Should the Pro-life Cause Encompass ‘Womb to Tomb’ or Focus on the Womb?

The following is an uncorrected transcript generated by a transcription service. Before quoting in print, please check the corresponding audio for accuracy.

Karen Swallow Prior
I am anti abortion. Actually, a lot of people are against abortion as continual surveys show among Americans and people are against abortion for a lot of different reasons. Some politicians, for example, support anti abortion legislation in order to win votes and stay in office. Sometimes that is even the only way they seem to really oppose abortion as shown when in their real lives. They choose or even coerce abortion upon women, they have impregnated, there’s the former RNC Deputy Finance chairman who paid $1.6 million to a Playboy Playmate with whom he had an affair after she aborted his child. And then there’s the Pennsylvania Republican who resigned in 2017, after it was revealed that he had urged his own mistress to get an abortion. And then there’s a Tennessee congressman who supported his ex wife’s two abortions before their marriage and then pressured his mistress, a 24 year old patient of his that he was having an affair with to also get an abortion. So one can clearly vote against abortion, but still not be pro life. And you can also be against abortion because you think that women who choose to have sex ought to face the consequences for their choices, or even be punished for their sexual activity. This is actually I think, the implied view of those who would seek exceptions to abortion in the cases of rape, incest or other kinds of assaults. And that implies a view that says that women who have chosen to have sex can’t have access to the abortions that women who had sex against their will have the basis of supporting abortion access, in these cases, be lies a belief in the intrinsic value of every human life, regardless of the circumstances of conception. And you could also be against abortion. In the same way some men that I actually know won’t get their dogs neutered, because in such cases, they see this as some sort of hindrance against raw male sexuality. And they take it as a personal insult, as they would also in abortions. And you can also be against abortion in the way that some political dictators throughout history have opposed abortion for some classes and groups of people, but not for others. in Nazi Germany, healthy Aryan women were prohibited from getting abortions. But women and other groups had abortions encouraged or even enforced upon them. And you can even be against abortion for yourself, but not for others, as we hear repeated very often, words like well, I would not have an abortion but and you can be against abortion, as I am, and as I think most everyday people are, because your opposition is based on a truly pro life ethic, one that opposes abortion, not in order to gain political power, not to control women’s sexuality, not to control the population in certain ways, but rather simply because you believe that innocent human beings have a right to life that no one has the moral authority to destroy.

Karen Swallow Prior
You don’t even have to be a Christian to believe this just consider pro life organizations and groups such as secular pro life or new wave feminists or feminists for life of America. But if you are a Christian who is pro life, then a whole host of factors becomes or should become part of why we oppose abortion. Now, again, I have no problem being described as being anti abortion because I am, in fact, decades ago when I was much more heavily involved in the movement and there was a lot of debate and controversy over what terms should be used particularly by the media. In covering the issue. I argued for the use of these terms because of their specificity and because of their clarity and because of their truthfulness. But alas, we live in kind of a marketing age and branding is important. And we have adopted the terms pro Life and the other camp pro choice because they are much more marketable much more pleasing. There’s an interesting history of these terms. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term pro life first appeared in 1960 in a parenting manual, and was adopted by more progressive people who are opposed to not just abortion but also the death penalty. The term pro life began to appear even before Roe vs. Wade, as right to life groups were formed around the country. And when that ruling eventually dropped, the term pro life was at the ready and insert. Interestingly enough, the pro choice camp came up with their label in response to the pro life term because it was so rhetorically brilliant that the abortion rights camp wanted to come up with something equally marketable and inviting. I think the pro life camp one on this one. It’s hard to argue with being against life much as people might try. So all this to say that we ought not to be ashamed of being against abortion. Abortion is the intentional and deliberate and premeditated taking up an innocent human life. How could we before that? When I came to be pro life many years ago, it was drilled into me that we were pro life from womb to tomb. This meant that we oppose not only abortion, but also infanticide and euthanasia, anything that would be a direct physical attack against a human being. But between the womb and the tomb, there are countless ways to breed a culture of death, a spirit that is anti life, and therefore anti Christ. For most pro life Christians, the principles that compel us to oppose abortion include a basic understanding based on biology, not even religion, or theology, that a new human life is created when egg and sperm meet. This is a discovery that was made in the 19 century as a result in part of the technology of microscopes. It has been in medical textbooks since then, and still remains in basic biology textbooks that this is when a unique human entity is formed. That is the first principle for anyone in being pro life. The second principle is the belief that all human beings are made in the image of God. This is essential for those of us who are Christians, and forming our views on abortion. And the third principle for Christians who are pro life is the further understanding woven throughout scripture, that each human life is created by God knitted together by him in the womb, and that every person is loved by Him. And a fourth principle is that the highest purpose of human law is to protect human life. The taking of human life is limited only in very limited and defined circumstances, which of course continue to be debated today. And these are topics for another discussion, but they are still topics that must be underpinned by the very principles that we’re talking about today as we consider what it means to be pro life.

