Misleading and Distracting Language on Abortion
by Ms. Boomer-ang
In many points relating to abortion, the most commonly-heard voices distract our attention from what we really need to know and keep us focused on minor or misleading parts of the story. Following are examples:
1. Media reporting on parents trying (unsuccessfully or successfully) to prevent their daughters from having abortions diverts attention from and covers up the probably much more common cases of parents forcing their daughters to have abortions against their will.1
2. The media often claims that where abortion is illegal, women die in illegal abortions. But women dying in legal abortions is so common that Feminists for Life has a page on its website with examples, called “We Remember.” See also a list of patient deaths at Planned Parenthood alone.
3. The media often covers people arrested for having or providing abortions where they are illegal, while ignoring the pro-life political prisoners, including in the United States, like Heather Idoni.
4. When people equate “forced birth” with fascism, why don’t we point out that abortion and infanticide (of “deformed” or “bad ancestry” children) are a cornerstone of fascism? In fact, don’t fascist societies have examples of abortion without choice?
5. Misusing the word “choice,” including to describe when support for abortion is unconditional and opposition to forced abortion is conditional.
Don’t many pro-life voices make this mistake too? It is easy to use words, phrases, and concepts the way “everybody else does,” often after hearing them on television and other media, “where even people who disagree repeat them.”2
6. Calling abortion a “strictly religious issue.” Why don’t we point out all the non-religious pro-life voices and mention organizations like Secular Pro-Life?
7. Calling morning after pills and abortion pills “Plan B.” For many people who use them, aren’t they Plan A? And as for those who take them only when it is snuck into their food or medicine without their knowledge, they could be Plan Zero. And what Plan number are they for those who take them only to fulfill requirements, such as for school or social services?
8. When someone says that the morning after pill prevents abortions, how about pointing out that it still doesn’t prevent the killing of fertilized pre-embryos? The actual difference is that we never know whether there were any pre-embryos to kill and whether they would have miscarried on their own.
9. Shouldn’t we ask:
a. what the effects are of taking morning after pills several times in one menstrual cycle?
b. what are the effects of morning after and abortion pills ingested inadvertently by people other than fertile women? For example, when they are snuck into food, and it’s impossible to control who eats it? Consider especially post-menopausal women, pre-pubescent girls, males, hemophiliacs, and people with certain kinds of cancer.
10. When the media celebrates aid organizations like UNICEF for giving refugee women in places like Congo morning after and abortion pills, how about asking whether this is upon the woman’s request, consent, and knowledge? Are they required to take them for admission to shelter camps? Are the pills mixed with other medicine and the women not clearly told that, if they are pregnant, they will cause miscarriages?
11. When a report claims that abortion rates are highest in some places where abortion is illegal, shouldn’t we scrutinize the calculation of these rates? In comparisons, shouldn’t we study whether the figures for all places used the same data? Unfortunately, even some pro-life voices have repeated rather than confronting these reports.
a. What is counted in the number of abortions? In some places, was every morning after pill snuck into food, often with no guarantee who ate it, counted as a requested sought abortion? Meanwhile, in other places, a morning after pill taken deliberately after intercourse by a fertile woman in the fertile stage of her cycle was not counted as even a fraction of an abortion.
b. Typically the abortion rate means abortions per a certain number of women. But additional measures should receive attention. Would the statistics be different when using the ratio of abortions to live births? When using the percent of women who have at least one abortion? Doesn’t each of these three statistics have a different psychological impact on society?
12. When the media spotlights doctors who move from places that restrict abortions, why don’t we report doctors who move to such places? In fact, a study of over 60,000 OB-GYNs, explained here, suggested that the share of physicians who are OB-GYNs decreased less in states that restored abortion restrictions.
13. When somebody equates forbidding abortions to requiring blood donations, organ donations, or Caesarean births, how about pointing out that abortion is more similar to these three procedures than carrying a pregnancy to term? Abortion, like the three procedures, requires intervention. Carrying most pregnancies to term need not require intervention.
FOOTNOTES
- Examples: Doris Kalasky, Elliott Institute Newsletter, Winter 1993-1994; and abortiondocs.org-content/uploads/2020/02
- Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny (New York: Random House, 2017), pp. 59-60
====================================
For more of our posts on dialog and persuasion, see:
If You Can’t Explain the Opposition to Your Case
Two Practical Dialogue Tips for Changing More Minds about Abortion
Dialog on Life Issues: Avoiding Some Obstacles to Communication
Why a War of “Regime Change” in Iran Would Be a Catastrophe
by John Whitehead
What direction the conflict between Israel and the United States and Iran will take is unknown. As of this writing, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding and the United States has not bombed Iran again since June 22. We can hope this situation continues.
Military conflict among these nations might resume, however. Renewed fighting could take the extreme form of an effort by Israel and/or the United States to overthrow the current Iranian government.
Such an attempt to bring about “regime change” in Iran would be catastrophic. Overthrowing Iran’s government and installing a new one would be extremely difficult to achieve and would likely lead to extremely violent consequences. Further, even if regime change somehow succeeded and led to a stable new Iranian regime, that might not resolve the ongoing conflict over Iran possibly building nuclear weapons.
Threats from Powerful Sources
Israeli and American policymakers have made statements pointing toward the goal of “regime change” in Iran. During Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the Iranian government’s overthrow “could certainly be the result” of the military conflict. He also opined, in reference to Iran’s ruling elite, that “80% of the [Iranian] people will throw these theological thugs out.”
Netanyahu’s address, at the outset of the campaign, to the Iranian people also implied the hope of regime change: “As we achieve our objective [of destroying Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities], we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom,” he said.
US President Donald Trump has also suggested regime change is a possibility. Posting on social media shortly after the US bombing, Trump wrote “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment, saying in an TV appearance that “if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk . . . I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.”
Whether any of these threats will turn into action is anyone’s guess. Threats from the leaders of nations that have already attacked Iran should be taken seriously, though.
The Long, Costly History of Regime Change
The United States and its allies have a history of overthrowing governments and attempting to install new, more friendly ones. The track record of such regime change is a grim one.
