Recently, the Facebook group for the activist group known as “Abolish Human Abortion” shared a note to fellow pro-life activists providing critique and advice. Here, we’ll analyze that post to see how accurately it represents their opponents and what we can take away from how to argue the abortion issue.
I’ll link to the entire post (see above; see it also reproduced in the comments below) so that you can read it for yourself and see if I unfairly represented anything. I’ve also kept a copy of it on file to reproduce it in the comments. I welcome comments so long as they follow my comment policy.
Tone
First, I want to say that I do appreciate some of what AHA has done and continued to do. Many of their posters are helpful (such as the one featured in this post or in my post on Bonhoeffer’s view of abortion), and they provide some solid analysis of the abortion issue from a worldview perspective. No one reading this post should think that everything I think about AHA is negative. I have had positive interactions with AHA in the past and hope, as they do, that one day we can end abortion. I also favor the immediate end of abortion to gradually ending it. My contention is that gradual legislation is actually effective (this claim will be borne out below).
Second, note that any response to me should operate under a fairly similar tone. I have actively worked to end abortion through protest, prayer, writing, and other avenues. I hope that one day we can end abortion. Attacks on me as a person because I disagree with the method of another pro-life group should be seen for what they are: obfuscation.
Third, I will not respond to anything not in the comments here. I simply don’t have time to go actively seeking responses to my posts, so if you have something to say, write it here and please be brief.
Analysis
The author of the note, T. Russell Hunter, begins with a claim: “When hospitals all across America start paying doctors to perform abortions within their walls, it will be the triumphs of pro-life legislation which drove them there.” This claim is that which Hunter contends to support. Let us analyze the rest of the note to see if this claim is borne out therein.
The first piece of allegedly supporting evidence is this: “Passing laws that temporarily shut down abortion clinics because they are not close enough to hospitals only strengthens the abortion industry…”
Think about that claim for a second. First, does it support the claim that hospitals “all across America” will start performing abortions? Second, does it provide any evidence whatsoever? Finally, let’s put this claim in perspective with some facts. Planned Parenthood has said, of the closure of several clinics in Texas [paraphrasing], “…the requirement could leave the state of 26 million people with as few as six abortion centers.” That same article notes how many abortion providers have failed to meet the new requirements put in place by laws in Texas. Think about that: if there are only 6 abortion centers in a state the size of Texas, do you think that the number of abortions will increase or decrease?
Another claim made by Hunter: “Abortion is not health care and we should not be fighting it by passing health-code rules and regulations.”
Given how much AHA likes to parallel ending abortion with the abolition movement, I think it is fitting to point to the way William Wilberforce–who effectively ended slavery in Great Britain–worked against slavery. For some time he tried to get votes passed to outright abolish slavery. Ultimately, however, abolition was assured when a bill was passed forbidding military aid to be provided to slave ships due to the war with France. The move was effectively a sleight of hand because several British ships operated under neutral flags, so the slave trade was crippled and slavery was abolished not long after that. You can see this story beautifully dramatized in the film Amazing Grace.
What does this bit of history tell us? It tells us that such means actually are effective. Thus, when a state like Texas passes new legislation to ensure the heath and safety of women who are at abortion clinics, and those new regulations cause a state with 26 million people to shut down abortion clinics, the pro-life cause does benefit.
Two claims of supporting evidence provided are: “4. Some ‘clinics’ will close, but those remaining will pick up the slack; 5. Shutting down clinics doesn’t halt abortion, it just makes people who choose to sacrifice their children drive further.”
I’d like to ask AHA to provide statistics to back up these claims. Rather than just throwing out speculation that women who choose abortion will just “drive further” (remember, Planned Parenthood is concerned a state like Texas [look at its size on the map!] will go down to just six clinics), back it up. Yet AHA expects us to believe through mere speculation that these women will “drive further.” I wonder what evidence they have to support that. Moreover, the evidence actually counters this claim. (From the article:) “Kansas is one state that is an example of how closing abortion clinics saves lives. Since 2001, every time an abortion clinic closed in Kansas, the number of abortions significantly dropped the following year.” That’s a fact. What has AHA provided to support their claim that closing clinics is not effective?