Karen Swallow Prior
These principles that lead us to oppose abortion ought to be applied in our philosophy, our actions, our votes, and our lifestyles, in every area that threatens the loss of human life or human lives, and the failure to advocate against abortion based on these consistent life principles. And the failure to also apply these principles clearly and consistently to other issues, undermines principled opposition to abortion, and therefore undermines a pro life ethic as a whole.

Scott Klusendorf
Joe found the young girl unconscious in her upstairs closet. By the time he arrived, the structure was a raging inferno. No one else dared go inside, scooping up the girl. He took his only exit out of second storey window into the thorn bushes below. The girl lived but Joe sustained two broken ankles and a lot of scratches and an avalanche of questions from those who didn’t lift a finger To save the girl. The media wanted to know how we plan to pay for the girls food, clothing, health care now that he had rescued her. A pastor asked if what he was doing to fight the inner city poverty was reflected in the way he saved the girl. The social justice coordinator at a local parish insisted that if Joe truly cared about saving lives, he’d care about all life, including refugees, immigrants, the poor, those that were disadvantaged. And finally, a local congressman wanted to know, if Joe really cared about saving lives. Would he support tax increases aimed at fire prevention? Joe just kept looking at the girl.

Scott Klusendorf
I want to talk about this topic. What does it mean to be pro life and I’ll tell you why this is significant men and women, the definition of what it means to be pro life has been twisted. Historically, pro life has meant you were pro life for the life of the unborn pro choice man, you were pro choice on the question of abortion. What has happened is the term pro life has now been changed from pro life in the womb, to quality of life outside the womb. In fact, some of our own leaders have adopted this language. We are told, for example, that in order to be truly pro life, we need to switch from, quote, pro life, unquote, to whole life. As one pro life leader put it, it is troubling that we are more concerned about the unborn and not equally concerned for genocide. indenfor not equally concerned about refugees, immigrants and safe sex trafficking. We need to be as she put it, as passionate as engaged on those issues as we are life in the womb. And if we aren’t, we are betraying our fundamental pro life principles. Now, keep in mind something here. This is not an attack on individual pro lifers where we say to pro lifers, you’re not doing enough as much as it is an attack on pro life organizations, saying that your operational objectives must now reflect a whole life perspective. And if it doesn’t, you aren’t really pro life in your organizational operational objectives. Now, let me say up front, as Christians, our ethic should be broad and inclusive.

Scott Klusendorf
As a Christian, I should care about sex trafficking, I should care about refugees, I should care about immigrants. And if I’m not, there’s something wrong. In my Christian worldview, James is very clear that godliness entails caring for the widow caring for those who are in need. But it does not follow from this men and women, that the operational objectives of the pro life movement must be broad and inclusive, as well. And the point I want to argue today is simply this, that pro life organizations should resist, indeed, must resist any attempt by those who label themselves whole life to rewrite the operational objectives of the pro life movement. And I want to go over five reasons why. Number one, that attempt to rewrite unfairly puts demands on battle weary pro life advocates. Number two, it appeals to a false sense of moral equivalency.