In 2001, the United States led an invasion of Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban regime. The United States spent the next 20 years trying to support a new regime and defeat a Taliban insurgency. After tens of thousands of deaths, including more than 46,000 Afghan civilians killed by the warring parties and more than 6,000 Americans, and more than $2 trillion spent, the US project in Afghanistan ultimately failed. The US-supported regime collapsed, and the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
In 2003, the United States led an invasion of Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime. The United States then spent eight years trying to support a new regime and defeat an Iraqi insurgency. The US withdrew from Iraq in 2011 only to return in 2014 to fight the newly emerged ISIS terrorist group. US involvement in Iraq led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, including roughly 200,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the warring parties and more than 8,000 Americans. The war in Iraq, along with related military operations in Syria, cost almost $3 trillion.
In 2011, the United States and its allies carried out a bombing campaign against Libya to support insurgents who eventually overthrew Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. Compared to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, this regime change war was relatively low cost for the United States: the war lasted about seven months, no Americans died, and the operation cost roughly $1.6 billion.
The war was more costly for the Libyan people, though. The new Libyan government failed to establish effective control over the country, and Libya was soon split by a civil war. Libya remains troubled by armed political conflict to this day. Precisely how many people have died in 14 years of conflict is unknown, but the toll might be very high.
We have no reason to believe that a US war of regime change against Iran would be any less difficult or costly. Such a war against Iran may even be far worse than these earlier wars, for simple reasons of scale.
Iran is very large country, at 1.6 million square kilometers (about the size of Alaska), and a very populous country, at 92 million people. To provide relevant comparisons, Iran is more than double the size of Afghanistan and more than four times as populous as Afghanistan was at the time of the US invasion in 2001. Iran is more than triple the size of Iraq and more than three times as populous as Iraq was at the time of the 2003 US invasion. Iran is actually somewhat smaller than Libya but more than 14 times as populous as Libya was at the time of 2011 war.
Tony Masalonis and Herb Geraghty hold signs
Invading and occupying a country as large and populous as Iran and trying to establish a new regime that could govern the country would be an even bigger challenge than these previous regime changes—and thus would likely be far bloodier and more costly. Beyond the scale of the task, an occupying power and a new regime would have to contend with uniting a country that has various ethnic divisions, such as between the Persian majority and Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and other minorities.
Writing in the Guardian, Patrick Wintour commented that if the current Iranian government is overthrown, “Azerbaijan and the many Kurdish militant movements might see a chance to carve out ethnic enclaves from Iranian territories.”
Beyond all these considerations, proponents of regime change should also contemplate the fact that the disruptions produced by a war in Iran might lead to some of the country’s enriched uranium stockpiles going missing or being seized by groups with their own agendas. A war of regime change in Iran might lead to uranium falling into terrorist hands. War on Iran might thus prove to be a self-fulling prophecy, bringing about the kind of nuclear danger it’s meant to prevent.
Would Even Successful Regime Be Futile?
Finally, another scenario should be considered. Let’s set aside the legitimate concerns about a war of regime change and assume a near-miraculous outcome in which the current Iranian regime is replaced by a stable new one without terrible destruction and loss of life. Even in such a situation, the new Iranian regime might continue to pursue the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
In a debate over Iran, Dan Caldwell, a Marine veteran, made the striking observation that Iran, as a large nation that is ethnically and religiously distinct from its neighbors (being non-Arab and Shia Muslim) may wish to have the power that comes from a nuclear program regardless of what regime rules the country. The current Iranian nuclear program might arise from conditions more enduring than the personalities or ideology of the ruling elite. We cannot know what some hypothetical future regime might do, but Caldwell makes the valuable point that we shouldn’t assume that a different government will mean entirely different policies.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, seeking regime change in Iran would be profoundly unwise. Further, a policy that would probably cost huge numbers of lives and trillions of dollars while likely accomplishing very little is not, in my judgment and I would guess most people’s judgment, a moral policy.
Concerns about Iran or its nuclear program should be addressed diplomatically, which means dealing with the current Iranian regime. Let’s hope those making decisions in the United States and Israel come to realize this.
====================
For more of our posts on how wars are unjustified, see:
The Huge Mistake: The U.S. Joins Israel in Bombing Iran
Gaza War: Outrageous and Foolish
The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory: Opportunities for Just War and Pacifist Collaboration
The Civil War Conundrum, 150 Years Later
Finding Common Ground on and Learning from World War II
Seeing War’s Victims: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria
The Huge Mistake: The U.S. Joins Israel in Bombing Iran
Editor’s note: This is a quick response to last weekend’s events, and we expect to have more to say with the rapid developments this situation is likely to have.
The date of publication, June 24, is also the third anniversary of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, so we pro-lifers in the United States are observing it in various ways all over the country.
by John Whitehead
Israel bombed Iran for many days in an apparent attempt to destroy Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated by bombing Israel. Hundreds of Iranians and dozens of Israelis have been killed to date. US President Donald Trump contemplated joining Israel in bombing Iran, and finally did so on June 22, 2025.
American involvement in Israel’s war against Iran war is a catastrophic mistake. Here are some reasons why:
The current war against Iran is not a war of self-defense.
While Iran might be pursuing the capacity to build nuclear weapons, Iran does not yet have such weapons nor is it clear when Iran might have such weapons.
The Trump administration’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress in March 2025 that US intelligence’s assessment was that: “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized [a] nuclear weapons program.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when he announced Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran, acknowledged that he did not know when Iran might build nuclear weapons, saying, “It could be a year, it could be within a few months.”
Even if Iran did build nuclear weapons, there is no guarantee Iran would use such weapons against Israel, the United States, or any other nation. Using these weapons could carry very serious negative consequences for Iran.
Attacking Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity is thus not self-defense against an attack but an attempt to prevent some future, uncertain threat. Unleashing actual violence to prevent speculative future violence is not justified.
Waging war on Iran may encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
The lesson other nations watching the current war might draw from recent events is that they should build nuclear weapons for themselves as quickly as possible. Possessing such weapons could serve as insurance against attacks such as Iran is enduring.
The current war may escalate out of control.
If Israel or the United States decides the current bombing is not sufficient to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions; or if Iran retaliates by killing American troops in the Middle East, the war could get much bigger. At worst, it could escalate into a war by the United States to overthrow Iran’s current government.
Past US wars of regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya show how disastrous such wars turn out to be. Such a war in Iran would likely have similar results.
