Search

Search this blog


Here are the main points from Dr. Carson’s answer (reprinted here by permission of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7:2 (2003): 92-96.

I do not intend to lay out the case against easy abortion. That has been done by many writers. Most Christians, and many others, find the arguments convincing. What I shall do in the space allotted me is to offer some practical suggestions about how those of us who hold such views should proceed from here. For this is not the time to do nothing more than wring our hands in despair and bemoan the wickedness of the age.

(1) Circulate hard facts. Whether in private conversations, or (for those with broader influence) in more public arenas, focus on the facts, those stubborn pieces of data which, on the long haul, turn out to be strangely convincing. Back in the late sixties and early seventies, abortion rights advocates insisted that abortion would make illegitimacy dwindle away, and that every child who actually then came to birth would be “wanted,” not unwanted. In consequence, it was argued, large social problems would diminish; child battering would become a thing of the past; young couples would not be trapped in miserable, forced marriages; women could remain in university or in the workforce if they unexpectedly became pregnant. The social gains would result in a massive reduction of welfare: we were asked to believe that abortion is in part an economic issue. And in any case, experts were predicting that without abortion, human overpopulation would usher in scarcely imaginable disaster. Paul Ehrlich, an expert on the Checkerspot butterfly, wrote The Population Bomb, a 1968 best-seller, in which he argued that in less than two decades, all ocean life would die of DDT poisoning, and thousands of human beings would die of smog in New York City and Los Angeles. Pollution would reduce life expectancy in the US to forty-two years. We were constantly bombarded with stories of some innocent, young girl going to a back-room abortion quack and then dying of the internal bleeding. Besides, wealthy women could always find a proper doctor to do the job; it was the poor who were disadvantaged, so that access to abortion was simply a matter of social justice.

Three decades later, what are the facts? Illegitimacy is a much greater social problem today than it was in the early seventies. In 1970, 10.7% of live births were to unmarried mothers. By 1975, only a couple of years after Roe v. Wade, the rate was 14.5%. Today the rate is 33%; among black children, the rate today approaches 70%. Paul Ehrlich doubtless knew a lot about the Checkerspot butterfly, but his projections regarding human population trends were not only wrong, they approached sheer silliness. The claim that failure to secure court-protected abortion would result in tens of thousands of mothers endangered by back-street butchers was not true in 1972; ironically, it may be closer to the truth now. In 1940, the National Center for Health Statistics said there were 1,313 deaths from illegal abortions, most from infections, not bleeding. By 1966, the figure was 159 deaths: antibiotics had come a long way. By 1972, the last statistical year before Roe, the figure was 41. Of course, abortion activists insisted that most of the deaths took place in secret, and were not counted in the statistics. Probably there was some truth to the claim, but it is hard to overlook the sharp drop anyway. Nor is it all that clear that those who practiced abortion were untrained: not a few doctors broke the law, but they were still doctors. Former medical director for Planned Parenthood, Dr Mary Calderone, estimated in 1960 that nine out of ten illegal abortions were being performed by licensed physicians. Estimates of how many abortions took place per year range from about 200,000 to 400,000. The contemporary figure is many times higher, and it is far from clear that the standard of care has improved. Approximately two-thirds of contemporary ob-gyn doctors refuse to do abortions; a majority of the remaining third perform no more than four or five abortions per year. This has encouraged the multiplication of abortion specialists, and because abortion is such a sensitive subject, the supervision of their clinics is woefully inadequate. A probing series in The New York Times in 1991 uncovered “filth” and depicted “butchery” at dozens of dirty, unlicensed clinics. This paper, so “liberal” in its leanings, was prompted to write the exposé after several hideous abortion deaths hit the national headlines. Several writers have pointed out that if a researcher takes the time to look, it is easy to pull up hundreds of newspaper accounts of documented abortion deaths that have occurred during the past decade in walk-in abortion clinics in all our major cities. And does anyone still think that the prevalence of abortion reduces welfare rolls? Has the number of battered or unwanted children declined? We have merely made our society coarser than it was some decades ago, more self-centered, less concerned with any human life other than my own. And there are costs beyond the public “social” costs. In addition to the awful guilt that many women feel, a Wirthlin poll, published in 1998, discovered that 56% of women felt that abortion had hindered their relationships with men. Circulate the hard facts.

(2) Present such facts as the moral position, but never with a self-righteous or triumphalist stance. Quite apart from the fact that any informed Christian is aware that self-righteousness and triumphalism are morally repugnant and deeply offensive to Almighty God (who would much rather witness our contrition, poverty of spirit, and self-conscious dependence upon him), we ought to remember that self-righteousness in the political arena is often self-defeating, and triumphalism is a turn-off. In short, while presenting the facts, we must take great pains not only to present them as the intrinsically moral position, but also to articulate that position with persuasive humility. And that means, among other things, that we should be careful not to make this primarily a Republican position, making it almost impossible for a committed Democrat to join us. This distinction is all the more urgent when we reflect on the politics of the African-American community. A higher percentage of African-Americans are pro-life than is the percentage of European-Americans. But if we drum the abortion issue as primarily a Republican issue, then African-Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom vote Democrat, will simply ignore the argument and continue to vote Democrat. The issue must be seen in terms of hard facts, and in terms of their intrinsic morality, without much reference to a political party at all.