Scott Klusendorf
Number three, it fails to distinguish christian ethics from operational objectives. Fourth, it’s not going to convert our opponents, they’re not going to come to our side because we do all that they demand. And finally, it ignores the fact that pro lifers do care for children outside the womb. First thing, unfair demands, here’s the question all of us need to ask, how does it follow that because pro life advocates oppose the intentional killing of an innocent human being in the womb, they have to take responsibility, operationally, organizationally, for everything else that’s wrong in society. Imagine if your church opened a daycare center in downtown Philadelphia, and you cared about violence to children.

Scott Klusendorf
And your church in response to that said, you know, we’re going to open up a daycare center only on school days, three hours a week for kids. that are under the age of 12. So that moms can come home in the inner city and just have a little time to get supper ready have a little time to get squared away, catch their wits before the kids come home. Imagine your church at great expense opens that daycare center, and a critic knocked on your door and said, you know, you don’t really love kids. Because if you did, you would treat all kids, you wouldn’t just be open for elementary aged kids, you would care for all kids. And by the way, high school kids have problems too, you know?

Scott Klusendorf
Oh, and not only that, what are you doing about gun violence in the inner city? What are you doing about the fact that there’s too many criminals running around doing gang like activity? And what are you doing to relieve the poverty that is underneath all this violence to begin with? You don’t care about kids, you just care about one group of kids, anybody that said that to your pastor is out of his mind. And yet that is precisely what pro life advocates here day after day after day in the media, and we shouldn’t stand for it. It is an unfair job description that’s been placed on us. Secondly, it’s false moral equivalency in terms of the evil done, can we just be honest for a moment here?

Scott Klusendorf
What possible issue is there in American culture today? That comes close to 62 million human beings being intentionally killed since Roe v. Wade. Let me give that number a reference point for you. That’s the Holocaust times 10. That’s Yankee stadium filled 1143 times over what possible evil is equivalent to that, to where as one pro life leader mentioned a moment ago, we should be as passionate about those other issues as we are that 62 million abortionist Warren Hearn describes it well. He says let’s be honest about what abortion is. There is no longer a way to deny what’s going on. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current. What possible issue is more important than that one. Of course, there are other issues, just like beating Hitler in 1944 was not the only issue, just like opposing slavery wasn’t the only issue in 1860. But both were the dominant issues of their time, and Christians were right to give greater weight to those issues.

Scott Klusendorf
Thirdly, the whole life approach overlooks the distinction between Christian ethics and operational objectives. The leader of a major pro life organization that oversees pregnancy centers, says that the pro life movement as a whole, not just pregnancy centers as a whole must shift from being pro life to quote pro abundant life, that saving babies is not enough. He says, and I quote him here, we must programmatically devote operational resources to and here’s the things he lists, build strong families, promote healthy marriages, secure religious liberty, encourage responsible fatherhood, help families thrive spiritually, you know what just happened to pro life organizations. They were just given a back breaking job description that even Superman can’t fulfill. And what does this look like in the real world? When I go speak on abortion, do I get to spend five minutes on abortion and then I got to spend five minutes on fatherhood, then I got to spend five minutes on helping families thrive spiritually. I mean, this all sounds really good until you try to work it out. In the real world. I do have a way forward though.

Scott Klusendorf
As pro life advocates, we ought to link rhetorically to other issues. We should use issues like the civil rights issue, like the treatment of Emmett Till the 14 year old African American boy that was lynched by racists in the 1950s. We should use parallel issues to demonstrate that the treatment of human beings made in the image of God, that treatment when it’s a holocaust when it’s mistreatment should not be tolerated. But we can’t link organizationally it will bankrupt pro life organizations last two points. It’s not going to convert our critics. Suppose the pro life movement does everything Our critics are asking of us, we take on all those other issues. Well, they become pro life. Not in a billion years, I’ve been speaking pro life professionally for 32 years. And never once when I’ve called the bluff of a critic who said, you don’t really care about life, when I called their bluff and said, Okay, for the sake of argument, I’ll do everything you want. Not once will they then agree to become pro life? Because in reality, what they believe is that abortion is a fundamental right, if that’s their true belief, they should defend that not change the subject.