For all these reasons, the United States should not have joined Israel’s war on Iran.
==================================
For more of our posts on how wars are unjustified, see:
Gaza War: Outrageous and Foolish
The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory: Opportunities for Just War and Pacifist Collaboration
The Civil War Conundrum, 150 Years Later
Finding Common Ground on and Learning from World War II
Seeing War’s Victims: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria
==================================
On the anniversary of the Dobbs decision, see our posts that comment on Dobbs directly:
Major Obstacle Removed! (June 24, 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade)
Reflections on the Alito Draft Leak of May 2, 2022
Post-Roe Life-Affirming Help / Rachel MacNair
Post-Roe Stats: the Natural Experiment / Rachel MacNair
Roe v. Wade: Legal Scholars Comment
Abortion and Slavery
by Jim Hewes
The film Harriet portrays a moment when the enslaved woman Minty—better known as Harriet Tubman—asks her “owner” for permission to start a family. He refuses, reminding her that any child she bears would belong to him. That scene evokes a chilling truth: under slavery, a person could be reduced to mere property, their humanity denied. This historical injustice offers a profound, though sensitive, parallel to the modern issue of abortion. It got me to thinking about the parallel relationship of slavery to abortion. I don’t believe that it’s a coincidence that June 19 marked the official end of slavery in the United States and is near June 22, which marks the Dobbs anniversary, which overturned the horrendous abortion decision of Roe v. Wade.
A Global Tragedy
Some might wonder about the relevance of comparing slavery in the past to abortion in the present. Walk Free estimates that about 50 million people worldwide live as slaves. According to the World Health Organization there are many more abortions worldwide — around 73 million. In other words, 200,000 pre-born children are killed each day because they also are dehumanized and treated as disposable objects.
A Word of Caution: We have to be careful in using such a comparison because slavery, especially in the United States (like the Holocaust to the Jewish community) has a designated meaning and a deep wound to a specific group of people, namely the African American community, which has looked at slavery as the nation’s original sin, whose effect reverberates for generations. The arguments for abortion and slavery are not always exactly the same.
Control over Life and Body
In slavery, some slaveholders forced Black women to give birth (sometimes after a rape) to produce new slaves, future property. Enslaved women were acutely aware that they didn’t “own” their bodies, unlike the perception today of women (even if this perception is skewed). Although many women feel pressured to have an abortion by partners, parents, and a culture of death, many still describe abortion as an act of desperation—a way to escape an unbearable situation, even if it leaves lasting emotional wounds.
Where enslaved persons were denied ownership of their own bodies, many women today are told they have total autonomy over their pregnancies. But this autonomy often exists in a vacuum of fear, pressure, or lack of support. Crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life communities strive to offer the alternatives that so many women long for.
Life, Death and Personhood
Both the arguments for slavery and the arguments for abortion rely on a central claim: that a human being is less than human, sub-human. The dehumanization of Black people relied on unscientific and immoral claims that they were inferior. The dehumanization of pre-born babies relies on similarly unscientific claims that they are “a clump of cells” or part of a woman’s body. The two approaches also championed a form of “choice” that focused on the belief and feelings of the slaveholder and the mother, over the fundamental rights of the enslaved and pre-born children.
Pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood define abortion as “health care” to destigmatize the reality, as slavery was normalized as an ordinary part of the economic stability. Slavery opened up economic possibilities for slaveholders. Similarly, abortion is advocated in order that women can gain education and continue economic progress. In fact, both slavery and abortion advocates claim that if these practices were abolished, there would be a negative economic outcome.
The Illusion of Freedom
In abortion, only the mother gets a “choice,” and only slaveholders, not the enslaved, got a vote. In both cases, the person with the most to lose was excluded; both in the name of so-called “freedom.” It’s not anyone else’s business what they do with this commodity (products of conception). The slaveholder’s “property rights” and the mother’s “reproductive rights” are framed as inviolable freedoms, despite the human cost.
Dred Scott in 1857 was (just like Roe vs. Wade) a 7-2 decision. In the decision, Justice Roger Taney said Blacks were nonpersons without any protection of their human and civil rights. In Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun held that pre-born babies were also nonpersons. Pre-born children are still not considered persons under the 14th Amendment — the Dobbs decision returning abortion policy decision to the states continues to mirror slavery, which was legal in some states until the Civil War.
The Dred Scott decision told the abolitionists they couldn’t impose their morality on the slaveholder. Those who support and promote abortion state the same thing to pro-lifers—don’t impose your morality on women. Those who support allowing abortion often state that if you are against abortion, then don’t have one. Who are you to impose your morality and laws on us? Those who held the enslaved or supported slavery might have also said that if you don’t like slavery, then don’t hold a slave. Who are you to impose your morality on us or enact laws that hinder us from holding slaves? Slavery advocates promoted the idea that slavery was good because it was sanctioned by the nation’s highest court. Millions of Americans tragically believe abortion is okay just because it is still legal in many states.
The reason abortion is supported for the poor is that what is available to the rich should be available to the poor. The problem with this statement is that the premise is wrong. Abortion is seen by some of the wealthy as a good thing, and so should be available to the poor. Back in the 1860s, we would find that mainly the rich could afford slaves. Would those supporting abortion for the poor also want to see the poor given money so they could afford slaves? They wouldn’t because of the immorality of slavery. So, too, abortion is not helping the poor but only trying to aid the poor to kill their own.
The Power of Truth and Image
Abolitionists wielded education and imagery as powerful tools, showing the brutal reality and indignities of how slavery was such a scourge on society. They accomplished this through engravings, stories, and exposés. The pro-life movement today does the same, using fetal imagery, sonograms, and developmental milestones (heartbeat, brainwaves, fingerprints, etc.) to expose the humanity of the pre-born. One may not always remember what they are told, but they will remember the pictures. As philosopher Nicholai Berdyaev said: “The greatest sin of this age is making the concrete abstract.” Abortion, like slavery, thrives when the victim is hidden from view. The images of pre-born children remain completely left in the shadows to perpetuate the falsehood of what abortion really does to an innocent, helpless voiceless, human being.
So, supporting either abortion or slavery is a failure for people to see the intrinsic evil of their practice, and to see that no person could own another, within the womb or outside the womb.