(3) Go for the small gain. And then keep going. Some strategists have advised conservatives to vote against a ban on partial birth abortions and other steps, on the ground that by removing from public view the most ugly and repulsive of the various facets of abortion, it will be harder in the future to arouse public sentiment to ban all or most abortions. But this “all or nothing” strategy often comes up dry. It makes sense only if one is certain that the strategy will work. Failing that, it is merely a recipe for continued legislative defeat. Politics is the art of the possible. The “all or nothing” approach rarely works. Moreover, sometimes it is the persistent plodder who keeps gnawing away at a problem who eventually gets even the big piece of legislation passed. On the short haul, then, we ought to go after a complete ban on partial-birth abortions. In this procedure the physician partly delivers the late-term baby, then kills it by piercing his or her skull and attaching a powerful suction device that sucks out the baby’s brain. It is surely an encouraging sign that President Bush, in his State of the Union address, promised to send to Congress legislation that will ban this ghastly brutality. Similar legislation failed to get by Congress six years ago, and then-President Clinton said he would veto the legislation even if it passed. But here there is an opportunity to make a small but important gain. Take it. It is not everything, but it is better than nothing, and all who work to pass such legislation should be strengthened and encouraged.

(4) Make sure that opposition to abortion is married to support for unwed mothers, counseling centers, practical help for under-age moms, and the like. Not only is such care mandated by the most elementary Christian compassion, but it also undercuts the arguments of those who say that confessional Christians neither understand nor care about the plight of women who, often out of something close to desperation, think that abortion is the only reasonable choice they have.

(5) Expose the emptiness of “hard case” legislation. Every time that a pro-choice spokesperson and a pro-life spokesperson enter into debate, it is not long before the former brings up the horrible problem of a fifteen-year-old who has been raped and become pregnant. That does happen, of course, and those who have never been brutalized in this way cannot possibly appreciate its full horrors. Nevertheless, the reason why the expression “Hard cases make bad laws” is so common a truism is because it is true! People are being manipulated to allow abortion in the overwhelming majority of instances where there has not been rape by appealing to the smallest fraction of 1% where rape has occurred. One should not legislate for the hard case; rather, if need be, one makes exceptions for the hard case. Regardless of what one thinks is best in the case of rape, it would surely be an astonishingly important step forward if abortion were legally banned in all cases except rape. And one of the most obvious ways of nullifying the “hard case” arguments that are regularly advanced as irrefutable pro-choice arguments is by exposing their emptiness. Demonstrate not only the axiom that “hard cases make bad legislation,” but call the person’s bluff by allowing that you could support legislation that banned abortions in all instances except the “hard cases” that the other party has in mind. It will quickly become transparent that the appeal to “hard cases” is often little more than a rhetorical ruse to maintain abortion in its present form.

(6) Recognizing that the activist court of the last few decades is ultimately going to call the shots on these matters, the business of judicial appointments has become more and more important. Small wonder that the process of Senate ratification of judicial appointments during the last couple of years has become more and more politicized. That means, in turn, that informed Christians should give careful thought to the ways in which they may strengthen the resolve, the insight, and the influence of those who are determined to appoint, or ratify the appointment of, judges who will be less than eager to turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch, and who do not think Roe v. Wade is the moral high ground, but an indefensible judicial intrusion into the responsibilities of both houses of Congress. In the nature of the case, we are not going to get there quickly. But that is why persistence and perseverance may, on the long haul, by God’s grace, prove to be the crucial attitudinal stances needed to bring about the end of this inhumane and sometimes barbaric evil.


View Comments

Comments:


4 thoughts on “D.A. Carson on Practical Strategies for Addressing the Abortion Issue”

  1. Ryan Walker says:

    Also something I have been thinking of as a small gain is focusing on insurance companies… I found out this past week that in many cases abortions can be done with as little as a $20 copay… Crazy right? In many cases we cast our vote on where we spend our money.

  2. donsands says:

    ” that is why persistence and perseverance may, on the long haul, by God’s grace, prove to be the crucial attitudinal stances needed to bring about the end of this inhumane and sometimes barbaric evil.”

    Yep. Good thoughts from Dr. DA Carson.

    Donald Miller said we need to realize fighting abortion is not really working. It’s been 20 years, and we need to think differently. Give in a bit, and take what changes we can get.

    Quite different attitude than DA Carson.

  3. Glennsp says:

    If William Wilberforce had thought the same as Donald Miller then slavery would have existed for far longer than it did.
    Dogged persistence will win this battle, God willing.
    Then we will be presented with the next great challenge and so on till glory.

  4. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Present such facts as the moral position, but never with a self-righteous or triumphalist stance.

    I may be the only person who’s ever witnessed the following, but let me report it anyway:

    There have been some folks (usually liberal, and perhaps just a coincidence) who could not counter or rebut “hard” facts as D.A. Carson calls them.

    Not willing to concede or lose the argument per se, and perhaps due to sinful pride, these folks will then levy the charge that the Christian is being self-righteous and/or being “triumphalistic” when, in fact, the Christian may not be just so they can tag the Christian with something and put the Christian on the defensive.

    Then the conversation gets hi-jacked as the Christian will often deny that she or he is being self-righteous or triumphalistic. This rhetorical tactic is used with good effect because now the discussion is no longer on the “hard” facts, but upon the allegation that the Christian is behaving self-righteously or triumphalistic.

    But as I said before, maybe I’m the only one who’s ever witnessed this and so no one else can relate to my analysis.

    Therefore, let’s be charitable and assume that all subjective charges that a Christian is being self-righteous and triumphalistic have merit. When the Christian confesses his or her sin of self-righteousness or trimphalism, then the other side will gladly acknowledge the “hard” facts and change their position accordingly. They will not say or believe anything like, “Since the Christian has confessed to being self-righteous and triumphalistic, then I don’t have to consider the hard facts because that would be an ad hominem argument. Just because I’ve discredited the Christian doesn’t mean that I can discredit the hard facts of his or her argument.”

Comments are closed.

Search this blog


About


Justin Taylor photo

Justin Taylor, PhD


Justin Taylor is executive vice president of book publishing and book publisher for Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books