Scott Klusendorf
And by the way, it’s not pro lifers who DON’T CARE for Kids after they’re born. It’s pro Abortionists. They’re the ones who won’t even protect kids after they’re born who survived abortion procedures. The Senate New York wouldn’t do it. The US Senate here wouldn’t do it. They’re the ones who don’t care about kids after they’re born. Not pro lifers, pro lifers actually do care. pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics, nearly three to one in America today. They are paid for by people like you like me, who give sacrificially with no funding from the government at all. My colleague, Mark Newman puts it well. He says individuals and organizations that make it their exclusive mission to save these children from a culture hell bent on butchering them have nothing to apologize for. They don’t need additional causes. They need additional support.

Jim Davis
Well, I appreciate both of you and your arguments. And before I ask any questions, I just really want to say thank you for the ways that you’ve devoted your life to the unborn. Our church actually has an abortion clinic almost directly across the street. And so hearing you to speak it just really, I’m really thankful for the logic and the efforts and the prayers that you bring behind this movement. Karen, I’m gonna start with you, you did a great job of fleshing out what a consistently pro life position means for the unborn based on the doctrine of the Imago Dei being made in the image of God. You said at the end of your argument, that failure to apply these principles consistently to other issues fundamentally undermines principled opposition to abortion? Can you give some examples of what this kind of failure looks like? And explain maybe flesh out a little more how that undermines a pro life ethic?

Unknown Speaker
Sure, well, I think I gave some negative examples of in the beginning in my in my talk about how you can be opposed to abortion for reasons that are not based on on a view of human beings being made in the image of God. And I think that, you know, I actually Scott kind of took away my my first point that I wanted to make that I so agree with him. I do think that, that even just rhetorically, if we link these issues, you know, I teach English. So for me, it’s not just rhetoric, right? Words have meaning they have power. And so it’s not just rhetorical to make those links, I think there’s a great deal of power in the way that we speak about the lives of anyone that is inconvenience is a burden, is an alien is a stranger is need something from us.

karen
And that’s not just the unborn, that’s many people in the world, in our neighborhoods, in our communities, we all have have different ones who might, in our circumstances, meet those definitions. And I think that the way we talk about any people who have a need, who when we don’t understand who is a burden, or a potential burden, or a threat, if we don’t put at the foremost of our concern about them are concerned about issues connected to them. The fact that they are beloved by God and made in His image, then we’ve already lost all of these battles. And so I do think in many ways, this is a rhetorical battle. I think that many people who see pro lifers as being inconsistent and, and being hypocritical, not the ones who won’t be converted, because I know that there are many like that. I’ve always said that there are two kinds of pro choice people, ignorant and wicked. And so there are people who are, who are who are ignorant or who have been misled or led astray, or or confused, or haven’t thought through the issues. I know I was one of them. And I think that the way we talk about any human being who is, you know, facing one of these issues or having an effect on our life that we we feel You’re or don’t know how to deal with that we lose, we lose the battle for abortion when we treat any of these people without the dignity even even in our rhetoric and our posture that matters a lot. And I, you know, I work with young people, I’m out on social media, I’m seeing a rising generation of Christians who are, who are skeptical. And I think that, you know, we can still win them over to this issue. But we have to show them that we really believe what we say.

Jim Davis
So I want to pull on that thread just a little more, because you gave some some examples, like you said, euthanasia, and some others. In recent years, people have really pushed into the racial conversation as a part of being a pro life part of the pro life holistically movement. What do you say to that?

Karen Swallow Prior
I mean, I think that that central Scott brought up slavery, which our country that was the pressing issue for our country, a century and a half ago. And there are obviously huge differences between these two issues. But there are some strong parallels. So for example, if one were simply against the institution of slavery, but not for the image of God of these African Americans that were either you know, kidnapped and brought here or were born here, because of earlier kidnappings. If we just simply oppose the institution of slavery, and set these people free with no care for them, no love, love for them, no concern for what happens next, then we would be in the same situation that we’re in about abortion if we just want to outlaw abortion and not provide any support. And I think that we are actually seeing some of the results of, of opposition to slavery that really wasn’t holistic, we’re still dealing with those ripple effects today.