Conclusion
The ultimate question that connects slavery and abortion is: who counts as one of us? It is clearly reflected in this statement:
Dred Scott and all slaves were told that they were not persons but property and we’re telling babies in the womb that they are not children, but they are property of their mother. It was ‘inconvenient’ for slaveholders to not have slaves; and it’s inconvenient’ for mothers to have children they don’t want. But that doesn’t make them any less human.”
— Lynne Jackson, great-great-granddaughter of Dred and Harriet Scott
Statues of Dred and Harriet Scott outside the St. Louis Courthouse where the case started.
==========================
For our post discussing the Scott case, see:
Our Experience with Overturning Terrible Court Decisions
For another modern-day application, see our project website, Peace and Life Referendums:
Finally Abolishing All Slavery
Hollywood Movie Insights III
by Rachel MacNair
This is the third in a series of short reviews of different movies. For the others, see:
Hollywood Movie Insights I (The Giver, The Whistleblower, and The Ides of March)
Hollywood Movie Insights II (Never Look Away, The Report, and Dark Waters)
She Said
Opposing sexual abuse because it’s horrific without needing to take anything else into account is a position taken by most people. But rape has an additional potential lethal consequence: it makes the killing of the unborn child conceived that way much more likely, and more likely to be seen by many as a justified exception. But if the rape never happens, then neither does the abortion. So part of the practice of pro-life ethics is to prevent rape and the associated forms of sexual abuse.
Therefore, a well-done movie focused on prevention by investigation and media exposure is a positive from our perspective. She Said is such a move. The connection is never made – abortion isn’t mentioned at all – but we don’t need connections made explicit to know they’re there.
The portrayal of young mothers handling children (with their husbands) and also professional responsibilities shows that having children is no career-blocker.
As an additional positive feature, one of the reporters is pregnant early in the story. It’s a nice touch to have a few seconds of a sonogram showing a delightful bouncing unborn child.
Cabrini
Set in the late 1800s in New York City, at a time when bigotry against Italian Americans was intense, Cabrini shows examples of how racism and living-in-the-sewer-level poverty can be lethal.
But what it’s about is a woman determined to help solve those problems. Mother Cabrini is a nun who sets up an orphanage and a higher-quality hospital, against great odds. But she isn’t merely doing charity – she knows she has to work on social justice and social institutions as well. She has courage, sound strategic thinking, powerful compassion, and an ability to reach people’s consciences.
My Dead Friend Zoe
In My Dead Friend Zoe, two women were veterans of Afghanistan. Merit is still alive, going to a court-ordered therapy group. Zoe interacts with Merit as a hallucination others don’t see. As Merit deals with family problems, we know throughout that Zoe is dead. Cheerfully so.
Spoiler alert: Until the end, we don’t know how Zoe died. Some will assume we’ll be told what combat incident killed her. Actually, she got home and shot herself. This goes with the dark truth: more soldiers die by suicide than by combat. The movie’s conclusion is the need for more therapy available to veterans.
This is certainly true. Veterans have already gone through war and desperately need the help. But not putting people into wars in the first place would be far more effective.
Snow White (2025 Disney live-action version)
The theory behind the effectiveness of nonviolent action – an alternative to war as a way of opposing tyranny – is that power comes not from the sword but from the cooperation of the people. Tyrants use fear to get that cooperation, as did the Evil Queen in Snow White. But people see authority as more legitimate when it takes a kind approach.
In this version, after the true-love kiss had aroused Snow White from the poisoned apple, the queen went back to the palace and Snow White went there to confront her. She elicited the support of the people before the face-to-face contact. When the queen ordered guards to kill her on the spot, Snow White called the men by name and reminded them of their former occupations and families. Noncooperation ensued.
This is reminiscent of the scene in the live-action version of Disney’s Aladdin when Jasmine also courageously appealed to the guards to not carry out the usurper’s demands.
===============================
See a full list of the movie reviews on our blog on our list of all posts under
Movie, Television, and Documentary Reviews
Get our SHORT Biweekly e-Newsletter
Quaker Queries
Rachel MacNair
by Rachel MacNair
The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is a pacifist denomination which nevertheless has a large numbers of members who support abortion availability. One of their large organizations called for nationwide discernment, whereby the Meetings and Churches would have their own local sessions in which members threshed out their understandings with the use of questions. These questions are called “Queries,” and they’re a common practice in Quaker circles.
Unfortunately, the queries that the national group sent were one-sided, and such is the bubble they live in that I’m not even sure they understood how one-sided they were. So I’ve done up another set, which I’m sending out to all known Quaker Meetings and Churches in the United States, in hopes that they might find them useful.
I sent them to the Consistent Life Network board for feedback, and the feedback I got was that this should be shared with the wider consistent-life community as well. Feel free to use them in any place where increased thoughtfulness is desired.
Reproductive Care: Alternative Queries
- Do we have the capability to explain the perspectives of abortion opponents in such a way that they can agree that we gave a fair rendition of their views? Are we familiar enough with pro-life feminism or the consistent life ethic to be able to explain them in a way that their proponents would regard as accurate? Is the ability to explain differing perspectives on this – along with on war, nuclear weapons, etc. – valuable as a spiritual practice? As a peacemaking practice?
- How comfortable are we when abortion is chosen because the fetus is female when it wouldn’t have been chosen if the fetus were male? Are we sensitive to how common this is in other parts of the world? What does this practice do to the status of women in general, and to the mindset of the pregnant woman? What does the fact that the biological gender can be known say about the humanity of the fetus?
- Have we considered that a side-effect of ready abortion availability is that impregnating men may feel they have no responsibility for children they fathered? That they consider it her choice to give birth, and not theirs, and therefore, they are justified in avoiding attention to the child or child-support payments? Does this lack of support help account for the increased feminization of poverty since abortion legalization in the U.S.? How does ready abortion availability impact men who feel entitled to sex?
- How would we deal with encountering a person who understands abortion to be the killing of a baby, but thinks this is acceptable as a problem-solver? How well could we talk such a person out of the idea that violence isn’t a problem-solver in other contexts? How do we answer people who understand abortion as the killing of a baby and are therefore puzzled as to how people could account themselves pacificists if they favor its availability?
- When the fetus having a disability is offered as a reason for aborting the fetus, what impact does this have on people living with disabilities? Can we expect such people to resent this as a form of bigotry against them? What does it do towards public attitudes about those living with disabilities?