Unfortunately, the rest of the note essentially follows this same theme. There are a number of claims thrown out there with no evidence. Consider this tidbit: “Do you not see that the abortion industry only gets stronger as they build bigger and better clinics to meet your pro life standards. Do you not see that they (like you) just raise money from their so-called defeats? Have you not come to realized that no matter how many clinics you shut down, millions of babies are still being aborted every year. Do you not see that the devil himself would allow you to take a few pieces off the board so long as he constantly has you in check mate?”
Again, facts speak louder than empty leading questions. The number of clinics closed has not been offset by the number opened. The number is, in fact, down 74% since 1991. And, when clinics close, the number of abortions decreases.
Consequentialism or Pragmatism- Getting it Done?
The main problem with AHA’s reasoning is that they take an all-or-nothing mentality. You can observe that in the leading questions noted above. In particular, “Have you not come to realized [sic] that no matter how many clinics you shut down, millions of babies are still being aborted every year[?]” Yes, it is true that millions are being aborted. However, when pro-life legislation continues to reduce the number of those being aborted, that is cause to say that pro-life views are being furthered. I don’t know of any pro-life organization that’s saying “Hey, we got some clinics to close! Let’s stop working to end abortion!” That’s not how pro-life groups are approaching the issue. However, many of these groups are happy that when clinics close–as they are–the number of abortions decreases.
The fact that AHA is not happy about this says something, I think, about their own mentality when it comes to the issue. AHA demands only legislation which will immediately end abortion. They are seemingly unaware of how historically (as noted above with Wilberforce) working through other means can actually be more effective.
It is this seeming historical illiteracy (see also here) of AHA which worries me enough to make me want to respond to a note like the one I wrote on here. By failing to acknowledge the success of gradualism and, in fact, working against gradualist approaches, AHA is working against facts. Lives are being saved when abortion clinics closed. That’s something anyone who labels themselves “pro life” should celebrate.
Conclusion
AHA has not provided evidence to support the claims made in the note I analyzed. Moreover, several of the assertions made therein are actually contrary to observed facts. AHA seems to be either historically ignorant or willfully obfuscating the way in which abolition was brought about. Although I would also far prefer the immediate end of abortion, I think any who are pro-life should agree that when legislation closes abortion clinics–which lowers the number of abortions and therefore saves lives–it is cause for celebration rather than chastising those who worked to pass the legislation.
I reiterate that I know of no pro-life organization which is saying that the work is done once legislation which may close abortion clinics passes. The work will continue until we have brought an end to abortion. Groups like AHA should stop trying to muzzle those who have actively worked to save lives.
Finally, I admit I wrote this post with a heavy heart and only because I’m deeply concerned with the way that AHA has continued to aim criticism at pro-life individuals or groups which are actively saving lives. I was very excited when I learned about AHA over a year ago but have, unfortunately, felt burdened to caution others away from the group because of the way it continually fails to provide facts to support their attacks on other pro-life persons. We must learn from history and we should celebrate when lives are saved. I long to return to a point where I and AHA could stand together as we work side-by-side to end abortion. Unfortunately, as long as AHA fails to recognize that gradual steps actually do save lives, that day will not come.
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
How Abolish Human Abortion Gets History Wrong– Here, a pro-life individual notes some of the historical errors in evaluating abolition and abortion AHA has put forth. It is worth seeing the response to some counter arguments made by AHA as well.
Abolish Human Abortion’s Revisionist History– Clinton Wilcox provides a more thorough analysis of the use of the term “abolition” and how abolitionists themselves actually worked incrementally to bring about the abolition of slavery.
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 
Excellent post, but you are much nicer than I would be.