Jim Davis
And that’s helpful. Scott, you differentiate, and I thought really effectively between what it means to be pro life, organizationally, and what it means to have a Christian ethic, and you distinguish those two things. And he did that, as you explained to maintain the main purpose of the pro life movement, and the purity of that of that purpose. And I appreciate that there are people who use that argument to avoid wading into other Imago, dei issues, things that you might put under the Christian ethic, not wanting to wade into race issues or other kinds of injustice in this world. I mean, because that argument is used, what would you say to that?

Scott Klusendorf
Well, I’ve never heard that argument, but I’ll go with it, because you raised it. Look, if there’s a Christian out there, who says I don’t have to be concerned about real racism, I’m not talking about attributed racism that is part of a worldview that doesn’t match the biblical view, I’m talking about real racism. Look, if there’s real racism, we need to do two things. Number one, repent of it and address it, that that’s a given. If you are a Christian, and you don’t care individually about sex trafficking, and you don’t care about the fact that there’s refugees with kids who have diseases that can’t be treated at our border, something’s wrong with your moral compass. And your heart needs help, that we can say all that. But but here’s the real debate. what’s being said by our critics, is not that individual, pro life Christians are not being holistic enough. They’re blaming our movement as a whole for not being that and I am not going to go for that. I am open to somebody saying, Scott, I’m not seeing lived out in you. You’re pro life convictions, the way I think biblically, should be. And that’s why we all need to be part of a local church, because we all need to be open to that kind of correction. We are blind, we don’t see things we ought to see. But to say to a movement dedicated to saving children, you’re not doing enough to say to people, in some cases, who for 50 years at great personal expense, have lost their homes, because they were praying in front of a clinic, they’re not allowed to earn an income to say to them, Well, you’re not really pro life, because you’re not taking on all these other issues. I just find that supremely arrogant. And I’m not talking here about what Karen said, I’m talking about our critics on the outside who really level this kind of charge. So I can make that distinction. And maybe there are some who abuse it who use it as an excuse, but it doesn’t follow that the distinction isn’t a good one. Well, I

Jim Davis
appreciate the way that you’ve that you identify those In the pro life movement, even if a woman in some cases chooses to go through with the abortion, they will walk with them to try and help them every pregnancy, Senator, and I appreciate that you pointed that out. Karen, one of the arguments that Scott made, he said that changing pro life to whole life which he takes to be your position, appeals to a false sense of moral equivalency. Do you agree with that statement? And why?

Karen Swallow Prior
Well, I think that what I mean by pro life should be whole life is not exactly what Scott described. I don’t think that pro Life Ministries and crisis pregnancy centers have to take on every issue or should take on every issue. I don’t think that any mission needs to take on all of the other issues. And so for me to be being pro life, pro life being whole life means more in our philosophy, our principles, our posture, our our rhetoric, and I do agree with Scott that, that there is a danger of a moral equivalency that is that we do need to avoid because when we are talking about some sort of act, that will take away a person’s physical human life that is a more dire and pressing need than something that affects the quality of their life in an ongoing way. Now, those things can’t be completely separated. I do think that, you know, we have we’ve bred a whole culture that is anti life and that that quality of life or quality of a Deaf culture, if you want to call it that leads to more abortion, so they can’t be completely separated. But I do think that we have to draw moral distinctions and not make those false moral equivalencies.

Jim Davis
Scott, you make the argument that a holistic approach to life places unfair and unfair demands on battle weary pro lifers, if that’s the case, what can the church do to come alongside and help that that would not be a problem?