- Does requiring children to be wanted before they can be born impact parental attitudes in a negative way? Does the ready availability of abortion help remove a taboo against hurting children in the minds of some parents?
- If you were aware that a group of women were filing a lawsuit because they took a drug regimen that left them with cramps and bleeding for several days, which they had not anticipated, would you be sympathetic with their claims? Would you become more sympathetic if emergency room visits were part of the problem? Would your sympathy change if you found the drug regimen in question was intended to induce abortion?
- A common technique in trying to get people to oppose war or nuclear weapons is to show the reality of what it does to victims. These pictures of war victims and hibakusha are hard to look at. Is showing such pictures an effective or morally necessary method? When abortion opponents show pictures of fetuses who have been torn apart, is this the same or different?
- How do we feel about organizations formed by former abortion doctors, nurses, and other staff who now oppose abortion based on their own experiences? When combat veterans form peace groups in opposition to war, is this similar? If we discount the groups of former abortion workers, does that give us insight into how others discount the combat veteran peace groups?
- How much is our understanding on abortion due to the merits of the issue, and how much is it due to our normal position on the leftwing/rightwing divide? How much does our position contribute to such a divide?
Coming Up with More
Reading these inspired others to draft something similar on more topics —
Tom Taylor:
How do we think about abortion in relation to questions of environmental destruction and protection of nature, climate, land, water, wildlife, and habitat? Is the fetal development process different from the development process of other aspects of nature? How is the development process of food crops and plants underground before emerging above ground different from the human development process in utero? Does humanity have a reciprocal relationship with and responsibility for good stewardship of the entire living, natural world? Are preborn, developing lives part of the natural world and of this reciprocal relationship, and also deserving of good stewardship? Do we, the currently living who experience the joys and challenges of life and enjoy nature’s benefits, have the right to deny this opportunity to new, still-developing lives? Should a commitment to nonviolence encompass the entire natural, living world in all stages of development, including preborn lives?
John Whitehead:
How would you react if a woman had a miscarriage or had a baby with severe health problems because she was exposed to industrial pollution, toxic waste, nuclear fallout, or other hazards? How would you react if she had a miscarriage or a baby with health problems because she received inadequate healthcare or nutrition during pregnancy? What might this tell us about our attitudes to pregnancy and fetal development?
==============================
See the website of our member group, Friends Witness for a Pro-life Peace Testimony.
Seeing the Humanity of “the Enemy”: Movies to Provoke Thought and Discussion
by John Whitehead
One of the many pernicious effects of war and other violent conflicts is how they push people into demonizing people on the other side of a conflict. Once people become identified as “the enemy” in a conflict, they become one-dimensional figures of evil or otherwise less than human in their opponents’ eyes. This psychological process of demonization makes killing other people much easier.
In contrast, art, at its best, can make us appreciate the humanity and complexity of the characters it portrays. Art can provide a more rounded portrayal of characters even when those characters belong to groups or act in ways that otherwise might make us reduce them to negative stereotypes.
When works of art deal with real-world conflicts in an intelligent way that reveals the characters’ humanity, they can serve as a welcome antidote to the demonization such conflicts encourage. I can think of three notable movies that do this important work of showing the humanity of different sides of violent conflicts.
Each movie comes from a different country and deals with a different historical conflict. Captivity and the complicated relationships that arise from it are themes in all three.
Prisoner of the Mountains [Кавкавский Пленних] (1996): This Russian movie, an updating of a Leo Tolstoy short story, is set during an unnamed conflict that is presumably meant to be the First Chechen War (1994-1996). This war pitted Russian government troops against Chechen separatist insurgents. The movie revolves around what happens when two Russian soldiers, Vanya and Sasha, are captured by insurgent Abdul-Murat.
Abdul-Murat hopes he can exchange the two soldiers for his own son, who is held prisoner by the Russians. He is willing to keep the two men alive as long as he can get his son back, but no longer.
Through the men’s captivity and the accompanying negotiations, we get to know Vanya and Sasha and Abdul-Murat and his family, as well as Vanya’s mother, who plays a role in trying to free her son. Both Russians and Chechens are capable of demonizing and killing each other, but they are also capable of kindness and mercy. Captives and captors can even connect as people and enjoy each other’s company. The movie also makes clear how all parties are to some degree victims of a corrupt Russian military establishment that is almost as indifferent to its own soldiers as it is to the insurgents.
While the movie includes scenes of violence, Prisoner of the Mountains is highly unusual among war movies in not sensationalizing violence. Even movies trying to show the horrors of war can portray violence in a way that is dramatic or exciting. However, when violence occurs in Prisoner of the Mountains, it is generally presented in a quick, matter-of-fact way, with few cinematic effects. The movie avoids being exploitative while reminding us of how war and wartime hatreds destroy human lives.
Some Mother’s Son (1996). During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, a significant conflict arose in the early 1980s over the status and treatment of IRA members imprisoned by the British. Margaret Thatcher’s government insisted on treating the IRA as a group of criminals. The imprisoned IRA members insisted that they were prisoners of war and should be accorded the rights of POWs, including being allowed to wear their own clothes rather than prison uniforms. Several IRA prisoners, most famously Bobby Sands, protested their treatment by going on hunger strike.
This fictionalized retelling of the prison conflict looks at two widowed women whose sons are among the imprisoned IRA hunger strikers. Annie Higgins is a staunch IRA supporter who looks with pride on her son’s activities; Kathleen Quigley is an apolitical schoolteacher who rejects the IRA’s violent tactics. Despite their differences, the two women unite to campaign for humane treatment for their sons and the other imprisoned men.
Some Mother’s Son clearly abhors the Thatcher government’s draconian policies (the main government representative is portrayed as being unrelievedly hateful, in one of the movie’s less subtle touches). Nevertheless, the movie also, in some very powerful scenes, condemns IRA violence. Both protagonists and their diverging views are treated respectfully and other characters, including some British officials, display intelligence and humanity.
Perhaps most interesting, Some Mother’s Son poses the question of whether trying to extract concession by slowly killing oneself through a hunger strike is an ethical tactic. The movie also questions the ethics of sacrificing lives—even one’s own life—to make a political point.
