The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory: Opportunities for Just War & Pacifist Collaboration
by Thad Crouch
The Disagreements
At the 25th anniversary conference of the Consistent Life Network in 2012, the new, young, rising star, Aimee Murphy — of the then one-year-old Life Matters Journal — gave a speech. When it ended, a seasoned CLE activist aggressively laid into Murphy’s opposition to “aggressive war” rather than taking a pacifist position against all war.
A decade earlier, a year after the 9-11 terrorist attack and mere months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the youngest member of Pax Christi Austin (a chapter of an international Catholic non-violence organization) urged fellow members to support a presentation using Just War Ethic arguments against the invasion at an interfaith peace event. The membership adamantly opposed him, despite his arguing that it would be faster, easier, and more practical than attempting to convert pro-war Austinites into nonviolence advocates within the available time frame to mobilize them against an impending war.
Among life-long committed leaders of the CLE, debates over active nonviolence or pacifist positions vs ones allowing for wars described as just, defensive, or non-aggressive can become intensely heated. But there’s at least one important criterion of just war theory that, when applied as rigorously as intended, points to significant common ground on which pacifists and just war theorists can work together to promote nonviolence in practice.
Just War Doctrine
The Christian version of Just War doctrine began with Augustine of Hippo, a philosopher who converted to Christianity shortly after it became the Roman Empire’s official religion. Augustine saw war as a tragedy that occurred in a sinful world that, under certain circumstances, could be needed to protect life and restore order. As he pondered circumstances in which Christians might morally participate in war, he found criteria from Marcus Tullius Cicero, a first- century Roman senator and philosopher – though Augustine disagreed with Cicero’s idea that impugned honor could justify war for Christians.
The most important criterion of Just War for this discussion is:
Last Resort: To justify engaging in war, all other bloodless means to resolve the conflict must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
The Opportunity: Just War’s Preferential Option for Nonviolence
The requirement that bloodless means must be found to be ineffective before “just war” can apply means a preferential option for nonviolence.
That means that those who don’t know about active nonviolence are unqualified to declare just war.
In order to apply and implement just war doctrine, one must understand the power of nonviolence. To effectively apply the just war theory, persons, religious bodies, and governments must have acuity with understanding, applying, and implementing the power, the effectiveness, and the limits of nonviolence. Those who equate nonviolence with being passive are unqualified to discuss just war theory.
They must also understand the limits of violence as a problem-solver.
New Knowledge of Nonviolence
Eons of history are filled with examples of nonviolence that have proven effective. For example, there’s the overthrow of British rule in India/Pakistan; the Solidarity Movement in Poland; and the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt.
Gene Sharp’s three volume set, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 1973, lists 198 nonviolent tactics. In his 1992 book, Engaging the Powers, Walter Wink lists over ninety examples of effective nonviolent actions spanning from Before the Common Era to 1991. Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall go into great detail about around 40 cases in A Force More Powerful.
Yet something both newer and more convincing has happened than a list of nonviolent tactics that can work with a list of successful historic nonviolent examples: a study.
In the award-winning Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan go beyond listing nonviolent victories and tactics. They apply statistical analysis to 323 conflicts involving more than a thousand active participants that attempted both violent and nonviolent means to either overthrow an illegitimate dictator or oust a foreign military occupation between the years 1900 and 2006. Here are just a few of their findings:
Nonviolent campaigns were twice as effective as violent ones, with violent campaigns victorious 25% of the time and nonviolent ones 50% of the time.
- Nonviolent campaigns were eight times more likely to result in democracies five years after conflicts than armed insurrections.
- Violent campaigns are significantly more likely to relapse into civil war within 10 years than nonviolent campaigns.
Erica Chenoweth explains this in a one hour and twenty minute video.
The 21st Century New Opportunities to Apply the Old
If we marry the centuries-old Preferential Option for Nonviolence with these new statistics, then new possibilities arise:
Consider that it becomes much more difficult to show that 198 bloodless options to resolve conflicts have been exhausted or shown to be impractical or ineffective when in at least the two examples of ousting dictators or occupying armies are more likely to succeed by organized strategic campaigns of adaptable nonviolent tactics than by warfare.
Consider that any person or committee with legitimate authority to decide that nonviolent means are impractical or ineffective must now be educated in the application of effective organized strategic, adaptable, campaigns making the use of 198 nonviolent tactics before choosing violent tactics.
Consider that any persons that are entrusted with authority to possibly decide that nonviolent means have been found impractical or ineffective are now unqualified to do so if they do not possess a proven acuity to apply effective organized strategic, adaptable, nonviolent campaigns to real world conflicts.
Consider that nonviolent peace activists have new 21st Century opportunities within the Just War Preferential Option for Nonviolence to teach these tactics and strategies to Just War adherents and legitimate government authorities.
Consider that now those who want to advocate for rigorous adherence to Just War principles can learn and apply these proven nonviolent tactics and strategies to resolve more conflicts nonviolently without renouncing their option to Just War, and thus, make war rarer and rarer over time.
Consider all the conversations possible between Just War advocates and nonviolence-only advocates that can be mutually beneficial.
Consider with whom you can engage in that conversion this year.
=====================================
For more of our posts on applying nonviolence, see:
Making a Nonviolent Revolution: Review of Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know
Culture of Conscience: Would You Pay Taxes that Fund Abortions if Hyde and Helms were Repealed?
Applying Pacifist Insights to Abortion
Confronting MAID: Misleading Language
This is a companion piece to Confronting MAID: Is it Autonomy?
by Ms. Boomer-ang
Project Censored observes that on some issues, the most commonly-heard voices “distract our attention from what we really need to know” and “keep us focused on minor or misleading parts of the story,” while “the important things…continue moving forward largely free from journalistic scrutiny and public debate.” This frames crucial public issues in ways that “marginalize critical and grass roots perspectives, shield the powerful from scrutiny, and discourage the public from understanding the deeper forces that are shaping their lives.”1 Whether the writers realize it or not, this applies to much discourse related to Medical Aid in Dying (MAID). Unfortunately, the misleading language is so pervasive that even some people speaking against MAID use it without realizing it can weaken their argument. Could confronting the language help keep the idea of living until one’s body dies naturally thinkable?
- We hear that “Laws against MAID force people to go to another jurisdiction to get killed.” But what about people going to another state or country to avoid death-hastening? The most-accessible media leaves the impression that that never happens. But in 2023, when a surgeon told a Canadian woman with abdominal cancer to consider MAID, she got treatment in Baltimore. Would this have been possible if Maryland had already had MAID by then? I don’t know what the woman will do if her cancer recurs. But this story shows what people now have to do to stay alive.
- We hear that MAID adds end of life options, but doesn’t it also take options away? For example, doesn’t it allow care facilities, doctors, and insurance companies to drop alternatives to death-hastening for people in certain conditions?
Some “heroic” efforts to prolong life put so much strain on the body that an individual could live at least as long without them. But what about letting nature take its course, supplemented when needed by help keeping clean, eating, dressing, doing enjoyable activities, and sometimes breathing? Are these tossed out with the “heroic” efforts?
Additionally, doesn’t the availability of MAID change people’s conception of what is appropriate and possible?
- We hear that MAID allows doctors, family members, and friends to stay with a patient until the end. But this implies that the availability of MAID allows the above people, many of whom would have stayed with the patient until the end before, to abandon or threaten to abandon the patient, if they stay alive beyond a certain point.
- The observation that, at least initially, a disproportionate number of people submitting to MAID have been white and not poor has been used to assure us that MAID won’t threaten people for being minority and poor. Actually, it tells us more about pressures within upper-class and upwardly mobile families, communities, and identity groups. Are these groups less likely to tolerate a member in certain physical conditions staying alive? Identity group and family can be at least as important as finances in determining life/death decisions.
