinovitz means about it being a “lorem ipsum” placeholder. It does not seem to show up in the link Levinovitz provides, but perhaps it has been updated. But maybe pro-lifers do not talk about adoption enough. Yes, as far as I know, this sort of thing is often mentioned in crisis pregnancy centers, but maybe we should be doing it more. But once again, let us first focus on not murdering children and then we can consider the alternatives.

Why, if your movement “welcomes everyone,” as Ted Cruz and Cardinal Timothy Dolan both emphasized, do you focus so much on the Christian God? How do you expect to win over people like me if prayerful protest is more important to you than funding health services?

 So this is the place where Levinovitz accuses Pro-Lifers of focusing too much on Christianity. He provides a link to show an example of this. Maybe this happens a lot, but then again, Ben Shapiro is fairly famous (who yes, is technically religious but not Christian), not to mention many pro-life philosophers who are either secular or, though religious, do not talk much about it in their activism. Later on, Levinovitz references the secular pro-life movement as an exception. If one talks to an actual pro-life apologist, chances are he will make an argument based on embryology. Nevertheless, Martin Luther King frequently referenced his own Christianity (him being a pastor). So naturally, my morality is influenced by Christianity, but my argument is from embryology—All innocent human beings have the right not to be killed. All fetuses are innocent human beings. Therefore, all fetuses have the right not to be killed.

To anyone looking in from the outside, the movement seems to be more about making public declarations of pious conservatism than advocating for life. It is, at heart, a religious movement, which explains the absence of contraception and sex education from the platform. It is also a politically conservative movement, which values small government more than the souls of unborn children and seeks to do little for them once they are born. In the (viral) words of Sister Joan Chittister:

“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child orn but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

I think this is a somewhat strange claim, but I think I see whence it comes. But again, similar to the anti-segregationists sixty years ago, the fact that many of the proponents are very religious does not mean that it is not a natural (or “secular”) reason to ban abortion.

As for the claim that we are really advocating for small government under the guise of defending the rights of children, I think that is very odd since pro-lifers are actually calling for more regulations, not less—although in my mind, the regulation against child-murder is very much justified.

Finally, we bring up the topic of Pro-Lifers not “caring about children after they are born”. If I am understanding this argument correctly, Levinovitz is basically making this argument,

“Pro-lifers are opposed to killing children before birth, but they do not spend much time addressing the food and housing for children after they are born. Therefore, the Pro-life movement is a contradiction.”

Let me just reverse this, by saying the following,

“Pro-choice advocates spend a fair deal of time addressing the food and housing for children after they are born, but they are in favor of killing them legally before that point.”

Thinking that way, I think the pro-choice are the greater contradiction.

Now, a pro-choice advocate might object that he or she does not even believe a fetus to be a human being and therefore this supposed hypocrisy does not count. But all the same, one can easily see why, from a pro-life perspective, one would prioritize ending abortion, which ends more innocent lives than the things Levinovitz wishes we would talk about more. 

Finally, it should be noted that plenty of pro-lifers do believe in a welfare state, but, crudely, even if they did not, I do not think it is that damning to the pro-life position to oppose murdering children without wanting the government to give everyone free stuff.

At the National Review, David French argues this angle is just a ploy to raise taxes and mocks those who share Chittister’s position. “The true concern,” he writes, “isn’t for child welfare but for transient notions of adult fulfillment, and no level of taxation will cure the selfishness of the human heart.”

But French is missing the point. The real argument is simply about the movement’s hypocrisy. If pro-life advocates genuinely saw saving unborn children as their top priority, then a significant number of them would also fight for a world in which all women and men can be confident that their children’s future will include education, food, and housing. Many would reject a political platform that cheers taxpayer funding of the military while simultaneously trying to cut health care funding—health care that might allow women to feel secure enough to bring a baby to term. And many would make contraception a central issue, instead of allowing religious prudery to take precedence over the unborn babies they are fighting for.