Four Days in September [O Que é Isso, Companheiro?] (1997) In 1969, a Brazilian radical group called MR-8 decided to challenge the military dictatorship ruling their country by kidnapping Charles Burke Elbrick, the US ambassador to Brazil. By capturing the diplomat, the radicals hoped both to force the US-backed regime to release some of their comrades from prison and to gain publicity for their cause. Four Days in September dramatizes the kidnapping and the complications that ensue.
The focus of the movie is Fernando Gabeira, one of the MR-8 radicals. He and his comrades are mostly college-aged intellectuals. They are idealistic and self-serious but also prone to bickering and joking around like any other group of students. The movie also shows that for all their passion they are largely out of their depth when it comes to violence.
Their hostage is well matched to such captors: Ambassador Elbrick is an intelligent man who feels guilty about US support for the dictatorship. Fernando and the others soon start talking and arguing with Elbrick and something almost like a rapport develops between captors and captive. Nevertheless, radicals must face the question of whether to kill Ambassador Elbrick if their demands are not met.
The movie also follows the Brazilian police’s attempts to track down the kidnapped ambassador. The officer in charge of the investigation has been deeply involved in the regime’s repression, including torture. Rather than present him simply as a villain, though, the movie shows how the police officer is haunted by what he has done; he seems to be suffering from Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress, which now mars his life.
Because the movie takes the time to show us all these different characters as real, flawed but sympathetic people, how the crisis is resolved and the various fates people meet makes the viewer feel the tragedy of the whole situation all the more deeply.
All three of these movies were made roughly 30 years ago and thus are due for rediscovery. Any of these movies would make for valuable viewing and topics of discussion among consistent life ethic advocates or other activists concerned with peace and justice. All serve as important reminders of the need to see past the passions of political conflict and recognize others’ humanity.
==============================
For more of our movie reviews, see:
The Movie “Wicked”: Making a Real Person of the Witch of the West
A Complex Man’s Complex Legacy: What the Movie Rustin Leaves Out
The Violence That Didn’t Happen
Seeing Is Believing: Films to Inspire a Consistent Life Viewpoint
Movies with Racism Themes: “Gosnell” and “The Hate U Give”The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
Hollywood Movie Insights I (The Giver, The Whistleblower, and The Ides of March)
Hollywood Movie Insights II (Never Look Away, The Report, and Dark Waters)
Jasmine, Aladdin, and the Power of Nonviolence
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
Justice Littered with Injustice: Viewing Just Mercy in a Charged Moment
Their Abortion Stand Still Hurts Democrats
by Rachel MacNair
Yesteryear
We’ve long been making the point that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot with having not merely a pro-abortion stand but an aggressive stand, tolerating no dissent.
Here are illustrative quotations:
A Couple of Decades Ago:
Mark Shields
Dems doing worst to lose “Catholic vote”, Mark Shields Creators Syndicate, July 22, 2002
In a deliberate act of political bigotry, the Democratic National Committee is daily telling Catholic voters to get lost. Do you think I exaggerate? Then go to the Democratic National Committee website . . .
There is under “Catholic” only one Democratic Party-endorsed site to visit: the absolutely unflinching champions of abortion on demand, “Catholics for a Free Choice.” How offensive is this? Well, what would be the reaction if the only DNC-recommended site under Jewish-American . . . was “Jews for Jesus?” Or if Native Americans were directed to the “Little Beaver” and Tonto library?
Beyond the insensitivity is the ignorance. Does anybody at Democratic Party headquarters know that polling, for the past half century, has consistently shown that Catholics – on issues from health care to workers’ rights to the environment and civil rights – are consistently more liberal than are Protestants?
Jim Wallis
Politically Homeless, Sojourners, Jan 4, 2018
Moral issues of intrinsic concern to the faith community are often disregarded or disrespected by Democratic Party orthodoxy, which often takes extreme or overly strident views on issues like abortion. Many of us in the faith community regard abortion as a moral issue and part of a consistent ethic of life and seamless garment of concern for the many threats to human life and dignity. . . we find the Democrats even reluctant to make a commitment to reducing abortion by supporting women with health care, nutrition, and social services. Many in Democratic leadership don’t seem to want to talk about or even being willing to use the word “reduction” as a positive term in relation to abortion . . . While a younger generation in the faith community is indeed more welcoming of LGBTQ people than their parents have been, they are not so welcoming of abortion as the Democratic elites seem to be, and the Democratic Party needs to figure that out.
During Trump’s first term:
David Brooks
The Abortion Memo, The New York Times, February 1, 2018
To: Democratic Party Leaders
From: Imaginary Democratic Consultant
Re: Late-Term Abortions
Dear Democratic Leaders,
Last week I watched as our senators voted down the Republican bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. Our people hung together. Only three Democrats voted with the other side. Yet as I was watching I kept wondering: How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us? How many progressive priorities are we giving up just so we can have our way on this one? . . .
Millions of Americans became single-issue voters. They consider the killing of the unborn the great moral issue of our time. Without pro-life voters, Ronald Reagan never would have been elected. Without single-issue voters who wanted pro-life judges, there would never have been a President Donald Trump. I understand that our donors (though not necessarily our voters) want to preserve a woman’s right to choose through all nine months of her pregnancy. But do we want late-term abortion so much that we are willing to tolerate President Trump? Do we want it so much that we give up our chance at congressional majorities? Do we want it so much that we see our agendas on poverty, immigration, income equality and racial justice thwarted and defeated?
Michael Wear
Democrats Shouldn’t Be So Certain About Abortion, The New York Times, July 14, 2019, pg. SR4
Mr. Wear served as part of President Barack Obama’s faith-based initiative and on both of his presidential campaigns. He’s not a consistent-lifer but makes some interesting points.
Democrats used to express great offense if Republicans described them as the party of “abortion on demand.” Now, Democratic candidates seem happy to leave the impression that their party is just that, often justifying their position by suggesting it’s a direct result of listening to women, communities of color and those with low incomes. Here’s the problem: They don’t speak for these communities when they appear to support abortion on demand. We know that 73 percent of women believe abortion should be restricted to at least the first three months (with a large percentage of those women supporting even greater restrictions). According to a June Morning Consult/Politico poll, 42 percent of Hispanics support Hyde (28 percent oppose), as well as 36 percent of African-Americans (37 percent oppose) and 46 percent of Americans with an income under $50,000 (31 percent oppose).