- The observation that most people who “choose” MAID have insurance is used to assure us that MAID does not threaten people for lacking insurance. Actually, it says more about insurance policies. Having insurance doesn’t mean having all necessary insurance coverage.
- We hear assurances that in jurisdictions allowing MAID, under 5% of deaths occur that way. But what about boasts that death-hastening policies are “incredibly successful” and “popular”? Could the 5% refer to only the deaths following a strict Voluntary MAID protocol and the actual percent of deaths that are medically hastened be noticeably higher? Even a report written to assure euthanasia was rare acknowledged that in 1990 only about 23% of intentional medical killings were by voluntary euthanasia or “assisted suicide.” The others were by involuntary euthanasia or intentional overdoses of pain-control drugs.2
- Will the idea of a doctor who will not kill become, in most people’s minds, as ridiculous as a soldier who is unwilling to kill? How will the number of people that a typical doctor kills in a year compare with the number of people that a typical soldier kills in a lifetime of combat?
- Calling any religious or secular group that opposes MAID “oppressive” and “reactionary” doesn’t acknowledge groups that have become even more strictly uncompromising in favor of MAID.
- MAID advocates claim there is “no abuse” in places that allow it. But what about pressure to submit to death-hastening on people considered unworthy of staying alive? In fact, the word “abuse” is in danger of being flipped. Will helping a death-eligible person stay alive, even at that person’s request, be classified as abuse of that person? Is staying alive in certain conditions considered abuse of one’s loved ones?
- Though debates about whether depression alone makes a person MAID-eligible shouldn’t be ignored, they can detract attention from the quiet building of a consensus that death hastening is the only response to certain other conditions.
- Examples of people submitting to MAID because of economic desperation don’t necessarily turn people against death-hastening. Such examples can cheer some euthanasia supporters that their laws are working. Therefore, in addition, we need to publicize cases of people risking homelessness, bankruptcy, exile, and/or family disownment for continuing to reject MAID.
- Calling MAID an individual’s personal choice diverts attention from when it is blatantly not. Once euthanasia is legal, doctors can kill patients against their unambiguous requests. One woman reportedly was afraid to go to a hospital because of the danger of euthanasia, but her doctor assured her he would guard her. The woman went to the hospital, and when her doctor went home for a rest, another doctor walked into her room and killed her.3 Some victims fight or try to escape their killers. They’re subdued by sedatives. When someone calls MAID the individual’s choice, why do we not bring up cases like this?
- We hear that in a MAID jurisdiction, if you don’t agree with the doctor’s, care facility’s, or insurer’s policy toward death, you can switch. But are doctors and facilities that participate in death-hastening required to give patients on request a list of doctors who do not? Are insurance companies required to reimburse a person who goes out of state to find a non-MAID doctor?
When abortion was imposed, organizations of pro-life gynecologists sprang up. Are equivalent organizations being created for medical specialists who will not participate in MAID? Crisis pregnancy centers sprang up to help people carry pregnancies to term, even against their families’ wishes. Are there shelter homes for people who wish to stay alive comfortably, even against their families’ wishes?
For such shelters, hospice is no longer an appropriate name. Cancer patient Charlotte Allen has observed, “The hospice movement has historically opposed anything that smacked of euthanasia,” but that was before February 2007, when the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) came out for death-hastening, or at least “studied neutrality” on it. Neutrality implies there is room for hospices that let people live until their body dies naturally. But Ms. Allen pointed out that there are hospices that, when they cannot directly kill somebody, terminally sedate them. Like abortion clinics, many hospices are in the business of ending lives.
Before my state imposes MAID (probably soon), I want to line up non-participating doctors (whether in or out if state) to go to. I asked two pro-life organizations if they had a list of such doctors, and they did not. I asked a clergyman of a denomination known to oppose euthanasia, and he did not. Nor does he know anybody with my concerns. Now I don’t know where to turn.
In fighting against MAID, should not one try to steer distracting or misleading discourse back to a path that helps the public understand important aspects of the topic?
NOTES
- John C Collins, Nicole Eigbrett, Jana Morgan, and Steve Peraza, “The Magic Trick of Establishment Media: News Abuse in 2027-18.),” Censored 2019,(New York: Seven Stories Press, 2018), pp. 119-120.
- Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit, Times Books (Random House), 1997, pp. 98, 99″
- Ibid., p. 101
=========================================================
For more of our posts on euthanasia, see:
Figuring out Euthanasia: What Does it Really Mean?
Confronting MAID: Is it Autonomy?
Euthanasia by Poverty: Stories from Canada
How Euthanasia and Poverty Threaten the Disabled
What’s Cruel for the Incarcerated is Cruel for the Terminally Ill
Assisted Suicide as the Next Roe v. Wade: Time to Pay Attention
Assisted Suicide is Inequality, Just Like All Legal Violence
Aftermath of State Ballot Initiatives
by Tom Taylor
The Maryland ballot this past November, similar to ballots in several other states, included a referendum in which Maryland residents voted on a proposed amendment to enshrine abortion in the Maryland state constitution. As a Maryland resident and Consistent Life Ethic advocate, I was extremely disappointed that voters approved the amendment. Similar amendments passed in six other states. Voters in three states, thankfully, offered a ray of hope by defeating referendums on the issue.
Going forward, my hope is that voters will come to regret passage of these ballot initiatives, and thereby encourage momentum for change. Adoption of these amendments severely limits the ability of lawmakers to respond to evolving medical knowledge and changing circumstances related to maternal health and fetal development. Legislators need flexibility in drafting laws that best serve the needs of their states’ residents and reflect up-to-date medical knowledge and advancements.
Restricting Legislators
These amendments place a significant constitutional restraint on elected representatives’ flexibility to enact such laws in response to medical advances and also on their ability to add new standards, including health and safety protections for women or other safeguards, related to changing developments.
The restraint arises because an amendment to the constitution becomes part of the fundamental framework of state law, takes precedence over other laws due to its higher legal status, and is very difficult to repeal. As part of the state’s fundamental law, it submits all future legislation to a standard of “strict scrutiny” based on the constitutional provision.
When courts adjudicate a statute passed by the legislature, they typically give deference to the legislature as long as the statute passes a “rational basis” test, meaning that it is considered a reasonable law. Further, the statute can be amended, replaced, or repealed through subsequent legislative action as facts, circumstances, or public opinion change.
With a constitutional amendment in place, courts give priority consideration to the foundational document over any rational basis test applied to the statute passed. The practical result is to put a chilling effect on legislatures’ willingness to enact new laws. Any legislation that is passed is likely to be subjected to legal challenge, unlikely to pass the “strict scrutiny” standard that courts apply to constitutional provisions, and therefore unlikely to survive court review.
Responding to New Medical Discoveries
Medical research and technology continually reveal new knowledge about pregnancy and fetal development. Already, fetal surgery can occur as early as 16 weeks, and a web search of articles and studies about pregnancy discloses the rapid and complex fetal development that occurs from the very beginning of gestation. The human body undergoes more change before birth than at any other stage of development.
To cite an example, recent research shows that sensory development begins in utero, well before birth. Babies’ development in the womb includes sensing the world around them as well as the necessary physical changes that will enable them to function following birth.
This sensory development plays an important role in infant attachment to the mother. It also initiates the process of learning about the postnatal world the new-born will inhabit after birth. The research indicates that the fetus is responding to the external world long before birth. Further research and medical technology development are likely to reveal even more knowledge that will call for appropriate responses.