As I said already, there are plenty of pro-lifers who believe in a welfare state, and even if they did not, I think abortion causes far more deaths of innocent children than anything the Republican Party is supporting (which I assume is what Levinovitz is basically referencing). Furthermore, these are actually much more complicated issues than abortion. I think most people (although perhaps not Levinovitz) would agree that the military is something necessary for defending one’s own country and perhaps others as well and ultimately, the military can save lives. Now, it can be argued that many innocent people can die during war and perhaps the military gets involved in wars more than it should, leading to the death of innocents. But even so, some people may die during war, but every single person killed in abortion has done nothing wrong whatsoever. As for healthcare, I cannot overstate how debatable it is what is actually best for the people. I lived in Canada for a while and I cannot overstate that government-funded healthcare is not always better. Now, Levinovitz might debate this, but my point remains: those who oppose government-funded healthcare are not necessarily enemies of life. Debate our means, if you will, but none of this should discredit our motives.

As with any large movement, there are exceptions to these generalizations—notably secular pro-life activists. But listening to the speeches at the March for Life earlier Friday and reading through pro-life websites, I have no doubt that overall they hold true. And so, as I watch pro-lifers shout about defunding Planned Parenthood without proposing practical alternatives, I cannot yet sympathize with their cause.

Instead, I think of Matthew 6:5, where Jesus condemns the hypocrites who “love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen.”

All I can say is that I do not think we should blame everyone too much for not having practical alternatives off the top of their heads when they are having peaceful protests against legally killing over a million innocent children every year. Ask a crisis pregnancy center and one will probably get good help.

And now Levinovitz quotes scripture at us after accusing pro-lifers of being solely religiously motivated. But let us point out one other scripture verse, “There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.” (Proverbs 6:16-17) Abortion is the shedding of very innocent blood, deliberately and willingly, and it should be illegal.

Bonum Certamen Certemus
I am the Catholic of Honor

Star Wars and the Problem of Gratitude

I do believe I could have just run through the script of The Phantom Menace and briefly touched up a few scenes with Jar Jar and all of a sudden everyone would love him—just saying.

I was going to write on the death penalty controversy in regards to the recent update of the Catechism of the Catholic Church made by Pope Francis. However, something very interesting came to my mind which I did not think could wait—interestingly enough in the popular film franchise Star Wars. I was actually pondering Jar Jar Binks (a character about whom I will not state my opinions out of fear of being cancelled), and how easily I think George Lucas could have fixed every problem people have with the clumsy gungan, when my mind came upon a common saying repeated nearly all the time in Star Wars—“May the Force be with you.” I may have made a number of pop culture references on this blog, primarily for the purposes of comic relief—I hope that I have not confused too many readers who are not denarian nerds such as myself. However, in this case, since Star Wars is slightly more important to the topic of my article, I might as well briefly summarize the basic spirit of the franchise, just in case any of my readers have been living under a rock for the past 45 years, since there is no other way anyone could not be aware of the blockbuster success which is Star Wars.

Star Wars, I admit, is a new and unique genre, such as it is difficult to determine whether it is science fiction or fantasy. This “space fantasy” could be argued to have been written before by C. S. Lewis, for example, in his Space Trilogy, but Lewis’ science is now quite obviously wrong (compare his Venus to the real one) and he does not take so much care to make it feel convincing. Lucas, however, in my mind, created what was among the first successful franchises which fully embraced both worlds—the science fictional and the fantastic. But between the many aliens and droids, wars and rebellions, there is one major theme which George Lucas introduces, the theme of the Jedi and the Sith, who stand on each side of the Force, the Jedi representing the “Light side” and the Sith the “Dark Side”. They even seem to be vaguely color-coded, many Jedi dressing in white or light brown and having lightsabers which glow green, blue, or purple, while the Sith seem to prefer black cloaks and red lightsabers. Supposedly, the Jedi are good and the Sith are evil, although I might seriously dispute that, considering that after ten years between Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace and Episode II – Attack of the Clones, not one of them tried to go back and save Anakin Skywalker’s mother, despite his promise in The Phantom Menace, up until Anakin Skywalker is on his first solo mission and he can turn aside to go back to Tatooine and do so by himself, only for her to die into his arms (here, we run into a strange plot hole I noticed, by the way, where Luke Skywalker’s Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen turn out to have lived with C-3PO for years but never appear to recognize him in A New Hope). I rather sympathize with Anakin Skywalker’s famous line, “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil.” I wonder if these were the words inspired Obi-wan to make up his famous excuse for lying to him.

