I admit that I write this blog with a certain amount of apprehension. I’ve only blogged about abortion three times in two decades, and on one of those occasions, I asked the question, “Are Pro-Lifers Really Pro-Life?” Let’s say that some people did not appreciate my asking that question! And so, in this blog, I’m going to make it personal: Am I (Rob Buckingham) really pro-life?

Context

The inspiration for this blog came from an online discussion last weekend. I posted in response to a meme that Christians shared about Donald Trump winning the US election. A close friend made some comments suggesting I had changed my stance on several ethical issues, including abortion.

For context, my friend is someone I’ve known for over forty years. I had the honour of leading him to faith in Jesus. We remain good friends, and it was fantastic to see him recently when I was on extended leave. His comments struck a chord with me, and I felt compelled to delve deeper into this issue.

My pro-life stance is not just a position I hold but a belief that my personal experiences and faith journey have shaped. I was surprised by his observations because I can’t recall a time when we discussed abortion, so I phoned him, and we had a lengthy and meaningful conversation about his comments. I told him I’d be writing a blog about it, and well, here we are!

My Answer

I’ll begin by answering the question and then explain what I mean and why. Is Rob Buckingham really pro-life? Yes, I am. I sincerely believe that all life is sacred, and all things exist because they have been created by divine intelligence. I trust the scriptures that inform us that once God crafted the world and all it contains, He entrusted the care of His handiwork to humans. Life is precious, and so, of course, I’m pro-life.

However, I object to the limitation of this label to the unborn. What I react to are the contradictions I see among some who claim to be pro-life, but their defence ends once the baby is born. If the baby grows up to be a criminal, do we execute them? If they turn out gay or trans, are they shunned from our churches? Sadly, yes.

Caring for unborn babies and rallying against abortion should not be the totality of what it means to be pro-life.

Some History

It pains me when important matters become politicised because they divide and detract from making headway and genuine change. Abortion, once the realm of American Democrats due to their solid Catholic base, was reluctantly adopted by Ronald Reagan as part of his platform in the mid-70s. Understand this: US Republicans embraced abortion for political gain and NOT because they particularly cared for the unborn. At the same time, the GOP opposed gun control and school busing to achieve racial integration.

I encourage you to reflect on what I’ve just stated because this is fundamental to my pro-life views. Care for the unborn should not be an “issue” that is adopted to gain votes for power—and yet it is. Opposing gun control measures is not pro-life. In 2023, over 46,000 people died in the US from gun violence. Discriminating against people because of racial background and skin colour is not pro-life.

Consistency

My pro-life posture compels me to be consistent across various ethical issues. If all life is sacred—as I believe it is—we must value all life, whoever and whatever that life may be. Being pro-life should not stop at protecting the unborn. It should extend to caring for all life, including God’s creation, animals—including those at risk of extinction, unborn babies, pregnant women, immigrants, widows and orphans, prisoners, and minorities like the LGBTIQ+ community. This inclusive approach is at the heart of my pro-life stance. Scripture tells us, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.”

It is inconsistent—and contradicts scripture—to, on the one hand, defend the lives of the unborn, and at the same time, demonise migrants, refugees, or anyone else.

Consider these words from sacred scripture: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself…”

Straightforward?

Like many of the moral issues mentioned above, abortion is not a black-and-white matter; we simplify the complexities to the detriment of those affected.

Abortion rates in the US peaked in the late seventies and have since steadily declined, regardless of who was in power. Australia has also witnessed a decline in the number of abortions.

Interestingly, since Roe v. Wade was overturned and various bans were implemented, abortion rates have risen. 2023 stats indicate an 11% increase in abortions compared to 2020. It’s a reminder that banning something—cancel culture—is not necessarily effective. I resonate with Bill Clinton’s 1992 statement that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” When it’s legal, it’s safer and occurs less frequently.

Abortion bans indiscriminately disadvantage poor, Black, and Latino women, creating desperation. We are all aware of how desperate people can act.

A Multi-Faceted Approach

Reducing abortion rates is not a simple task. It involves a multi-faceted approach that emphasises both the prevention of unintended pregnancies and support for individuals facing difficult circumstances. If we are genuinely pro-life, we will welcome these evidence-based methods and strategies that have been shown to reduce abortion rates. This comprehensive approach gives us hope and a clear path to make a difference. This approach includes:

  • Comprehensive sexual education.
  • Access to affordable and effective contraception and healthcare.
  • Strengthen support for parenting and families, including subsidised childcare, paid parental leave, and financial assistance.
  • Accessible and non-judgmental counselling services (including mental health support).
  • Empowerment and equality of women (through education, job opportunities, and financial independence).
  • Encourage social and cultural support for pregnant individuals who may otherwise feel pressured to terminate a pregnancy.
  • Educate and involve men in family planning.
  • Increase awareness and accessibility of adoption options (including simplifying and reducing the costs associated with the adoption process).
  • Promote community outreach programs by collaborating with local organisations, faith-based groups, and community leaders to provide support services and resources to a broader audience.
  • Address socioeconomic inequality—Economic hardship is a common reason for seeking an abortion, as is domestic violence.

As a pro-life person, I encourage these initiatives. As a pastor, I will stand with women and couples who find themselves in situations that are sometimes beyond their control, and I will lead our church to be a kind community where women who have had an abortion find grace instead of judgment.