There also is an urgent need to improve maternal health during pregnancy, especially for women in vulnerable groups. Ongoing study is likely to reveal new knowledge that will improve maternal health outcomes as well.
Approval of the Maryland amendment and similar amendments will severely restrict the ability of legislators to enact fitting measures in response to such new developments in fetal and maternal healthcare. However, Consistent Life supporters can continue to serve an advocacy role within this legislative landscape by engaging legislators and the public about emerging evidence in fetal and pregnancy research.
Responsibility to Entire Living World
From a consistent life point of view, these advocacy arguments also can be approached (and strengthened) through an ecological perspective that links protection for the preborn with protection of nature. Damage to nature also is at odds with consistent life principles, and environmental protection is an issue that resonates with many citizens and legislators.
Humanity enjoys a reciprocal relationship with the entire living world and is called to responsibility and good stewardship of this relationship. In Maryland, legislators have honored this reciprocity by enacting significant legislation for environmental protection and stewardship.
It behooves society to also think of preborn, developing lives as part of the living world and this reciprocal relationship. Respect for our natural heritage calls us to be good stewards of the human birth process as well. Just as the seeds of food crops and garden plants go through stages of development underground before emerging, developing human life experiences myriad stages of complex development before birth.
It is our duty as human beings with responsibility for the entire living world to exercise good stewardship in the process of human development leading to birth. And let us emphasize that every currently living person once existed at these early stages.
Future Steps
Moving forward in response to the Maryland amendment and similar measures, let us stay engaged in advocacy with our legislative representatives to honor this wisdom of reciprocity and responsibility within the natural human development process.
Let us look for opportunities to plant seeds and create momentum for change in the legislative process. Let us work to foster a sentiment of good stewardship of developing life in its earliest stages within our legislative bodies. Let us highlight the need for flexibility to address new developments and knowledge about pregnancy, maternal health, and fetal development. Let us lobby for appropriate measures along these lines. Voices in advocacy can change the narrative.
Pointing to the connection between nature and ecology and the natural progression of human conception, development, and birth offers a different perspective and channel for dialogue on the abortion issue. It raises issues of consistency between care for the environment and care for the vulnerable, preborn members of the natural world. In this way of thinking, protecting the preborn is consistent with protecting the natural world and its land, water, air, forests, habitat, and biodiversity. We can call on citizens and their elected representatives to seek full protection for both the preborn members of the natural world and all of its ecological resources.
In the wake of ballot initiatives, the advocacy group AAPLOG (American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists) suggests supportive actions such as:
- Defending existing regulations still in place that may face legislative or judicial challenges arising from passage of ballot initiatives.
- Pushing for better data reporting on abortion numbers and associated complications as a common-sense public health measure that provides full and accurate health statistics. Data collection can reveal issues and deficiencies of care that will need to be addressed and demonstrate the need for regulations and safeguards. AAPLOG states that, in the United States, such reporting is generally not adequate to provide meaningful conclusions. The state of Maryland does not publicly report this information at all.
- Advocating for and supporting local pregnancy resource centers to make life-serving options widely known in communities and reduce the factors that contribute to abortion decisions.
- Advocating on legislation at the federal level.
Authentic witness can still change hearts and minds and lead to eventual changes in the law. Consistent Life principles can continue to shine a light and offer a guideway that leads society toward a life-affirming path that honors the natural world in its fullest sense.
“Become Nonviolent Towards All Life”
For signposts along this route, we can point to two notable champions of consistent life principles who also exemplify humanity’s reciprocal relationship with nature – environmental activist Wangari Maathai and farmworker leader Cesar Chavez.
Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, opposed abortion and founded the Green Belt Movement in Kenya with the dual purpose of empowering women and girls and reforesting land. Chavez, who embedded nonviolence principles in the farmworker movement, asserted: “Only when we have become nonviolent towards all life will we have learned to live well with others.” During his leadership, United Farmworker health clinics did not allow abortions, and Chavez adopted a vegetarian diet out of concern for animals.
We also can look to the words of Albert Schweitzer, noted for his Reverence for Life philosophy: “Until we extend our circle of compassion to all living things, humanity will not find peace.”
Legislative action can align with these sentiments as well.
=============================
For ongoing coverage of upcoming referendums, see our website: Peace and Life Referendums
For more of our posts, see:
Presidential Election 2024: Consistent Life Perspectives
Summary of Results: Peace & Life Referendums 2024
What History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for Pro-life Referendums
Stewardship and the Consistent Life Ethic
Confronting MAID: Is it Autonomy?
by Ms. Boomer-ang
Referring to Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) as an individual’s autonomous action can divert discussions to when autonomy is desirable and away from whether MAID really gives the patient/victim autonomy.
MAID requires the cooperation of other people. Autonomy implies self-initiation. But how many fatal prescriptions are first suggested or initiated by the patient/victim’s family, friends, medical staff, social workers, caregivers, insurance companies, or Artificial Intelligence? How often are people who have not requested or agreed to MAID presented with a fatal prescription, with at least some of the necessary signatures, possibly including one made electronically on their behalf? Euthanasia policy scholar Wesley J. Smith has noted, “Studies show families rather than patients generally decide when the time has come for euthanasia.”1 When must an individual take active steps to avoid MAID?
Many terms that are used to degrade staying alive in certain conditions relate to the effect on other people. Concepts like “undignified” (implying shameful and disgraceful), “irresponsible, “selfish,” “immature,” “burdensome,” “occupying organs that could benefit someone else,” and “squandering heirs’ money” can pertain to responsibility. Is not submitting to death-hastening out of a sense of responsibility or duty the opposite of autonomy?
Unassisted suicide is an autonomous action. So is foregoing medical attention for months or years until one dies naturally. But actively speeding death is as interventionist as extraordinary efforts to prolong life. If the majority of non-sudden deaths are hastened, it will be living until one’s body dies naturally that will be the autonomous action.
Claims that laws against MAID laws are examples of government intrusion into personal lives can divert the discussion into the appropriateness of any government intrusion. Actually, the discussion should be about what intrusion by the government or equivalent is appropriate for.
Are not most of the people whom anti-MAID laws interfere with those who want an individual dead? Such laws protect the individual from these people, as well as from care facilities and insurers who find it more profitable and efficient to have them dead.
Don’t laws allowing MAID give free rein to these people to pressure, bully, and shame the individual into accepting death-hastening? Don’t they allow care facilities, caregivers, and insurers to set policies of killing, expelling, and/or overcharging anybody with certain conditions in certain circumstances? That these are private entities doesn’t make their policies any less intrusive or any less strict than government laws.
And in places where medical facilities are part of government services or heavily supported by the government, the facility’s deciding to kill a person is government intrusion to cause death.
Don’t pro-MAID laws give justification to claim that to live until one’s body dies naturally, or to stay alive in certain conditions, is unpatriotic, sinful, obscene, cowardly, the equivalent of not paying taxes, or “just not done”? That to want to stay alive in certain conditions is a clinical sign of “irrationality”?
Will many people, from policymakers to caregivers to the general public, think the only alternates to quick MAID are “slow” death-hastening, like terminal sedation and medication mini-overdoses? Will even many who reject quick MAID feel anything that smells of life-maintenance is “wrong” or “looks bad”?
Doesn’t the availability of MAID change people’s conception of what is appropriate and possible?
NOTES
1Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder. Times Books (Random House), 1997, p. 103
===============
For more of our posts on euthanasia, see:
Figuring out Euthanasia: What Does it Really Mean?