Scott Klusendorf
Yeah, I think our churches need to do four things on abortion. Number one, they need to preach a biblical view of human value. In other words, human beings have intrinsic dignity in virtue of the kind of thing they are, they don’t have attributed dignity based on their accomplishments or age, they need to preach that biblical view. Secondly, they need to preach that abortion is a sin, that it intentionally takes the life of an image bearer. And we see this taught Exodus 23 teaches it in the Old Covenant. We see it in Matthew five in the new, these are clear, scriptural principles. Number three, and this is huge. We have got to equip our people how to make a case for the pro life view in the public square. I teach at Summit ministries, which is a Christian worldview conference every summer I’m getting ready to head there soon. I love it. Yeah. You know, I’m the old guy. I’m 62. And I go out there and I, I teach these kids pro life apologetics, you know, what I hear? I hear overwhelmingly from the students, we have never heard a pro life apologetics presentation. Now, these kids are coming from the best churches in America. I mean, large churches with pastors I know who faithfully preach the Word. But when we survey the kids, which we’ve been doing now, for five years, less than 2.5% of the kids have ever heard a pro life presentation about how to make a case for life with friends who don’t go to church, and we wonder why we’re losing. Our problem isn’t that we’re not whole life enough. Our problem is nobody’s hearing a pro life presentation. They don’t know what abortion is. They don’t know the arguments. And when they hear it, the light bulb goes off the light bulb, our team we speak in Catholic high schools all the time, large Catholic High School is filled with secular kids. And over and over again, they’re like, we’ve never heard this. It blows their minds. So our churches need to do that fourth thing, and this is crucial. We’ve got to minister to the precious men and women who have been wounded by abortion, who have ruled themselves out of any god glorifying ministry because they got a ghost of a dead child in their background. And we need to come along and say, We want you to know that the Christian Gospel speaks to your situation, that Jesus came and for in full the judgment of God you deserved, so that you could be adopted into his family as a dearly loved child. And if you believe in Jesus, even if you’ve had an abortion, God, the Father is no longer your judge. He’s your Heavenly Father and you get adopted in his family. But you know what our churches are doing? Because they want to spare women and men who have been involved with abortion, guilt, they want to spare them to guilt trip. They don’t say anything about it. They’re not sparing those men and women guilt. They’re sparing them healing because unconfessed sin is keeping them out of full fellowship with Christ. So I think those four things are what we need to be He focused on and helping people come to terms with what a pro Life Church should look like. Well, I

Jim Davis
really appreciate your response. And you know, with your fourth point there, it makes me think of some of the most fruitful and effective people in the pro life movement are people who have been a part of an abortion and seeing the grace of God in their life and found a purpose to help other people see that same grace and save other people the same pain in prayer. Third point, I can remember being in my 20s, and hearing apologetic debates for the first time and one in particular was it’s my body, I can do what I want to do with it. And somebody said, No, you can’t you can’t sell your organs, you can’t prostitute you know, there’s lots of things you can do with your body. And so I appreciate that you’re working to that into to give people the apologetics that they need and the information to be able to equip the next generation. Karen Scott asks what exactly it means when whole life advocates tell the pro life movement to broaden their operational objectives, and express concerns that could overextend and even bankrupt the movement? What would you say that it means? And do you share the same concerns?

Karen Swallow Prior
The first time that I had a conversation with Scott, he told me about this pressure that at least one pro life organization has to change so drastically in the way that it’s organized, and its mission is fulfilled, and its money is allotted. And I really wasn’t aware that this whole pro life his whole life, rhetoric, was having more than a rhetorical and policy effect on an organization. I do wonder, to be honest, if it’s a bit of a straw man argument, because I don’t think that the people who are well founded in their criticism of the pro life movement, pro life politicians, or even pro life individuals are facing that criticism on the way we spend our time and money. I do think it is more again, our posture, our heart attitude, our rhetoric toward other issues that involve not just quality of life, that actual literal lives that are in danger, whether it’s refugees, whether it’s black lives, whether it’s anyone who’s oppressed, I think that is the heart of it. I don’t think that anyone who would think through this issue would think that every single ministry or nonprofit organization who wants to change their mission and change their budget to cover all the issues, I think that people just want to know that we care about all human lives, and believe that we do, not based on how we spend our money, but actually how we speak of other people and how we live our lives.

Jim Davis
Scott do you want to respond to that?