Posted by Wintery Knight | April 2, 2014, 10:41 AMOh? I’d love to read your own thoughts sometime.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 2, 2014, 1:18 PMCan you please post the status from AHA in full and recognize that it is just a Facebook status and not a book, academic paper, or blog? That is, perhaps it is only a précis of a larger work which could be written that passes your muster?
For instance, consider a letter from Garrison on African Colonization verses reading his full book: “THOUGHTS ON AFRICAN COLONIZATION”
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31178/31178-h/31178-h.htm
Posted by T. Russ | April 2, 2014, 12:03 PMI’m more than happy to post the note in its full content (I will do so in a follow up comment). I am of course aware of the brief nature of such a note, but brevity does not excuse misstating facts or misrepresenting others. As I pointed out with multiple examples, closing abortion clinics does reduce the number of abortions; and no pro-life group of which I’m aware thinks that such a step is the end of the abortion fight. By instantly criticizing pro life groups which do celebrate such closures and other restrictions, one is actually criticizing steps that work to reduce the number of overall abortions.
I am going to be very clear so that my words are not misrepresented: I favor an immediate end to abortion. However, it is also the case that incremental steps reduce the overall number of abortions and so these steps are good: they work towards the ultimate goal of ending abortion entirely. Like Wilberforce, we shouldn’t denounce those working with incremental steps, but rather realize these can sometimes bring about the end we desire.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 2, 2014, 1:11 PMAs promised, here is the note in its entirety (in the form in which I responded to in this post; I’m not sure if it was edited later):
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 2, 2014, 1:13 PMAHA comes off like the presuppositionalist who spends more energy arguing method than doing apologetics. I’m sure they do a lot of good work in the area of abortion, but from what I’ve seen they spend too much time sniping at other pro-lifers over silly issues.
Posted by Remington | April 2, 2014, 5:24 PMExactly. It seems to me that AHA would like to re-open those closed arbortion clinics in Texas that I blogged about until we can “abolish” abortion completely:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/appeals-court-upholds-texas-tough-pro-life-laws/
AHA and Planned Parenthood are in full agreement on repealing these incremental laws and getting those clinics open for business.
Posted by Wintery Knight | April 2, 2014, 10:22 PMBrother, I’m not sure that you have done enough reading about us to know what we think about that, with all due respect.
Please don’t dismiss us out of hand.
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2013/09/do-immediatists-want-to-see-abortion.html?q=open+closed
Posted by rhology | April 3, 2014, 6:16 AMBrother Remington,
How familiar are you with our videos and the work we do at abortion mills, at apathetic churches, in the culture, and at high schools? I honestly think if you were to look into it, rather than assuming, you’d find a very different story emerges. May I ask when the last time was that you did anything about abortion? I was at the abortion mill yesterday, and at the high school.
Posted by rhology | April 3, 2014, 6:18 AMI’ve seen enough to think I was justified in positing the comment I did. And even if I’ve never done anything about abortion, that wouldn’t mean AHA doesn’t spend too much time sniping at other pro-lifers.
Posted by Remington | April 3, 2014, 10:00 AMOK, Remington.
Well, I don’t agree that we “snipe” at anyone, or that we spend too much time doing whatever it is we do.
If you don’t do anything about child sacrifice going on in your nation, I’d like to kindly ask you to reconsider your priorities.
Anyway, I also don’t see how your comment was in fact justified given that you seemed to be saying we don’t do much outside of Internet activities, yet the huge number of video evidence would indicate that we DO in fact do quite a lot off the Internet. I don’t think you’re being quite fair.
Posted by rhology | April 3, 2014, 10:32 AMI think it is fair to note that AHA is clearly out “on the street,” as it were, doing some good work to argue against the culture of death. That’s one of the areas of appreciation noted in this post.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 3, 2014, 10:41 AMJWW,
I know we don’t agree about this issue but I appreciate you allowing our comments here and I appreciate your words in the above comment.