Euthanasia by Poverty: Stories from Canada
How Euthanasia and Poverty Threaten the Disabled
What’s Cruel for the Incarcerated is Cruel for the Terminally Ill
Assisted Suicide as the Next Roe v. Wade: Time to Pay Attention
Assisted Suicide is Inequality, Just Like All Legal Violence
Claims About Third-Trimester Abortions
by Sarah Terzo
Abortion supporters often say that abortionists only do third-trimester abortions when there’s a serious risk to the pregnant person’s life or health.
One example is from pro-abortion politician Pete Buttigieg. In an interview, he was asked, “Just to be clear, you’re saying that you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?”
At first, Buttigieg tried to evade the question, saying, “Look, these hypotheticals are usually set up in order to provoke a strong emotional response —”
The interviewer cut him off with the claim that 6,000 abortions a year happen in the third trimester. I’ve seen this statistic before, but I haven’t been able to find its source.
Buttigieg responded by pointing out that this makes up just 1% of all abortions, and the crowd applauded.
He then said that these cases involve wanted babies whose mothers have already named and bought cribs for them. Third-trimester abortions, he claimed, are only done for families that:
get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice.
And the bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is . . . that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.
Again, this led to applause from the crowd.
However, this is not true.
Why Third-Trimester Abortions Aren’t Done to Save the Mother’s Life
In this video, a former abortionist explains how third-trimester abortions are done.
The abortionist injects poison into the preborn baby to kill him or her before inducing labor or otherwise removing the child intact. To get a live birth, the steps would be exactly the same, except the injection wouldn’t be done. The doctor could dilate the cervix and remove the baby or induce labor. This would result in a living child rather than a dead one.
To turn a third-trimester abortion into a delivery, all the doctor has to do is not give the injection. The direct act of killing the baby in the womb is what separates a third-trimester abortion from a birth.
In a third-trimester abortion, the abortionist slowly dilates the cervix over the course of three days. A woman whose life is in danger would have to endure three extra days of being pregnant. In contrast, a doctor could end the pregnancy immediately with a cesarean section, resulting in a living child. Or he or she could induce labor.
A quote from a 1998 article in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association referring to pregnancies in the third trimester states:
Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending a pregnancy by appropriate delivery.1 (emphasis added)
Studies Reveal the Reasons Third-Trimester Abortions Are Done
Two studies reveal why late-term abortions are done.
The first study was done by pro-abortion researchers Diana Greene Foster (who later worked on the infamous Turnaway Study) and Katrina Kimport. The study concerned the reasons people seek abortions after 20 weeks and included women who aborted in the third trimester of pregnancy.
The authors state:
[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment . . .
They gave a breakdown of the following reasons (some women chose more than one):
- 45% didn’t know they were pregnant.
- 40% had trouble deciding whether to have an abortion.
- 20% disagreed with the father of the baby about whether to have the abortion.
- 38% didn’t know where to go for the abortion.
- 27% had difficulty getting to the abortion facility.
- 65% had difficulty raising money for the abortion and related costs.
- 41% had difficulty getting insurance coverage to pay for the abortion.
One example was a woman who had an abortion at 28 weeks while her boyfriend was in jail. She waited until he was incarcerated because she wanted to keep the abortion a secret from him.
A more recent study (2022) focused just on third-trimester abortions. It found that the reasons given for third-trimester abortions were the same as those given for earlier abortions.
Again, there was no pro-life bias. The pro-abortion group ANSIRH (Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health) funded the study. ANSIRH describes itself as “Providing the evidence you need to advance reproductive well-being.”
It says of the study’s results:
The reasons people need third-trimester abortions are not so different from why people need abortions before the third trimester.
The study gives no detailed breakdown of women’s reasons or any concrete numbers. It found that people have abortions in the third trimester for one or more of the following reasons:
- They didn’t know they were pregnant earlier.
- They had difficulty arranging an abortion.
- The baby had a health problem or disability.
None of the women in the study aborted for any reason related to their own health. They were all physically healthy and in no danger from pregnancy.
The study mentioned four cases where the baby had a disability. This was 14.3% of the total. However, the study wasn’t clear whether these were the only cases.
One woman was homeless. The abortion facility took her money, killed her baby, and sent her back to the streets with no intervention or help. She was still homeless, and now has a late-term abortion on her conscience.
Another woman discovered her pregnancy early but “took no immediate action toward obtaining an abortion.”
This woman had been sexually assaulted in the past, though that wasn’t the cause of her pregnancy. Kimport claims the emotional trauma of the past assault was the reason she didn’t arrange an abortion until the third trimester.
One woman couldn’t afford an abortion and started prenatal care. Then, her (now) ex-boyfriend got a work bonus, and she had an abortion in her third trimester.
All the women in the study aborted because they didn’t feel they could cope with a baby or simply didn’t want the child. While their reasons may have seemed serious to them, they weren’t any different from the reasons people seek earlier abortions.
Statements from Doctors who Specialize in Third-Trimester Abortions
Further evidence comes from third-trimester abortionists themselves.
Abortionist Warren Hern, who specializes in third-trimester abortions, gave the following interview:
Interviewer: Do you ever get any women in their second half of the second trimester or in the third trimester that say they have no medical problems, they just don’t want the baby? They change their mind? Would you do it?
Hern: Well, of course, if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, there’s no justification for forcing her to continue the pregnancy.
Interviewer: Okay, has that happened?
Hern: That happens all the time.
Hern has repeatedly said that because women can die from pregnancy complications, every pregnancy threatens their lives and, therefore, abortion is always medically justified.
Shelley Sella is another abortionist who does third-trimester abortions. In an article in the Irish Times, a reporter who interviewed her says:
The women Sella treats fall into two categories: those who discover foetal abnormalities; and those with healthy, viable babies whose maternal circumstances mean they could not cope with the baby.
She gives the example of one mother of three whose husband was killed in a car accident while she was in her third trimester. She didn’t feel she could raise her children and the new baby alone, so she had an abortion. Now, besides grieving for her husband, she has to deal with the loss of his nearly full-term baby.
A healthy, 16-year-old girl, also in the third trimester, chose abortion even though her parents, her boyfriend, and her boyfriend’s parents wanted her to have the baby. Sella killed the healthy, viable child.
When asked about whether adoption would’ve been appropriate in this case, Sella stated that adoption “causes lifelong trauma and psychological problems.”
Another third-trimester abortionist, Susan Robinson, said of her patients:
Women whose fetuses have terrible abnormalities are a lot easier for people to understand. The husband and wife want to spare their baby whatever suffering that baby would have.
Then there’s the group of women who didn’t know they were pregnant. They were told they were not pregnant for one reason or another and they are just as desperate.
Some people really don’t discover their pregnancies until the third trimester. In a previous article, I quoted abortionist Susan Poppema, who described a woman who came to her abortion facility nine months pregnant and in active labor. The woman had come for a routine exam and didn’t know she was pregnant.
Advertising Third-Trimester Abortions
Some abortion facilities openly advertise third-trimester abortions on their websites. These facilities welcome pregnant people from all around the United States who want to abort in the third trimester.
Here are some examples:
================================
For more of our posts on the reality of abortion, see:
Christmas Carols
Solstice: December 21
Christmas: December 25
Hanukkah: this year, sundown December 25 – sundown January 2
Kwanzaa: December 26 – January 1
New Year: January 1
1500s: A Haunting Song
The Coventry Carol, 1534
Traditional
With a haunting melody, it’s about Herod’s massacre of babies. See our holiday issues on the Massacre of the Innocents.
O sisters too, how may we do
For to preserve this day
This poor youngling for whom we sing,
“Bye bye, lully, lullay”?
Herod the king, in his raging,
Chargèd he hath this day
His men of might in his own sight
All young children to slay.
