Pro-Life or Whole-Life? — Good Faith Debates

Sometimes pro-life activists are criticized for only caring about vulnerable life in the womb, but caring little about vulnerable lives outside the womb. Is this a fair critique, and are there ways the pro-life movement should be more expansive in its efforts to celebrate the sanctity of life? For Christians, do the theological and moral foundations of the pro-life argument (e.g. imago Dei) call us to align with other causes (e.g. fighting racism and social injustice, climate change, and so on) that might break rank with political coalitions typically aligned with pro-life policy? Or is there an argument to be made that a narrowly focused pro-life movement is essential and that expanding focus can be counterproductive?

These and related questions are addressed in this debate between Scott Klusendorf and Karen Swallow Prior. Klusendorf and Swallow Prior share their respective arguments and engage in a discussion moderated by Jim Davis, teaching pastor at Orlando Grace Church.


#prolife #roevwade #life #abortionrights #abortion

[lpz]

As always, Scott’s argument is solid.

[jeffmarkus]

As debates go, there was no contest. One side clearly dominated.
There are hundreds of organizations devoted to addressing quality of life issues from womb to tomb – some praiseworthy, some ineffectual, some unscrupulous. If, as a socially-conscious Christian, I wanted to take on a holistic approach to my advocacy I would be well-advised to support one or more of the many existing principled organizations, in addition to my pro-life involvement. I don’t see the reasoning – moral or logical – behind saddling pro-life organizations with unduly expansive mandates when other organizations already exist for that end. I fear that many so-called “whole-life” advocates are attenuating the gravity and efficacy of the bigger cause: the prevention of murder against unborn human beings.

[heartofalegend]

I'm tempted to guess who TGC sides with in this discussion, but I don't want to know.

[robstubbs]

Speaking very practically, giving up the moniker of “Pro-life” in exchange for “Whole-life” would be akin to Apple changing its name to Comprehensive Computer Corporation. The idea could only come from one of their competitors.

[johnbeale]

These debates are hilarious. By the end the debaters are agreeing with each other. Why bother listening.

[JesseStevenPollom]

Man, Scott Klusendorf is soooo solid!! I love his point #4 how he applied the atoning blood of Jesus to mother’s who have aborted.

I appreciated a lot of what KSP had to say, but was disappointed to see her essentially equate an alleged individual sexual abuser with the murder of children (in terms of voting).

Lastly, while I appreciate TGC modeling charity in disagreement, there’s a point at which you are avoiding disagreement so much that it’s not a debate anymore. I think that’s a problem with this “unity at all costs” approach that TGC pushes.

[billybob-wxre]

where was the debate? what'd they even argue about? did they even differ from each other on anything??

[cameronwitmer]

Karen swallowed prior to having to engage with her opponent’s opening statement.

[MH-uhhw]

Neither one really answered the last question.

[heartofalegend]

This debate should be required viewing for the church, today. Pro-life advocates don't realize that many of the people they're up against are wearing their own jerseys while playing for the other team. I'm surprised TGC hosted this.

[davids]

It is completely ridiculous to promote the idea that if you're not actively fighting every single form of evil, that you don't have the right to say you're fighting any evil at all.

[serveChrist]

SPEAKING AGAINST ABORTION, someone has said, "No one should be denied access to the great feast of life, " to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for children born to people who don't want them or can't afford them or are one way or another incapable of taking care of them and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning them.

And yet, and yet. Who knows what treasure life may hold for even such children as those, or what treasures even such children as those may grow up to become? To bear a child even under the best of circumstances, or to abort a child even under the worst—the risks are hair-raising either way and the results incalculable.

How would Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of Life and yet who says that it is not the ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear, but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way only the world into which they are born can kill unloved, unwanted children (Matthew 10:28)?

There is perhaps no better illustration of the truth that in an imperfect world there are no perfect solutions. All we can do, as Luther said, is sin bravely, which is to say, (a) know that neither to have the child nor not to have the child is without the possibility of tragic consequences for everybody, yet (b) be brave in knowing also that not even that can put us beyond the forgiving love of God.

- Originally published in "Whistling in the Dark" (Frederick Buechner)

[jvlp]

I am a Christians... but where do we "DRAW the LINE" between the "Gift of FREEWILL" given by God Almighty to Mankind and Sons of God (Angels including the Fallen angels) to choose between Good or Evil... and the PRO-LIFE movement?...
Do you think the rising abortion cases most especially among the Atheist (non-believers) due to the FAILURE of Evangelism (spreading the Gospel) for we focus more on the "Prosperity Gospel?

[dv]

I like how Karen pointed out how someone who is pro-life but believes abortion should be allowed in cases of rape could be pro-life because they see pregnancy as punishment for poor decisions around sex and not because they consistently value the life of the child. I hadn't really thought of it that way before. Usually rape/incest exceptions are presented as something "merciful". Learned to think about that in a new way. I support "womb-to-tomb", but I also wouldn't support making other social programs into prerequisites that must be satisfied before abortion can be made illegal. I also don't think every pro-life organization acting against abortion has to expand their scope to cover all other social programs as well.

[noblerare]

I think this was an okay topic but when it comes to abortion, I was expecting to see a debate between a Christian who is pro-choice versus one who is pro-life. The Christian who is pro-choice could be against abortion personally but argues that from a legislative perspective, pro-choice will/may reduce the occurrences of abortion and protect the life and health of women. I would have much preferred to see that debate rather than this one here.

[rogueprincess]

Like all of these "debates" I don't struggle to figure out which side I'm on but this man just really ticked me off. maybe it was his delivery, or how his opening just didn't fit his argument, but his approach was just off putting. Karen was pretty good though.

[MH-uhhw]

So disappointed that Scott did not point out the sin of voting for those who promote the murder of babies.

[Gary_G]

Removed TGC as a favorite bookmark. There have been no POC in these debates.