But Now, Post-Dobbs
Some pundits thought abortion was a winning issue, and strategists believed having a pro-abortion measure on the ballot would bring out more Democratic voters. In 2024, that strategy clearly failed – some states passed the measures and yet still went for Trump. And while some of the measures succeeded, not enough did to recommend this as a future strategy. See the rundown of 2024 measures and the state constitution strategy from our project website, Peace and Life Referendums.
I live in Missouri, one of the states with a “right to abortion” amendment that passed with just 51.2% of the vote. So I know what the pro-amendment ads said: “Missouri’s abortion ban went too far.” They didn’t try to make the case for the amendment, which went to the opposite extreme. And rumors were flying about the ban being far more extreme than it actually was.
But we’ve known for all these decades about public opinion on abortion: the two extremes each have a fraction of the population. Around half or so are somewhere in the middle. From Gallup:
They divided positions into three groups, but a continuum better fits the situation. That 50% includes the only exception being their understanding of abortion being necessary to save the life of the mother, and then another portion will be exceptions for rape and incest only. Along the continuum will be people that say first trimester only, plus other ideas.
Note that the category of “legal under any” is only about a third of the population. And even some of them, if you question them further, may balk at sex selection.
Such questions as taxpayer funding of abortion, informed consent, and parental involvement aren’t included. So if that third includes many with opinions on those that are different from the Democratic rhetoric, they don’t even have that third.
No matter how Democratic politicians may fool themselves into thinking the public is with them when they observe anything less than full opposition to abortion, that doesn’t translate to full support for abortion either.
Full support, the kind where we have the candidate actually visiting an abortion facility, where abortion pills are offered by a mobile van outside the Democratic convention, where the pro-abortion rhetoric is extreme and constant – that fits in with an elitist image.
Inasmuch as a perception of elitism was one of the Democrats’ election problems, their abortion rhetoric added to that image.
As put in the non-partisan publication,The Hill:
Among Kamala Harris’ many strategic blunders, abortion may be her greatest. In her overemphasis of and overextension on this issue, Harris exhibited the same elitism and hubris that doomed her entire campaign.
==================================
For more of our posts on interacting with the Democratic Party, see:
Adventures as a Delegate to the Democratic Party Convention / Lisa Stiller
My Day at the Democratic National Convention / Rob Arner
For more of our posts about elections, see:
Pro-life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer / John Whitehead
My Difficulty in Voting: Identifying the Problem (about the American Solidarity Party) / Monica Sohler
Oh My, How the Election Conundrum Has Changed (2024) / Rachel MacNair
Human Being, or Merely Potential Human?
by Jim Hewes
In abortion debates, a pro-abortion presenter might dismiss the developing human organism within the womb as merely a potential human. This suggests a state of being unreal or incomplete. This term is misleading and fundamentally flawed, as it denies biological reality and creates ethical confusion.
Historically, labeling certain groups as less than fully human – be they Jews, black Africans, or immigrants – has been used to justify grave injustices. Similarly, categorizing pre-born children as merely “potential humans” is a dangerous precedent and an arbitrary exclusion of a whole group of powerless, voiceless human beings. It diminishes their rights and protections, leaving them vulnerable to a complete disregard and a brutal injustice.
Misuse of the Term “Potential”
I have a potential job; do I actually have a job?
He has the potential to be one of the team’s best players; is he actually the team’s best player?
She has a potential cure for cancer; does she have a cure for cancer?
Applying “potential” to a developing human being similarly suggests that the pre-born child is not yet real. But is any other part of a woman’s body –such as a gallbladder or appendix – referred to as having potential to independently become a fully developed human being? Clearly not.
In other words, when the word “potential” is used it means that there isn’t a reality, but just abstract future concept. So too, calling the pre-born potential humans means they aren’t real.
That’s why ultrasound of a pre-born child can be so moving to a pregnant woman. The picture of the baby in utero affirms visually and emotionally that what is present is an actual living human being, not merely potential life.
Scientific and Biological Reality
The man’s sperm and the woman’s ovum by themselves never have been, nor ever could be, an individual person. Yet at the moment of fertilization the pre-born child doesn’t simply have potential DNA, the child possesses actual DNA. This includes a complete design, which is unrepeatable and completely distinct from the DNA of both the mother and the father.
Fetal surgery offers treatments that can correct certain medical conditions before birth. This would be impossible if the pre-born were merely potential life. This demonstrates that “potential human” really means “pre-human,” which is obviously irrelevant to the fundamental scientific definition of human life, as determined by embryology.
Sarah Terzo’s article on Substack reports on a book Pregnancy and Abortion Counseling by Joanna Brien and Ida Fairbai (1996 p.176) – a very pro-abortion book. Even these authors admit that sonographers experience difficulty when seeing a baby about to be aborted. This is unlikely if the child were merely “potential” life.
For a real and powerful story of one sonographer’s graphic experience see Choice 42.com “The Procedure,” witnessing the abortion of an actual human being, not a potential one. It was seeing a real life (not a potential life) being aborted on a sonogram. Abby Johnson’s testimony, famously portrayed in Unplanned, confirms this: witnessing the sonogram of a real human being aborted prompted her to leave Planned Parenthood and become a strong pro-life advocate.
If the pre-born were merely potential life, there couldn’t be a strong objection made against a pregnant woman taking thalidomide, consuming an excessive amount of alcohol,) or taking drugs like cocaine, all of which can cause birth defects. In other words, there wouldn’t be an objection to deforming, addicting, burning, suffocating, starving, dismembering, or torturing a life which is only a potential life. The strong disapproval and prohibition of such actions only makes sense if what is harmed is an actual life, not merely a potential human being.
Survivors of Abortion:
Not Potential but Actual Human Beings
We have real life stories of those who were considered at one time just potential lives yet survived an abortion. Many more stories are at the Abortion Survivors Network.