That woe is me, poor child, for thee
And ever mourn and may
For thy parting neither say nor sing,
“Bye bye, lully, lullay.”
1800s: Traditional Carols
O Holy Night, 1843 / 1855
Written in French by Placide Chapeau / Translated into English by John Sullivan Dwight
Dwight added this third verse, which made it popular among abolitionists of the time:
Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His Gospel is Peace
Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother
And in His name, all oppression shall cease
There’s also a story which may or may not be true but at least has made the rounds. In the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, on Christmas Eve the French troops sang this uplifting song (French version, of course) across the trenches during a truce in hostilities.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clear, 1849
Written by Massachusetts pastor Edmund Sears
The poem was written with violent revolutions in Europe and the recent war between the United States and Mexico in mind, accounting for anti-war sentiment throughout. This was most explicit in Verse 3:
Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day, 1864
Written on Christmas day by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Edward K Hermann gives the full story with a performance of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir
Longfellow had suffered personal tragedy, but this was also written with the U.S. Civil War raging and uppermost on his mind.
I heard the bells on Christmas day
Their old familiar carols play
And mild and sweet their songs repeat
Of peace on Earth, good will to men
And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on Earth, ” I said
For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on Earth, good will to men
Then rang the bells more loud and deep
God is not dead, nor doth He sleep
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on Earth, good will to men
1900s: Modern Takes
Do You Hear What I Hear?, 1962
Words by Noël Regney, music by Gloria Shayne, husband and wife
“Pray for peace people everywhere”
This carol was written at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis and was a response to the dangers of nuclear annihilation. There were double meanings throughout. ““A star, dancing in the night, with a tail as big as a kite” could be the Star of Bethlehem, but authors were thinking of a nuclear missile as well.
From The Atlantic:
“In the studio, the producer was listening to the radio to see if we had been obliterated,” Regney once explained. “En route to my home, I saw two mothers with their babies in strollers. The little angels were looking at each other and smiling.” This inspired the first line of the song: “Said the night wind to the little lamb . . .”
Happy Xmas (War is Over), 1969
by John Lennon
In the middle of the American war in Vietnam and the movement to stop it, along with the Civil Rights movement, Lennon wrote a song that’s explicit about opposing war and racism. As with much of good poetry, it applies to other historical periods as well and so remains commonly sung today. Verse 2:
And so this is Christmas (War is over)
For weak and for strong (If you want it)
The rich and the poor ones (War is over)
The road is so long (Now)
And so happy Christmas (War is over)
For black and for white (If you want it)
For yellow and red ones (War is over)
Let’s stop all the fight (Now)
Christmas In the Trenches, written before 1984
Written by John McCutcheon
McCutcheon was inspired to write this about the 1914 Christmas Truce, when soldiers up and down the line of trenches in Europe took Christmas a little more seriously than their superiors did. A good version with story: Christmas in the Trenches (1984). McCutcheon clearly wrote it well before then, since he refers to reactions from men who experienced the Truce when he sang the song in concert.
Also on the same topic:
Pipes of Peace with Paul McCartney.
Celtic Thunder offers Christmas 1915. They have the wrong year, but the art still has the spirit of it.
A movie dramatization: Joyeux Noel
And our own blog post on it: The Christmas Truce of 1914
=======================================
This is a list of holiday editions of our weekly e-newsletter, Peace & Life Connections.
In 2023, we covered Kwanzaa.
In 2022, the topic was the Christmas Truce of 1914, when World War I soldiers up and down the line treated each other as friends rather than enemies for the holidays. (Also the same content in a 2022 post.)
In 2021, there was a somber topic, but one appropriate to the season: the Massacre of the Innocents, and its role in quotations and art that oppose massive violence of all kinds. (Also the same content in a 2021 post.)
In 2020, given what was most on people’s minds at the time, we covered Pandemics Related to Christmas. (Also the same content in a 2020 post.)
In 2019, we showed Christmas as a Nonviolent Alternative to Imperialism.
In 2018, we detailed Strong Women against Violence – Connected to the Holidays.
In 2017, we covered Interfaith Peace in the Womb.
In 2016, we discussed how “The Magi were Zoroastrians” and detailed how good the Zoroastrians were on consistent-life issues. The ancient roots of the consistent life ethic run deep!
In 2015, we had a list of good holiday movies with consistent-life themes – check it out for what you might want to see this season. We also had information on Muslim nonviolent perspectives.
In 2014, we offered a quotation from a lesser-known Christmas novella of Charles Dickens and cited the treatment of abortion in the Zoroastrian scriptures.
In 2013, we shared several quotations reflecting on Christmas.
In 2012, we had a couple of quotes showing the pro-life aspects of two prominent Christmas tales: A Christmas Carol with Ebenezer Scrooge, and the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. We also quote from John Dear about Jesus as peacemaker and Rand Paul about the 1914 spontaneous Christmas Truce; he then related it to the culture of life.
In 2011, we covered the materialism-reducing “Advent Conspiracy” and offered two pieces of children’s art: a 1939 anti-war cartoon called “Peace on Earth,” and the anti-war origins of “Horton Hears a Who,” whose tagline – “a person’s a person, no matter how small” – is irresistible to pro-lifers.
In 2010, we showed “It’s a Wonderful Movement” by using the theme of what would happen if the peace movement and the pro-life movement hadn’t arisen. We also had quotes from Scrooge (against respect for life) and a Martin Luther King Christmas sermon.
Abortion and the Christian Bible: A Consistent-Life Perspective
by Fr. Jim Hewes
Biblical Foundations on the Sanctity of Life
While the Bible may not explicitly address every modern issue, its teachings provide a framework that values life at all stages. There’s a difference between something that is unbiblical (contrary to biblical teachings) and something non-biblical (not found specifically in the bible).
For example, Jesus never directly mentions abortion. Jesus also never speaks specifically about nuclear deterrence or stem cell research. But Jesus offers a clear framework of compassion for understanding the sanctity of life.
There are key biblical passages which demonstrate that God has complete dominion over human life. Then there is the overarching principle that children are a blessing (“Children are a gift from the Lord. Babies are a reward.” Psalm 127) – counter-cultural for the time.
Jesus also pays special attention to those who are unwanted, rejected, despised, insignificant, on the margin, the least of our brothers and sisters, as the pre-born are so often treated today.
Problematic Passages and the Value of Life
One of the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is problematic if not scandalous if taken literally, without further biblical understanding including Tradition.
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not listen to them even though they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate[a] of his home city, where they shall say to the elders of the city, “This son of ours is a stubborn and rebellious fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to death. Thus, shall you purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear and be afraid.
While some biblical passages, can be troubling if interpreted literally, they must be read in the context of Jesus’s teachings. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus elevates the commandment “You shall not kill” by teaching that even harboring anger toward another can be spiritually harmful (Matthew 5:21-22). His message underscores a profound respect for every life.
Another example is in Exodus (21”22-25):
When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Some argue that this passage implies unborn life is of lesser value. However, the Bible’s overall message emphasizes the sanctity of all human life. The Israelites wrote this text before today’s scientific understanding of human development. While they lacked the tools of modern biology, their reverence for life is clear. It wasn’t written to be a textbook in embryology or perinatology, so at that time one could not fully know who the pre-born exactly was, where today we have a “window to the womb” with ultrasound.
Whether the Bible is prescriptive or not on abortion, it’s descriptive about the value of life, including condemning strongly the cultural practice of child sacrifice. The Bible is the word of God, but in the words of humans. It is neither exclusive nor limited, but there are numerous passages in the Bible about the value of life within the womb and the reverence for that life.
