This post is a follow-up to "Who decides what it means to be pro-life?" (March 8, 2017).
If death penalty opponents were consistent, they would protest the unjust execution of preborn humans.
If environmentalists were consistent, they'd pass laws to ensure the uterine environment was always hospitable to unborn human life.
If feminists were consistent, they'd fight for the right of all female human beings to be born.
If civil rights activists were consistent, they'd argue for the rights of the unborn of all people-groups.
If advocates of choice were consistent, they'd rally against coercive abortion.
If animal rights activists were consistent, they'd protect the lives of the human species at every stage.
If human rights activists were consistent, they'd speak out against governments that oppress unborn citizens.
If scientists were consistent, they'd never let an abortion advocate get away with saying human life begins at any other point than conception. Or that a person "comes from his or her embryo."
In short, if all the people who said pro-lifers ought to be more consistent were themselves consistent ... we could talk. But, as Matt Walsh writes, self-worship "is what lies at the foundation of the war on life, marriage, and gender. Those who believe in the supremacy of the self refuse to be subject to any moral or scientific law."1
Some are more willing to grant personhood status to plants, animals, and rivers than they are to unborn babies.2
1. Matt Walsh, "Christians, our true battle is spiritual, not political," TheBlaze.com, March 29, 2017; http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-christians-our-true-battle-is-spiritual-not-political/, accessed 3/29/17.
2. Wesley J. Smith, "Rivers declared to be 'persons,'" First Things, 3/31/17, https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/03/rivers-declared-to-be-persons, accessed 3/31/17; "The personhood pincer," First Things, 12/27/13, https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/12/the-personhood-pincer, accessed 3/31/17.