Melissa Ohden (“You Carried Me: A Daughter’s Memoir,” and “Abortion Survivors Speak Their Silence”)
Jessica Shaver Renshaw (“Gianna”)
Claire Culwell (“Survivor: An Abortion Survivor’s Surprising Story of “Choosing Forgiveness and Finding Redemption”)
Cynthia Toolin-Wilson (“Survivor: A Memoir of Forgiveness”)
“Potential” as a Weapon
What moment is our potential achieved? Then, what is it about that moment that makes us human? What makes this moment different from the potential after this moment is achieved (whether at conception or moments before birth)? One is never less a human because of their potential. There are always events or conditions that could increase or decrease whether the potential will actually happen or be fulfilled.
In addition, once we meet that “potential” that makes us human, does our potential cease? If so, then it appears that our “humanity” as defined by potential is a “dead end street.” If not and we have the potential “to grow,” then growth is not a foreign concept to being human, which makes the embryo or fetus as much human as any other stage of development.
In a pro-abortion rationalization, potential is the enemy. It diminishes us. In fact, our potential should really enhance our present worth and value!
Using the word “potential” in this situation is simply arbitrary categorization. It results from linguistic manipulation. All social engineering is proceeded by verbal engineering. Saying a pre-born child is only a potential life is just another modern example of the self-creating of one’s own reality, divorced from an objective truth. Redefining reality to suit subjective views threatens objective truth and undermines moral accountability.
Conclusion
The consequence of this arbitrary framing is done by those in power, who then determine certain pre-born children aren’t human beings, but only potential humans, which means that a whole group weren’t worthy of the rights and protections afforded to human beings. How is it possible to have a complete brutal annihilation of something that is only potential?
The phrase “potential human” effectively means “pre-human,” a distraction incompatible with scientific definitions provided by embryology. The embryo or fetus is undeniably a human being, complete with unique DNA and developmental autonomy. Labeling any human as “potential” rather than actual diminishes their inherent dignity, echoing tragic historical errors we must avoid repeating.
======================================
For more of our posts addressing abortion rhetoric, see:
Through Heaven’s Eyes: Honoring the God-Given Worth of Every Life
Ava Addams
by Ava Addams
In a fractured world where value is too often assigned by status, productivity, or popularity, the message of the Gospel cuts through the noise with a bold, unrelenting truth: Every human life bears the image of God.
- Not some.
- Not just convenient.
- Not only the ones who agree with us or look like us.
Every life.
- The unborn and the elderly.
- The refugee and the prisoner.
- The addicted and the mentally ill.
- The lonely teen and the forgotten widow.
- The misunderstood outcast and the well-dressed executive.
Scripture doesn’t let us pick and choose who matters. Instead, it calls us to see everyone through the lens of heaven—through the eyes of Christ, full of compassion and justice.
- Life in the Womb: Formed by the Hands of God
Our culture often debates when life begins, but Scripture is remarkably clear. Life is sacred from the very beginning—knit together by divine hands.
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
—Psalm 139:13
The unborn are not potential people—they are people with potential. They are not accidents or statistics. Each heartbeat echoes the creativity and intention of the Creator. To honor life in the womb is to acknowledge that God is already at work, forming and knowing that child with infinite care.
This isn’t about politics—it’s about posture. It’s about a heart that trembles in awe at the sacred mystery of life and dares to protect what God calls precious.
- The Elderly: Carriers of Legacy and Wisdom
In a youth-obsessed culture, the elderly are often viewed as obsolete or burdensome. But God’s Word tells a different story.
“Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained in the way of righteousness.”
—Proverbs 16:31
The elderly are not leftovers from a past era—they are living testaments to God’s faithfulness. Every wrinkle is a line in the story God has written. Every story is a treasure chest of wisdom for the next generation.
The Church is called to honor, not ignore—to listen, not dismiss. The family of God is multigenerational by design. We need their prayers, their stories, their presence. They remind us that God is not done working, even in our final days.
- The Marginalized: Where Jesus Still Walks
Jesus had a pattern. He consistently moved toward those the world moved away from.
The leper, the woman caught in adultery, the tax collector, the Samaritan woman—these were the people Jesus honored with His presence, His time, His love.
“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
—Matthew 25:40
To follow Jesus is to walk the same road—toward the broken, the ignored, the oppressed. The refugee fleeing war. The homeless person sleeping on church steps. The mentally ill neighbor navigating darkness alone. We don’t just offer charity—we offer dignity. We don’t just give—we stand beside.
True justice isn’t loud outrage. It’s quiet, consistent love that lifts the fallen and restores their God-given worth.
- The Misunderstood and Forgotten: Bearing God’s Image
Some people don’t fit easily into our boxes. They’re too complicated, too different, too uncomfortable. But every single one bears the Imago Dei—the image of God.
“So God created mankind in his own image . . . male and female he created them.”
—Genesis 1:27
That includes the person with special needs.
The one struggling with gender identity.
The one battling addiction.
The teenager drowning in anxiety and depression.
The parent who feels they’ve failed.
To honor life means we don’t define people by their struggles. We see deeper. We see God’s fingerprints. We love first. We ask questions. We listen. We refuse to reduce people to categories or headlines.
- The Church’s Calling: Be a Voice and a Refuge
In a broken world, the Church is not meant to be an echo chamber of judgment—it is meant to be a lighthouse of hope. When we speak up for life, we must do so with both conviction and compassion. Truth without love hardens hearts. But love without truth dilutes the message.
Let our churches be sanctuaries of grace. Let our homes welcome the weary. Let our tables have seats for those who’ve never felt truly seen.
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
—Proverbs 31:8
We are not just called to believe in the sanctity of life. We are called to embody it—in every decision, every conversation, every act of kindness.
A Final Reflection: Looking Through Heaven’s Eyes
When Jesus saw the crowds, He didn’t just see faces. He saw souls.
“He had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
—Matthew 9:36
To walk in His footsteps is to train our eyes to see as He sees.
To see the unborn and say, “You are wanted.”
To see the elderly and say, “You are still needed.”
To see the hurting and say, “You are not alone.”
To see the broken and say, “You are still beloved.”
Because every life matters—not because of what it can do, but because of who made it.
And when we finally learn to see people through heaven’s eyes, we’ll begin to love them with heaven’s heart.
==================================
For more of our posts from a Christian perspective, see:
Abortion and the Christian Bible: A Consistent-Life Perspective
The Consistent Life Consensus in Ancient Christianity
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian:
For more of our posts from additional religious perspectives, see:
Why the Interfaith Approach is Important
Abortion and War are the Karma for Killing Animals (Hinduism)