The Value of Life in the Womb
The Bible contains verses that reflect God’s intimate involvement in the creation of human life, especially in the womb. For instance:
- the prophet Isaiah declared, “The Lord called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb, he named me” (Isaiah 49:1).
- In Jeremiah, God affirms, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5).
- Psalm 139 further captures the depth of God’s role in human creation: “You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:13-14).
In the New Testament, when Elizabeth hears Mary (who is pregnant) Elizabeth responds: “the infant leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41), illustrating the presence of life and joy even before birth. Similarly, Jesus, the Word made flesh, and experienced every stage of human development, affirming the continuity and value of human life from the very beginning.
This continues after Jesus in the writings such as of St. Paul: “But when [God], who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased” (Galatians 1:15)
Jesus’s Teachings on Life and Value
Jesus is the clearest and fullest revelation of who God is and who we are. The very Word of God, Jesus, was made flesh within the womb of Mary and from that moment he was fully human, experienced every stage of human development; first as a zygote, then as an embryo, and a fetus.
At no point would one ever hold that the Word of God made flesh was not a person in any part of his pre-natal existence. God affirms that there’s present a person in His only Son before and after birth, as well as affirms every one of us also in our same journey within and outside our mothers’ womb.
There isn’t any passage in the entire Bible that makes a distinction between an embryo and a fetus, or if the pre-born child is viable or not. It’s an unbroken chain, where all are loved and valued by God.
While Jesus doesn’t specifically discuss abortion, he presents a clear framework for understanding the value and the sanctity of human life. Jesus frequently speaks on the importance of caring for those who are marginalized or vulnerable, showing special compassion for “the least of our brothers and sisters.” This respect for life extends to the vulnerable unborn, who are also equally deserving of protection.
Jesus also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Christian community, even on issues not directly addressed in Scripture: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:12-13). This assurance helps Christians navigate contemporary ethical questions, including abortion, through the principles established in Scripture, and Tradition.
It is this all-powerful God who has created the entire universe becomes a tiny, helpless, vulnerable pre-born person within Mary’s womb. So, human beings, at whatever stage of development, are always image bearers of God their creator, which is not earned or achieved, but a gift of God.
Abortion, on the other hand, is an act of violence that intentionally and directly disrupts the chain of existence that God has planned for everyone. This is why the psalmist states: “I kept from violence because of your Word.” (Psalm 17:4)
For “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching how to live right. Using the Scriptures, the person who serves God will be ready and will have everything he needs to do every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
The importance of biblical influence is reflected in Pew Research, where 2/3 of adults with children and 62% of adults without children who read scripture at least once a week would make abortion illegal in all or most cases.
So, these Bible passages remind us that when we openly and prayerfully encounter the world through the lens of the Word of God and speak the divine truth, we will really know about the value of each precious life, created in the image and likeness of God.
Early Christian Views on Abortion
The second generation of Christians definitely could be counted on to faithfully preserve and follow what their parents were taught directly by the apostles, including on the issue of abortion, developed in the Roman culture. Romans practiced widely both abortion and infanticide, treating children like disposable property. The early Christian Community strongly condemned both acts of violence.
In The Didache, an early Christian text, it is clearly stated: “You should not kill the fetus by abortion or destroy the infant already born.” This reflects the early church’s unwavering stance on the sanctity of life. This was directly opposite to society’s view at this time, which saw this life as property of the parents (which many still do today). An overwhelming number of other early Church theologians carefully examined the methods, motives, and morality surrounding abortion. They unanimously described all abortions as a heinous sin,
Conclusion: A Call to Protect Life
There’s a consistent theme, a pattern of meaning over and over in the entire Bible, a trajectory or thrust in the Bible as a whole, about a God who values and loves each human life, both outside and within the womb. We don’t need to be fully formed to be loved by God. As we reflect on these teachings, let us reaffirm the Bible’s enduring call to respect and protect every life, both born and unborn, made in the image and likeness of God, truly God’s daughters and sons.
==========================
For more of our posts from a Christian perspective, see:
The Consistent Life Consensus in Ancient Christianity
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian:
Fratelli Tutti – Consistent-Life Excerpts
December 28: The Day of the Massacre of the Innocents
For more of our posts from additional religious perspectives, see:
Why the Interfaith Approach is Important
Abortion and War are the Karma for Killing Animals (Hinduism)
Breaking Stereotypes in Fearful Times (Islam)
The Consistent Life Ethic and Traditional Tantra (Hinduism)
Ancient Roots of the Consistent Life Ethic: Greece
The Movie “Wicked”: Making a Real Person of the Witch of the West
by Rachel MacNair
Act 1 of Wicked is now out in theaters, but instead of a 15-minute intermission as happens in the Broadway play, we get a year of intermission. Act 2 comes out November 21, 2025.
The play is a musical based on the book by Gregory Maguire. The movie is mainly based on the play, but fleshes out the story more (as can be seen by taking more than double the time), mainly by adding back in content from the book.
It’s a prequel to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, published in 1900. That was explicitly stated to be for children, but there’s been some thought of political allegory of the 1890s. Baum was also the son-in-law of Matilda Joslyn Gage, a prominent activist in the women’s movement of the time, and for those who know this, it shows.
As a side note, Gage had the common attitude of feminists of the time period on feticide. For a short quotation: “But the crime of abortion is not one in which the guilt lies solely or chiefly with the woman . . . Husbands do not consult with their wives upon this subject of deepest and most vital interest.”
There have been numerous film adaptations (and at least one other prequel). The most famous is the 1939 version starring Judy Garland as Dorothy, which also serves as inspiration for the Maguire book. And it offers an illustration of war mentality that Wicked counters.
War Hysteria
I delve in greater depth on this in a post comparing the psychology of war hysteria to post-Dobbs reaction, and also a bit in our newsletter on the carnival atmosphere with the killing of Osama bin Laden. It comes from the theory of Lawrence LeShan, in his book The Psychology of War: Comprehending Its Mystique and Its Madness.
In a nutshell: we have the ordinary world we normally operate in, in which good and evil have shades of gray, people can have a variety of views, we can talk things out, etc. Then there’s a more fairy-tale world, sort of a cartoon mentality, which LeShan calls “mythic mode.” There’s good and there’s evil, you’re on one side or the other, evil can’t be negotiated with, etc.
One of the best instances in well-known stories to illustrate the difference is The Wonderful Wizard of Oz movie of 1939. That there are two different modes of mind is starkly shown: the real world in Kansas is in black and white, and the fantasy world of Oz is in color. In Kansas, the villain is Miss Gulch. In Oz, it’s the unnamed Witch of the West. They’re psychologically connected, played by the same actress.
Dorothy’s house drops on the Witch of the East, who’s been designated as evil, and it’s therefore OK to dance and sing about her demise. When Dorothy later splashes water on the Witch of the West, who’s also been designated as evil (even by herself), and that kills her, that’s time for another celebration.
But what if Dorothy had killed Miss Gulch?
There’s the difference. Miss Gulch may have been nasty, but she lived in the real world. We can cheer when Auntie Em tells her off, because that fits the offense. But with killing, the story could never be a children’s tale. Dorothy would be far too sinister.
That’s the difference between killing in war with a war mindset over killing in ordinary life.
Changing What “Wicked” Means
Wicked gives the future witch of the west a name: Elphaba. That’s a take-off on L. Frank Baum. It gives a bit on her birth and childhood, but Act 1 mainly follows her through the college where she meets Glinda. They dislike each other at first, but then they become friends. Yes, friends.
Her motivations become clear. Elphaba is a real person. Having her be killed becomes something the audience doesn’t want to see.