Now, aside from Star Wars tangents, I would like to talk about the concept of the Force. Needless to say, it is not quite in keeping with Christian theology. It seems to follow some version of Gnostic dualism, bridging onto pantheism. Supposedly, the Force is some sort of energy which binds all living things together, and some people are stronger in it than others, depending on their midichlorian count (and I know all the Star Wars fans will be angry that I mentioned midichlorians, but I do not know what to tell you! They are part of the Star Wars canon!). Anyway, it is well established that strength in the Force runs in families in Star Wars, and the Skywalkers are among the strongest Force-wielders in history. In The Phantom Menace, Obi-wan Kenobi says Anakin Skywalker has a higher midichlorian count than even Master Yoda. I would not be surprised if the same could be said of his son, Luke. So, basically, the Force is a non-personal, spiritual “energy” which binds everything which is alive. The Jedi and Sith can tap into it, which allows them to lift things with their minds and do flips and so forth (apparently, according to various training scenes in Star Wars, being a Jedi requires a lot of flips). The Jedi seem to believe in the Force with some sort of religious devotion. They often speak of “the will of the Force”, and as mentioned previously, “May the Force be with you” is almost the phrase linking Star Wars together, to such an extent that “May the Fourth” (the fourth day of the month of May) is considered to be “Star Wars Day”. The Sith also use the Force, but in an evil way, and even have some unique abilities, such as using the Force to choke people rather than doing mind-tricks and basically hypnotizing people as the Jedi do. They use what is called “the Dark Side”, which is the evil side of the Force. The Light Side is supposedly aligned with calmness, peace, and passiveness, and was used only for knowledge and defense, while the Dark Side indulges in raw emotions, such as passion, anger, and hatred. In other words, the Jedi deal in “balance” and the Sith deal with extremes. I am sure knowledgeable Star Wars fans could get more complicated than this, pointing out characters who defy classification, such as Gray Jedi,  who are said to walk the line between the light and dark sides of the Force without surrendering to the dark side, or the Bendu, who claims to represent the center between the Light and Dark sides and also has the voice of the Fourth Doctor from Doctor Who. 

The Bendu: The One in the Middle

However, this is all getting more complicated than necessary. What matters is that whatever the Force is—some form of “pantheistic dualism”—it is clear that this is not the Christian understanding of God or the Holy Spirit.

Now there are various memorable scenes where this line, “May the Force be with you”, is quoted. However, there are two which I would particularly like to point out. The first is a dramatic one toward the climax of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, and the second is Ezra Bridger’s tragic departure in the finale of Star Wars: Rebels.

The first scene is where Luke Skywalker is setting out to go destroy the Death Star. We see C-3PO bidding R2 farewell. Then Luke hears the voice of old Ben Kenobi (who is now usually known as Obi-wan), saying, “Luke, the Force will be with you.” This I found an encouraging moment when he is about to go off to possibly save the galaxy, but I immediately wondered why it was an encouraging moment.

Luke going to blow up the Death Star

As for the second, as mentioned above, it appears in the final episode of the animated series, Star Wars: Rebels embodies this well. The young protagonist, Ezra Bridger, is brought to an enemy star destroyer by the evil Admiral Thrawn. Ezra summons space-whales called Purrgills, using the Force. The Purrgills are about to pull them into hyperspace. Here Ezra bids his friends farewell, since he is about to sacrifice himself, being about to be pulled into hyperspace, saying, “It’s up to all of you now. And remember, the Force will be with you, always.”

Now these are often dramatic, even encouraging, scenes where the “Force” is invoked. I had thought this for some time, but it was not until recently when I realized how strange it was, since I do not believe in the Force and I repeat that I by no means associate it with God or the Holy Spirit. Obviously, this is not encouraging in the same way Spider-Man trusts in his web or Captain America trusts in his shield or even how Luke Skywalker trusts in, say, his lightsaber or Obi-wan as a cheeky mental walkie-talkie ghost who enjoys claiming he was not lying “from a certain point of view”, of course. There is something about the Force which seems to elevate all the characters and bind them together to new levels, which seems odd to me for a fictitious energy. I doubt this relates to the fact that I have an explicit belief in a higher “power”, whom we call God, who, although different from the Force, is also treated with a religious devotion. The reason I doubt this is because Star Wars is a massively popular franchise, including among atheists. George Lucas is a self-described “Methodist Buddhist” (which, in my mind, actually makes sense, considering his description of the Force). He seems to be something of a Deist. But Star Wars, in itself, is enjoyed by people of all different religions, including atheists (which, as many atheists will tell you, is not technically a “religion”, but nevertheless, my point stands).

