What's in a Name? | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Aquino, heroine of Philippine people power, dies | Reuters

Cristina Page: The Breakup of the Pro-Life Movement

Excerpted from Article:

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan, "is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"

via www.huffingtonpost.com

I am not sure this is the best title for the article describing the controversy, but it is a rather interesting perspective on dividing lines within the pro-life movement. It also redraws some traditional boundaries, redefines some terminology, and raises questions about what arena will host the debate over solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

The question that it implies is "What are our values, goals, and objectives?"

Is it primary to our cause to reduce and end abortions or to do it in a specific way?

Protestants have never had real problems with contraceptives, but in the fight against abortion, our chief allies have been in the Roman Catholic Church. They do have such a problem.

The Aristotelian ideal that potentiality = actuality is one of the driving forces.

But is the pro-life cause primarily about moral chastity or is it, as we have often argued, about the saving of lives and the valuation of human life as an essential principle driving civilized society?

Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis join Planned Parenthood and NARAL in supporting Jim Ryan's legislation entitled., "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act."

Is this an "It wasn't our idea so we aren't going to support it" issue? Or is there some other fundamental objection to working with ideological opponents to achieve an end that we desire?

It would be an odd thing if the answer to the concerns of us who have labeled ourselves"pro-life" came from outside the realm of the movement that goes by that name. It would be similar to the peace accords in the Middle East that were hammered out by the two unlikely, hawkish leaders, Begin and Sadat. What the peace advocates could not do, they did by talking to each other.

It remains to be seen and debated.

Comments