Scott Klusendorf
Yeah, I mean, I go back to that pro life leader I referenced in my opening. This is a leader of a major pro life organization, perhaps the largest. And he said that pro life groups as a whole not just pregnancy centers, but pro life groups as a whole must programmatically address, family issues, discipleship issues, marriages, fatherhood issues, that is specifically saying organizational resources need to go there. I’ll give you another example. In 2017, right here in DC, I attended a major evangelical pro life conference, one of the keynote speakers there who I will not name he was the keynote speaker told pro lifers that they needed to rewrite their job descriptions, they needed to be womb to the tomb. And if they weren’t giving equal focus to these other issues, they were destroying their Christian witness. Now, here’s what’s really ironic about this, the man who was speaking, made a pitch that we need to protect all image bearers, except when he doesn’t want to protect one group, the unborn, the guy wasn’t even pro life. He’s pro choice. He believes we should leave abortion legal, because it’s too expensive to end it. Now, imagine the horrific pneus of the statement, say to a minority suffering discrimination will protect you as long as it doesn’t cost us too much. We’ll work to reduce racial discrimination, but we’re not going to make it illegal. I mean, that would just be horrific to any of us to hear this today. And rightfully so. So we had a speaker, a keynote speaker at a quote, evangelical conference, telling pro lifers to rewrite their job description, and he’s not even one of us. So this is a real problem within people that ought to know better, who think there are friends and they’re not and again, I’m not talking here about Karen. Karen is absolutely pro life. This woman has been arrested five times I do not question her pro life credentials here. Okay, let’s be real We’ll clear about this, what we’re having here, it’s a discussion about who’s going to get control of the operational side of our movement. And there is a real threat. And actually, I’ve been cataloging a lot of this. And I’ve included it all in the new edition of the case for life that will be coming out next year. But yes, it is a threat.

Jim Davis
Well, then I want to move more to the political side of this. With the end, I’m gonna ask a question, I’m going to direct it to both of you. Because there is a political side, which is interesting, you know, you hear you hear people saying often now to a pastor, just preach the gospel don’t get political. Well, the Christian issues are inherently political, and, and maybe none as much as this one right now. So what would you say to the Christian, who has been conflicted? This is going more to the grassroots issue, because they have two candidates, they can vote for Donald Trump, who is against, I guess, who’s against abortion, and but to use your terms his Christian ethic is lacking. Or you can go to Biden, who supports government funded abortions, for some people feel like he would provide the social safety net for women not to get into that position in the first place. So they’re what would you say to the Christian who is just really confused tense? It needs some guidance on this issue, as it pertains to political side of this argument.

Scott Klusendorf
I think we need to back up and say, what is the Christian obligation politically, and I want to point out to number one, we need to apply our Christian worldview holistically. That means that our Christian theology applies to politics and the bifurcation that takes place between people who say, I’m going to be gospel centered, but I’m not going to be political. That’s bifurcating that splitting the Christian worldview in a way that it should not be split. Our Christian worldview applies to everything, everything. Secondly, our responsibility as pro life Christians is to vote to limit the evil and promote the good insofar as possible, given current political realities. Now, some Christians erroneously think that if you don’t have perfection in a law, you can’t support it, that that would be compromise. Look, politics is always the art of the possible, and there is never going to be a perfect political candidate. And there’s never going to be a perfect pro life law. But you are held responsible to limit the evil and promote the good insofar as you can. And it was interesting, historically, Frederick Douglass, the great abolitionist, was pressing Lincoln to be more forthright on his anti slavery views, and was pressing President Lincoln saying, You’re not really coming right out and given us everything that’s needed hear. And he was basically accusing Lincoln, of compromising by endorsing an incremental approach to the end of slavery. And yet Douglas himself at Lincoln’s funeral, came around to admit that the President was wise, politically and knew what he was doing, that it was a matter of the art of the possible and it had it not been for Lincoln’s political prudence, there would have been no end to slavery. So Christians will always feel that tension of hey, that candidate, she’s got some things I don’t like. And that’s not good. There will be other times where we go, okay, this guy lines up more with a biblical worldview. So we’ll go that way. But we’re never going to get a perfect candidate. And that’s not a good excuse to stay out of the political realm. Okay. When you say,