Posted by rhology | April 3, 2014, 10:46 AMRhology,
When you said I seemed to be saying you don’t much outside of internet activities I was confused about how my comment gave that impression. After reading it again I can see how my remark about presuppositionalism would indicate I think you spend more time arguing against the methods of other pro-lifers than engaging in pro-life “apologetics” (in whatever form). But I want to clarify that I didn’t have that in mind when I wrote the comment. My point was that too much time is spent on this, not that more time is spent on this than on other things.
You disagree. Okay, I’m not concerned to argue it really. I was just making an observation in a “nodding my head in agreement” sort of way with J.W.s criticisms. I think Greg Koukl had some good points too when the issue cake up on STR a couple months ago.
Posted by Remington | April 3, 2014, 1:44 PMDO you have a link for the STR discussion? I’d be interested in reading it.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 3, 2014, 2:03 PMMe too!
I know that a man called the show probably a year ago or more and Greg commented on it briefly, but he was ignorant about abolition and so most of his comments were worthless. That’s no slight against the man himself. It’s just that he was by his own admission giving an off the cuff reaction and as a result he didn’t really engage the issues. I hope this time it was better.
Posted by rhology | April 3, 2014, 2:31 PMI’ll be driving for the rest of the day and can’t take time to look it up. It was on the radio program. Someone called in witha question about something on AHAs website or Facebook . Greg offered a few comments of critique, nothing too in depth. The program was late 2013.
Posted by Remington | April 3, 2014, 2:44 PMRhology,
That’s the one I’m referring. I think I pointed it out to you at the time on TBlog. His remarks seemed on the mark to me, but then you may figure I haven’t looked at AHA enough either. Maybe so, but from the criticisms I’ve seen here and there, they seem fair
Posted by Remington | April 3, 2014, 2:48 PMWould it be indelicate of me to suggest that anyone trying to form a correct assessment of a group or ministry should listen to them define themselves? Don’t ignore the critics, of course. And don’t ignore the way they respond to their critics.
Posted by rhology | April 3, 2014, 3:31 PMPlease tell us you do not believe everything Planned Parenthood says… You must know that Planned Parenthood will spin this “issue,” in their favor. Of course they will say; “…the requirement could leave the state of 26 million people with as few as six abortion centers.” They spin it as “poor us.” And, they are taking away women’s rights! Help us fight! Donate now! And, it works:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/02/Ross-Perot-Foundation-Donates-1-Million-To-Planned-Parenthood
and:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/10/21/new-non-profit-plans-construction-of-abortion-providing-ambulatory-surgical-centers-in-texas/
AHA is just trying to wake-up our culture. Abortion will never be abolished by regulating it. Never. Why would we expect it to? It also will not be abolished by suppressing the truth. It is one thing to celebrate clinic closures, but to then not be upfront with your supporters, about all of the new regional killing centers being built is just as deceitful as the industry you are supposedly trying to end. And six clinics will be plenty in Texas, once the small ones are replaced by new regional abortion super-centers:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/abolish-human-abortion/recent-regional-murder-super-centers/619488154783869
and:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Planned-Parenthood-to-Open-5M-Texas-Abortion-Clinic-252278301.html
A//∀
Posted by Rance A//∀ | April 3, 2014, 6:50 AMThanks for your comment. I would point out that although there are new centers opening, one of the articles I linked demonstrates that despite those new centers, there is still an overall decrease of 74% of the total number of abortion clinics since 1991. On any measure, the abortion camp is not keeping up with the closures. Numbers don’t go down if there is, on balance, an equal number of clinics opening and closing.
You wrote, “AHA is just trying to wake-up our culture.”
If that’s the case, then why is a note like this written? It clearly states things which are factually incorrect. Waking up the culture should not be based on statements which work against facts. I pointed out some of these factual errors, such as the notion that “remaining clinics will pick up the slack.” In actuality, the number of abortions goes down when the number of clinics go down (and recall that 74% decrease). I agree we need to “wake up” the culture; but we should not do that by stating things that are false. Why not work with facts instead?