Gregory Maguire based his imagination on the politics of the time, that being the 1990s – a century later than the original book. He also moves the focus away from Dorothy and focuses instead on the life story of the Witch of the West.
The 1990s was the time of the first American war in Iraq, which Maguire opposed. There’s a line in the second act of the play when Elphaba is asking Glinda about the death of her sister, whether it was an accident, and Glinda refers to it as “regime change.” The audience of the time roared at what was then the well-known euphemism for that particular war.
But further: Elphaba stands up for the marginalized – in this case, the talking animals who are being oppressed by the government. A talking goat had been a professor at the school, and was fired and arrested. A talking bear had been who raised Elphaba when she was otherwise rejected by her parents. A lion cub was held in a cage – and she freed him. Her anger, which helped her magic, was justified anger.
At the end, she was designated as “wicked” to the population by the oppressive government entities she had stood up to.
Bigotry
The anti-racist message was also clear in this movie. Elphaba is constantly put down for the color of her skin – that color being green. Standing up for herself when people are bigoted against her is part of what makes her an admirable character.
The play and movie don’t portray this, but the Maguire book turns this lethal. Due to her green skin, there’s a threat of infanticide against her by the midwives when she’s born.
At the end of Act 1, she realizes that the Wizard she had admired so and wanted so badly to work with was actually a charlatan. He was the one responsible for oppressing the talking animals. She needed to get her flying broomstick in order and get out of there.
Conclusion
A lot of my work has dealt with being a peace advocate among people who don’t want to hear it. It’s also involved being a pro-lifer who’s poking at the bubble that many peace activists inhabit on this issue. As a consistent lifer, I’ve had to face intense hostility in a variety of ways in a variety of venues. Having the charge of being “wicked” hurled, when what was actually happening was standing up for the marginalized, is something I can relate to.
======================
The quotation from Matilda Joslyn Gage is on page 57 of ProLife Feminism: Yesterday and Today, as are many full articles from pro-life feminists of yesteryear. (“Is Woman Her Own? The Revolution, April 9, 1868)
For some more of our posts on movie reviews, see:
Jasmine, Aladdin, and the Power of Nonviolence
Justice Littered with Injustice: Viewing Just Mercy in a Charged Moment
Movies with Racism Themes: “Gosnell” and “The Hate U Give”
The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
A More Hopeful Path: Working for Peace in a World at War
by John Whitehead
The following is adapted from remarks given November 9th, 2024, at the quarterly peace vigil in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Consistent Life Network.
We are here today to witness for peace and for the protection of human life. We are here today to oppose the greatest threat to peace and human life in our world, the threat from nuclear weapons.
As we reach the end of 2024, the threat of nuclear weapons being used in war is a very real and pressing possibility. Today, wars are raging in our world, wars that might turn nuclear weapons’ threat into a terrible reality. The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, with no clear end in sight. The Gaza war and larger conflicts within the Middle East also grind on, again with no end in sight.
Because the Ukraine war puts Russia into conflict with the United States, the Ukraine war has the potential to flare up into a direct war between these two nuclear-armed nations. Such a direct war between Russia and the United States might well not stop before it leads to global nuclear war.
The violence from the Gaza war has already spread across the Middle East, leading to more violence in Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran. The Gaza war has the potential to flare up into a direct conflict between Israel and Iran or even between the United States and Iran.
Even if a regional war doesn’t break out, current tensions between the Israel and the United States on one hand and Iran on the other are likely to spur Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, adding yet another nuclear-armed nation to our world.
We need to turn away from this terrible, and terribly dangerous, path that the United States and other nations are currently on. Amid the bleak world situation are some signs of hope for a turn away from this self-destructive path.
Work is underway in the world to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. One crucial effort is the Back from the Brink campaign.
Back from the Brink is a grassroots campaign to reduce the danger of nuclear war through a series of crucial measures. One measure is taking nuclear weapons off the high level of alert that allows nuclear weapons to be used at a moment’s notice. Another measure is making it impossible for nuclear weapons to be used only by the decision of a single human being, the president of the United States. A third measure is cancelling current US government plans to spend an estimated $1.7 trillion dollars on building new nuclear weapons.
The Back from the Brink campaign has received important support from the Congress of the United States. In 2023, members of Congress introduced House Resolution 77, which calls on the United States to embrace the measures advocated by the Back from the Brink Campaign. The introduction of House Resolution is a rare hopeful sign for peace, and we should support efforts to adopt the resolution. Back from the Brink has valuable resources for advocacy on behalf of House Resolution 77.
Efforts specifically targeted at reducing the threat from nuclear weapons are vitally important. As important as those efforts are, though, and as enormous as the task of reducing the nuclear threat is, I think we are called to an even bigger task right now in 2024. This larger task is closely intertwined with efforts to reduce the nuclear threat. This larger task is to make peace in our world.
If we want to end the nuclear threat hanging over us, we need to end the wars that currently threaten to spiral into nuclear catastrophe. We need to seek peace in the Ukraine and Gaza wars. We need to replace foolish and destructive efforts to resolve these conflicts by some kind of supposed military victory with efforts to de-escalate the conflicts, to stop the fighting, and to bring aid to the innumerable people harmed by these conflicts.
Ending these wars will help reduce the nuclear threat, while also protecting the lives of many people currently being killed in these wars.
The tasks before us are immense, and I appreciate how daunting they must appear. We should not lose hope, though, and I think the example of history gives us reason to hope.
Our vigil today falls on a significant date: November 9th. November 9th is a significant date because it reminds us both of how great the nuclear danger can be and how quickly that danger can be diminished.
Roughly forty years ago, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union could not have been colder: hostility and suspicion were high, the nuclear arms race was escalating, and tensions were at a fever pitch. The leaders of the Soviet Union were convinced then that the United States was poised to launch a nuclear attack against them.
Those fears of a US nuclear attack could have ended the world 41 years ago today, on November 9, 1983, when an American-led military exercise was mistaken by the Soviets as the possible beginning of a nuclear attack. Nuclear war through misunderstanding could have broken out then; the world could have ended on that November 9th.
Of course, the world did not end then. The crisis passed without war breaking out. A couple years later Mikhail Gorbachev became the head of the Soviet Union, and the United States and Soviet Union began to de-escalate tensions and restrain the arms race.
Within a few more years, the Cold War was effectively over. The end of the Cold War was marked by the nonviolent fall of the Berlin Wall, on November 9th, 1989: 35 years ago today, and only six years after the superpowers stood on the brink of nuclear war.
The lesson is clear: the world can change. We are not doomed to destroy ourselves, however bleak the current situation may seem. A better, more hopeful path forward is possible.
Strengthened by this knowledge, let’s work to end the nuclear threat, by reducing nuclear weapons, by changing the policies that dramatically increase the danger from these weapons, and above all by making peace in our world.
===================================
For more of our many posts from John Whitehead on nuclear war, see:
Apocalypse Imagined: The Urgent Message of Nuclear War: A Scenario
Are We Finally Waking Up? Signs of New Awareness of the Nuclear Threat.
Presidential Election 2024: Consistent Life Perspectives
We offer three different takes on last Tuesday’s elections. As usual, we don’t necessarily endorse everything said in our blog, since we encourage individual writers to express a variety of views. This is especially so when analyzing elections.
Carol Crossed
Peter Sonski is who I early-voted for at the Susan B Anthony House. Sonski is with the American Solidarity Party. Some say I “threw my vote away” and I guess I did.