Karen Swallow Prior
I agree so much with Scott’s don’t ask me to repeat it, but his definition of what politics is and and that tension that we as Christians will always live in. And I do think, especially as Christians who live in America, in God’s sovereignty, we we that is a an incredible talent that we have to steward our right to vote. And so I do believe it is it is part of part of our responsibility as those whom God has elected to have in this country who have this right to participate in the political process. We have to participate in some way. I’ll confess that, that I used to put so much faith in politics. I was driving up this morning, from my home three hours south of the city, and recalling how in my 20s I was just enamored with Washington, DC and the political life here. I even slept out on the sidewalk overnight, not far from here on the steps of the Supreme Court. eart one night because I wanted to get in to hear the oral arguments in a pro life case that I was involved in that had gone before the Supreme Court and got in there for a few minutes. And that’s those were my younger days, I don’t sleep on sidewalks anymore. But for many reasons, since then, I am far less enamored of, of politics, not just as a person, but as a Christian. And so I think, of course, as I said, we have sort of a God given responsibility to steward the right that we have to be part of a political process, as as Americans, but I do think that we have compromised too much and put too much faith in politics, and it has become an idol. And we are reaping the consequences for that. Just practically speaking, I have things in candidates that that just eliminate them. If someone is in favor of illegal abortion, then that’s someone who won’t get my vote, they are eliminated. If someone is a sexual abuser, that is a person that is eliminated, I will not vote for them. Now, this leaves, often few choices. But it’s a false binary. And it’s this false binary that has gotten us where we are that says we have to choose between this candidate or that there are third party candidates there are right in votes, every state is different. But we have we have shackled ourselves as Christians in America by buying into a system that has more possibilities than we’ve been willing to see we’ve been used. We’ve allowed ourselves to be used. And so now again, we are reaping the consequences from that from that. And we have to have more faith in the possibilities we have to have more faith in God being faithful to us because we are faithful by refusing to compromise by voting for those who would support killing children or abusing women or many other very long list of things. Those are that’s what it means to be whole life.

Jim Davis
Well, we have just a moment left. And I want to because you all are, you know, we are clearly on the same team. When it comes down to it. You reiterated that more than any other debater so far. And I appreciate that about y’all. What to take that one step farther? What is the most compelling thing that your opponent has said tonight, to you?

Scott Klusendorf
I think Karen makes just an excellent point that rhetorically, we need to be willing to do the linking. And that was one of my opening statements. And she affirmed that but but took it a little further and I’m in agreement, I think there is room for that. Look, we can make compelling prolife arguments that linked to historical examples of human atrocities that then link those atrocities to what’s happening to the unborn in a very compelling way. I mean, think of the story, for example of Otto Banga, the African man who was put in a cage with a monkey at the Bronx Zoo, illogical garden by followers of Charles Darwin, and he was encouraged to play with a monkey in there. This is what happens when you treat human dignity as merely attributed rather than intrinsic. And pro lifers can use historical examples like these. And they ought to, we ought to be quoting Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail and talking about creative extremism where we actually work to change this culture. And part of that creative extremism that King talked about was linking to historical matters that are parallel to the current issue at hand. So I appreciate that I think that’s good and, and I’m gonna walk away from this debate going, you know, I made that point, but she actually pressed me to to even take it further. And rhetorically, I’m all on board.

Karen Swallow Prior
Karen, that’s so moving because Audubon lived in the city near me and is buried a few miles barrels burial site was just recently marked. And I also have voted in the courthouse that and live just a mile from it, where the famous infamous case Buck vs. Bell was originated, that forced sterilization on so many women and men, and is the one that Hitler modeled his own eugenics program on. And so as you talk about all these issues, and I just mentioned more issues, it actually deepens my commitment to what you said about organizations and ministries being mission minded and having a specific goal and sticking to that that’s really important and what’s missing is that we are all called to do something right and so we before God should be sure that or responding to his call I did not choose To become pro life or anti abortion, if I were picking issues, I know my personality, and I would pick some other issues. But I just believe that God just put that fire in me. And he called me to this issue. And I think he calls a lot of us or he calls us all to, to something. And so maybe what the church really needs to do is to support one another in fulfilling those God given calling so that we can work beside one another. We can’t all do everything, but we can certainly all help one another, fulfill the purpose that God has called us to.

Jim Davis
Well, I’m thankful for your vote for you both. There’s a lot of talking going on out there a lot of talking on TV, talking on social media, but you two aren’t just talking, you’re doing it. And we’re very grateful for all the work that you’re doing and that you would give us this time here in this debate. Thank you.

Karen Swallow Prior
Thank You.