So why is it encouraging to be told that some fictional energy is with you? It certainly seems strange, but considering the popularity of Star Wars, I imagine others might detect a similar effect. So I quickly realized: even if this is not related to an explicit belief in God, what if we are effected by an implicit belief in God?

It makes sense. We are apparently comforted, even grateful, by the idea that there is something above us—some sort of guiding force. Another way to look at this is by considering the “problem of gratitude”, as it were. When seeing what is good, we naturally have the feeling of gratitude, but the atheist does not know where to place it. In terms of Star Wars and other such things, man is made to worship God. Hence we are naturally drawn to anything with the appearance of God.

This does not only happen with Star Wars fans. Almost everyone is drawn to the awe and wonder found in the universe. Human beings have a natural impulse to find awe in the wonders of the world, whether we see the vastness of the sea or the innumerable stars in the heavens. I imagine atheists would say that this is some byproduct of the evolutionary process. I think this implausible, however, since the same is not found in animals. Remember, what the Jedi religion really is is nothing but a form of “universe-worship”, as it were. The Force is described as an energy which binds all living things together through midichlorians. 

So whence does this attraction come? I think it can be illustrated by the love of any fantasy, but I choose Star Wars since it illustrates specifically a transcendent power. I also choose this franchise because this power is not even very similar to the Christian understanding of God, such that I might remove all bias.

So why do we want to escape this world and find something much more transcendent, such as the Force in Lucas’ franchise? Why should we be made in such a way—unless because deep down within us there is a longing for a true Force, a God who created all things and keeps them in existence. Here I can only quote the renowned fantasy author, J. R. R. Tolkien:

“Dear Sir,” I said—Although now long estranged,
Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Disgraced he may be, yet is not de-throned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned:
Man, Sub-creator, the refracted Light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons—’twas our right
(used or misused). That right has not decayed:
we make still by the law in which we’re made.”

J. R. R. Tolkien, “On Fairy Stories”

To J. R. R. Tolkien, fantasy is something greater than simply something to expand the imagination. Tolkien calls fiction-writing, especially fantasy-writing, “sub-creation”. Man creates because he was created. To quote Tolkien again, “Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it.” (ibid.)

Indeed, if we are encouraged by such things, whether it be by the vastness of the universe, a fictional Force which binds it together, or, of course, a God who created everything, does this not suggest that there is a transcendent power that does at all times watch over mankind? Think of the prisoner in Tolkien’s example. He lives and dwells within the four walls of a prison, but nevertheless, he can conceive that the prison is not all there is. So if we can conceive what is beyond our own prison of known universe and matter, does that not suggest that for us also there is indeed something beyond?

Bonum Certamen Certemus
I am the Catholic of Honor

Postscript: This was not something I have done much—taking some element of pop culture and showing how it suggests the existence of God, so I am interested to know if anyone would like more of these. Feel free to let me know.

Post-postscript: Star Wars fans, about referencing midichlorians, again, do not blame me. George Lucas is the one who decides such things. If he wishes magical microscopic lifeforms to be part of his lore, it is none of my business to change it.

George Lucas may have begun this topic, but J. R. R. Tolkien ended it!

Post-post-postscript: Finally, note that I referenced Tolkien at the end—obviously. I could not go a post on the fantasy genre without referencing one of the greatest Catholic fantasy writers of all time, even if this is a Star Wars article.

Post-post-post-postscript: Seriously, someone ought to figure out all these plot holes concerning the droids. Owen and Beru definitely ought to have recognized C-3PO in A New Hope. It must have been such a surprise to those watching The Phantom Menace to discover that Darth Vader had built 3PO. I still cannot figure out his purposes in the prequels, other than to add comedic banter alongside R2-D2, which was a very memorable part of the Originals, but I thought the was why Lucas added Jar Jar Binks. I rather doubt Lucas originally intended 3PO to have had any part of the story of Anakin Skywalker’s story before he turned to the Dark Side—just saying.