Susan B. Anthony voted too, illegally in 1872, before the 19th Amendment passed. Because of the Republicans’ opposition to slavery, she voted for “the party of Lincoln.” While to my knowledge the term was not in parlance, she could have been called a “single-issue voter.” She was accused of being too singular in her support for “enslaved persons,” and to that she responded that she was for “human rights” – making the case that slaves were humans, like women were. Some retorted that slave owners were humans too and therefore had rights. Therein was the 19th-century struggle to define rights which continues today.
Today again we are asked to evaluate people’s rights. Are all rights equal, and what makes them unequal? The difference is some are civil rights and some are human rights. Susan made it clear that one’s humanity or one’s sex or one’s race fit into the category of a human right. They were not chosen and could not be violated by someone’s choice, whether that choice was to own a slave, to own a woman or to own another human being to misuse for your own purposes. Hence as civilization progressed, slavery, rape, and abortion were considered crimes against humanity, and laws prohibiting them were established or strengthened all within the same 8-10 year period.
Paradoxically, the crime of abortion is morphing into a “right” to the point that the State is called upon to give it legal recognition and make it available through the free services of health-care personnel.
Human rights are therefore not explicitly denied, but rather expanded to cover violent actions against human beings: instead of protecting human persons against violence, here human rights have evolved to include protecting actions against a person’s dignity or against a person’s life.
Its not surprising that the Democratic Party has dropped from its platform opposition to the death penalty. Using violence as a right to solve a problem normalizes despair and elevates irresponsibility to a right.
I couldn’t vote for Trump because I believe he’s a narcissist, an illness that makes a person’s actions unpredictable and wholly dependent upon one’s own self-absorption. I see Trump as dangerous in the short term and Harris as dangerous in the long term. As I see it, there is no “better of two evils” in this election.
Lisa Stiller
As I watched the returns coming in, and as I kept staring at the New York Times website as their election meter stayed in the red zone for much of the evening, a feeling of dread set in. My fears were being realized. A return to the Trump era of enabling hate, emulating fascist and authoritarian leaders, and cutting programs and funding that help our most marginalized people was, for me, unthinkable.
Yes, neither candidate was a consistent life candidate. Both had a lot of flaws. But saving what’s left of our democracy and preserving some sort of decency in our national conversation was also important enough to be a large factor in deciding which of the lesser of two evils should become president.
And Kamala Harris blew it. Instead of her being the candidate that would save us from a descent into a repressive government that will again enable hate and violence, turn its back on the poor, and enact a horrendous immigration policy, she basically ran a campaign centered on abortion. A campaign focused on the right to take life, rather than a campaign focused on those things that give life and help people thrive.
She started her campaign with an abortion tour. “Protect Our Freedoms” was simply a euphemism for abortion echoed by Harris and her supporters throughout her campaign. Democrats saw their attack on the Dobbs decision succeeded in 2022, so they thought they would do it again.
Meanwhile, they neglected to listen to what people were saying: concerns about economy and democracy topped the list. But Harris and her surrogates kept saying how great the economy had become under Biden’s American Rescue Plan and the bipartisan Infrastructure Act. While she loudly sounded the alarm over another Trump presidency, Heather Cox Richardson led the rose-colored glasses parade. But too many people were being seriously negatively impacted by inflation, including soaring rents, health insurance costs, food prices, and utility costs. Harris turned her back on that until too late.
Harris was too busy “preserving our freedoms.” Abortion was front and center of her campaign. She didn’t link abortion to the other issues it’s so closely tied to: lack of resources, fear of not being able to afford a child, lack of emotional and financial support. Abortion for Harris and the Democrats is a freestanding issue: a right, a freedom, an entitlement. The Democrats have held abortion as the cornerstone of their campaign efforts for years, without a thought to the fact it isn’t a choice most women make lightly, without a thought addressing the economic factors that lead to having an abortion.
Most polls had the economy and inflation as the number one concern of Americans. Biden didn’t put our economy on the track they celebrated. Ordinary Americans are struggling with soaring costs — .housing, food, utilities, basic necessities. The Democrats failed to address it head-on. Instead they embraced abortion.
What for me is so sad is that once upon a time, the Democrats did hold up economic well-being and addressing poverty as priority.
Harris actually had some good ideas when she did talk about the economy, too late in her campaign. And a determined purpose to bring about a ceasefire in the Middle East, and stand behind Ukraine and seek peace. And fairly and humanely deal with immigration.
But these weren’t her focus. She didn’t address them much until too late.
A lot of people had moved on from casting their votes as a response to the Dobbs decision. They wanted a better life.
Harris failed us. And we are doomed to 4 years that aren’t very pro-life in so many ways.
Just some ramblings late at night when I was way too upset to sleep.
Rachel MacNair
There are many ideas about why Harris lost this election. I’ll cover what I see through my consistent-life lens.
War
Under Biden-Harris, we now have serious carnage in Ukraine and Gaza. The carnage of war is also in other hotspots now and was during Trump’s first term, but those two major wars were on voters’ minds.
Trump’s rhetoric was more anti-war than Harris’s. This doesn’t mean it was suitable for us peace activists. It was more from the view of military professionals and their families who believe in “peace through strength.” They regard being prepared for war as a way of preventing it through deterrence. That’s not my take on it, but it’s still an antipathy to wars happening.
Early on, Trump’s supporters were disgusted with the war in Iraq. Many of them had fought in it, and felt (rightly) that their political leaders had let them down. It was a failure by elites.
Discussing this, Democrat Pete Buttigieg said this in The New York Times:
Certainly, I think the complicity of the Democratic Party in the run-up to the Iraq war continues to be something that really helped set America onto the political trajectory that we’re on right now . . . The Democrats everywhere who were skeptical of the idea of the Iraq War were still kind of pretending to be OK with it, because they thought they had to be.
The war in Gaza was also explicitly one that distressed many voters who refused to vote for either candidate.
When it comes to actual wars happening now, Harris’s rhetoric was more belligerent. That didn’t get noticed much by the press because these were conventional pro-war thoughts.
This is an interesting take in The Washington Post: The right way for Trump to play peacemaker.
Abortion
At the very least, it’s clear that Harris emphasized abortion more than polls show people indicated an interest in. She could have been talking about topics they were more interested in.
But I think there’s more to it. Her extremism was great enough to attack pregnancy help centers. Her extremism asserted that conscientious objection to participating in abortions shouldn’t be allowed.
There are millions of people who voted for pro-abortion measures who also voted for Trump. That means their commitment to abortion wasn’t total. It’s easy to vote for something when you’re voting anyway, and many of them were taken in by the rhetoric that women suffering miscarriages weren’t getting medical care.
In other words, they were voting against what was presented to them as an extreme that’s more extreme than what’s actually happening. That didn’t mean they supported the other extreme – even though that’s what they voted for. I live in Missouri, so I kept seeing the pitch for our pro-abortion measure: “Missouri’s abortion ban goes too far.” They never delineated how far Amendment 3 went in the other direction.
I think there’s a discomfort with Harris’s rhetoric that so totally ignores and discounts killed babies. Many won’t articulate that to pollsters, and I don’t think they’re articulating that to themselves, either. Therefore, I can’t document this idea, and could rightly be accused of wishful thinking. But I’ll maintain it all the same: I think, poetically speaking, that the ghosts of all those children are haunting the public discourse now, behind the scenes.
=============================
For more of our recent posts on election politics, see:
Summary of Results: Peace & Life Referendums 2024 (for far more detail, see our project website: Peace and Life Referendums)
Oh My, How the Election Conundrum Has Changed (2024) / Rachel MacNair
Abortion on the Ballot / Lisa Stiller
Slavery: Removing the Exception
What History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for Pro-life Referendums
How Consistent-life Advocacy Would Benefit from Ranked-Choice Voting