Moreover, there’s this constant stream of attacks on those who would use incremental means. You yourself wrote: “Abortion will never be abolished by regulating it.” I could imagine Wilberforce and friends saying things like “Slavery will never be abolished by a law about neutral flags.” But it worked. Such a law effectively ended the slave trade by eliminating the means by which slaves could be transported. And frankly, this is my biggest concern with AHA: I have read notes from them around election times urging people to vote against incremental measures. Really? Should we not be united in our attempts to end any number of abortions we can? Moreover, the effectiveness of incrementalism has been demonstrated.
Thus, finally, my appeal would be to stick to facts rather than speculation. When abortion clinics close, the number of abortions goes down. Thus, we should be united in celebrating these closures rather than attacking the groups which work to bring about the legislation to do so.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 3, 2014, 9:42 AMThe abortion rate may be declining, but you must also realize it is at a time when emergency contraception kits are readily available over the counter. Planned Parenthood distributed over 1.5M last year alone. Again, the abortion rate may be declining, but the actual death rate due to those “taking care” of unintended pregnancies is still very high. The abortion rate is not going down because clinics are closing. More likely, clinics are probably closing as there are new ways to murder your own children (and it’s not possible to record deaths by emergency contraception kits).
And no, we do not agree that abortion will be abolished by negotiating with the enemy. Negotiating, regulating and compromising only prolongs abolition. Why must we take small steps? Isn’t all abortion wrong? If you put your efforts into changing the culture, the laws will follow on their own. Work to abolish abortion, then you will close all of the clinics.
Are you a Christian? If so, how do you answer God for not following His commandment; “Thou shall not murder?” He didn’t follow that up with any exceptions. God will end abortion. It will not be done by man. We must be faithful. We are essentially telling God that He doesn’t know what He is doing when we continue making laws, exceptions and regulations that tell those seeking abortions “…and then you can abort your baby.” And yes, we realize this is not the intention, but that is the unfortunate result. We know everyone wants to see abolition. Abortion is wrong because it is murder. Not because you haven’t seen an ultrasound.
Posted by Rance A//∀ | April 4, 2014, 7:23 AMOnce more let’s go to the facts: when abortion clinics close, the number of abortions go down. When even one life is saved, should we not celebrate? No one is saying these incremental steps are the end of the road. However, they do save lives now. If you vote against measures like this, or if you encourage others to do so, you are effectively working against measures which–and this is a fact–save lives. Thus, you are violating your own principles.
You wrote, “how do you answer God for not following His commandment; ‘Thou shall not murder?'”
I am a Christian. Your comment suggests I’m not following God’s commandment. I will not allow further ad hominems of this nature. Personal attacks like these have no place in this discussion and will be deleted henceforth. I have actively worked against abortion by protesting, picketing, praying, staying at vigils, writing, and talking. I need not defend myself to you, who know me not, but deem yourself worthy of throwing out accusations like this. Such a comment shows that you yourself stand in violation of bearing false testimony against me. I invite you to repent.
[Note: I did delete the double of this comment.]
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 4, 2014, 5:10 PM\\ I have actively worked against abortion by protesting, picketing, praying, staying at vigils, writing, and talking.\\ These are all great things and we do the same. We are not saying these things are wrong or that you need to stop. However, you can continue doing all of these good things as you also stop negotiating, compromising and regulating. Otherwise, you are only prolonging the need to keep doing the good things, as abortion will never end.
I was as pro-life as you are now. When AHA came on the scene, I thought it was great. Another group to help the PLM. Then I heard about the differences. I fought and argued with Russell, like you are doing now. I told him the only reason AHA could do any good is because of all of the “good” work done by the PLM. But, I kept doing my own research and realized they were right. So, give it time. It’ll dawn on you. A//∀
Posted by Rance A//∀ | April 5, 2014, 12:48 PMAgain, this directly conflicts with facts. Are you for reducing the number of abortions or not? Obviously, we both agree an immediate and total end is preferable, but since right now that is not happening, would you rather have legislation which ends some abortions or none?
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 5, 2014, 5:51 PMAnd again, you are ignoring ALL of the information. The abortion rate is not declining because clinics are closing. We’ve already been through that. At a time when Emergency Contraception Kits are made available over the counter (and PP distributed nearly 1.6M last year alone) and if it was somehow possible to record the data of how many babies were aborted in this way, the actual rate is going up. We’ve already said what you are doing; “protesting, picketing, praying, staying at vigils, writing, and talking” are all good things. The part that you are not realizing is that by negotiating, compromising and regulating, you are only prolonging abolition. If you truly want to end abortion, you must quit negotiating with the enemy. Same principal as not negotiating with terrorists. You need to start looking outside of the box. Outside of the box of those who are supporting themselves financially by prolonging the abolition of abortion. Those who have pensions for crying out loud. If you were honest with yourself, how could you think that anyone setting up pensions for themselves ever wants to see abortion abolished? Like I said, it will dawn on you. It may take another 40 years of riding the tread mill, but it will eventually dawn on you.
Posted by Rance A//∀ | April 7, 2014, 6:50 AMRance’s comment exemplifies some of what’s wrong with AHA. Here is the STR link, by the way: http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/does-the-pro-life-movement-need-a-new-strategy#.U0AZyvldUrc
Posted by Remington | April 5, 2014, 9:58 AMSorry, wrong link above. Here is the correct one: http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/last-day-live-on-kbrt#.U0AgAvldUrc (at 1 hr 40 minutes)
Posted by Remington | April 5, 2014, 10:26 AMI think that the things that AHA does on the ground and out in the street are great. I have a fundamental opposition to the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow abolish it (not that AHA is necessarily saying this). Don’t get me wrong it ought to be illegal but the purpose of laws is bringing peopel to justice, not prevention. If laws worked at prevention then why were there over 1 million violent crimes last year? (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime) Again the point isn’t that violent crime should be legal but rather that laws do not abolish anything.
Consider slavery: When it was “immediately” abolished by Lincoln, it was far from abolished. A basic knowledge of history tells us that with sharecropping essentially slavery continued on for many years along with the horrible inhumane treatment of African Americans. Equal treatment of black people came about by a change of hearts and minds largely during the civil rights movement (of which the laws were just a response to the movement and not the other way around). On top of all this is the fact that human trafficking still goes on despite all laws against it.
So what should people be doing who wish to abolish abortion? Well much of what AHA is doing is right and good and that would be their activism on the streets. But the whole fight about what is done legally is silly and a waste of time. I would venture that to abolish abortion we need to be helping lives be changed by the gospel. God tells in Romans 13 that He is the one in charge the legal powers that be. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see a command or an example of Christians trying to change things by means of government. What we do see is people being used by God to change people. I am not saying that we do nothing in regards to the laws that exist, but what I am saying is that we realize that the fight is not won there. And if the fight is not won there, why fight amongst ourselves about the legal issue?
Part of this issue is that when we make our focal point the law, we are trying to change behavior without changing a person’s nature. Romans is clear on this that the law cannot change a person (it is speaking of the Jewish law, but the principle holds true in regards to all law). It is only the work of the Holy Spirit that will change a person.
This is why I really apprecaite it when I see videos of AHA members sharing the gospel at the abortion clinics but I don’t appreciate the attacking that goes on of other believers who hold to different views of what should be done legally (because again, our view of what should be done legally is at best a secondary issue).
If a person were to do NOTHING about the laws of the land regarding abortion but were to spend time, tears, and sweat preaching the gospel to and praying for those who are being led into abortion then I think that they would be honoring God and the gospel 100%.
-Brandon Craig
Posted by btcraig35 | April 23, 2014, 4:28 PMBrandon, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I think you’ve touched on a number of interesting issues, and I particularly liked your insight into the distinction between “laws of the land” and working for the Gospel/life.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 28, 2014, 10:20 AM