 

I must confess to a certain amount of trepidation in writing this blog as it’s on one of “those” topics – you know, the ones that tend to generate a high level of emotional response no matter what “side” you come down on. I’m referring to abortion. The last time I wrote on this subject was October last year in which I asked the question, “Are Pro-Lifers Really Pro-Life?”. You would have thought I’d committed the unpardonable sin in writing this blog because I asked what I believe to be four very fair questions in making sure that those who say they are pro-life genuinely are:

  1. Are they pro-life or pro-birth?
  2. Are they pro the life of women too?
  3. Are they pro-life in other areas of life?
  4. Are they concerned about the damage they do to the Christian faith?

But in this blog on abortion I want to highlight a piece of legislation that was introduced into the Victorian State Parliament by The Democratic Labour Party’s Dr. Rachel Carling-Jenkins in October 2015.

The Infant Viability Bill is the first formal attempt at pro-life legislation in Victoria in decades, and the first legislative attempt to remedy the abortion law reforms of 2008. Under this Bill:

  • Abortions would no longer be allowed from the 24th week of pregnancy.
  • Infant viability will be promoted and supported (all infants born alive from the 24th week of pregnancy onwards, including as the result of a medical emergency, must be cared for with the intent to save the infant’s life if at all possible)
  • Mothers who are at least 24 weeks pregnant, who present in distress to their doctor must be offered practical support, for example a referral to a pregnancy support service offering holistic care (such as counselling, social and other support as needed)
  • Mothers will not be criminalised or face any penalties.

The Infant Viability Bill 2015 is set for debate and vote in the Victorian Legislative Council today (May 25, 2016) and so by the time you read this you will most likely know the outcome. I believe this is a very fair and measured bill that seeks to find some common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially as Victoria has by far the most liberal abortion laws in Australia. At the time of writing numbers appear to be close in the Upper House.

Right now there is a huge disparity in abortion laws in various Australian states. For example, in Queensland and New South Wales abortion is a crime for women and doctors. It’s only legal when a doctor believes a woman’s physical and/or mental health is in serious danger.  In NSW social, economic and medical factors may also be taken into account. In the ACT abortion is legal and must be provided by a medical doctor. The other States fall somewhere between these two extremes. I believe Australia needs to have some consistency in abortion law that protects women and also the unborn child. The safety and accountability of two doctors agreeing that a woman’s physical and/or mental health is endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality, or in the case of an emergency. There should be some special restrictions particularly for under 16 year olds (as is the case in WA) and should be very restricted after 24 weeks.

But with the Infant Viability Bill 2015 in mind it’s vital to get some insight into why a woman would seek a late-term abortion. Doctors Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport of the University of California released the results of some very interesting research on this in 2013.

They found that women aged 20–24 were more likely to have a later abortion than older women. They also found that later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs, which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone; they were depressed or using illicit substances; they were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence; they had trouble deciding and then had access problems; or they were young and had never carried a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.

It’s important to understand that a total ban on late-term abortions will disproportionately affect young women as well as women who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. That’s why point three in the legislation is so important – that doctors must offer practical support such as referral to a pregnancy support service offering holistic care. There are excellent organisations that do wonderful work of supporting women who find themselves, for whatever reason, with an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy Counselling Australia is a good place to start as their experienced counsellors connect callers with resources and appropriate services where further assistance is required. Emily’s Voice also offers helpful information and a referral list of organisations in all Australian states. If you live in another country try a Google search to find the help you need.

Pro-lifers have been in the news quite a lot recently, firstly with the Melbourne Fertility Clinic and its failed bid to have anti-choice protesters stopped from harassing patients and staff.  Then last weekend Troy Newman, head of US pro-life organisation Operation Rescue, was barred from entering Australia after a Member of Parliament raised concerns that his extremism “would cause significant harm to our community.”  Mr. Newman was due to begin a national speaking tour for Right to Life Australia in Melbourne on Friday night, but had his visa revoked by the Immigration Department and has since been deported.

While I am not for abortion in any and every situation, I believe it is an issue that needs a compassionate, well thought through Christian response.  I find myself struggling with some of the message and method of pro-life groups.  Here are four questions that I’m asking myself about this:

1. Are they pro-life or pro-birth?

In other words, is a pro-life person anti-abortion and FOR the birth of every baby?  If so, are they doing anything to support the mother’s choice to keep the baby if she decides not to go ahead with an abortion?  If not, they are pro-birth and not pro-life.

While affirming the Roman Catholic Church’s pro-life stance, Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation of 2013 recognised the importance of not simply being pro-birth, “On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?”  It’s a great question.

People that want babies to be born but don’t lift a finger to help them or their parents are just like the religious people Jesus condemned, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them” (Luke 11:46).  If we’re really pro-life we need to offer far more than rhetoric, demonstrations, marches or counseling.  We need to role up our sleeves with practical help and finance and lift more than a finger to help out.

In their defense, The Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (the group that protests outside the Melbourne Fertility Clinic) do offer help to women who decide not to abort.  But a quick Google search shows numerous reports of harassment from the protesters.  One woman who was supporting a friend says, “I walked with them past protestors outside a termination clinic.  It was threatening and intimidating.  Abortion is a difficult decision without the pressure of strangers, some whose intentions are malevolent.”  Another woman was told not to get an abortion to which she replied, “I’ve got cancer!”  That didn’t seem to subdue the protesting group though.

2. Are they pro the life of women too?

While I believe we should certainly be concerned for unborn babies, we should equally be compassionately concerned for women who, for whatever reason, find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.  Abortion law reform campaigner Professor Lachlan de Crespigny puts it this way, ‘‘these are incredibly vulnerable women. They might be victims of incest or domestic violence; they may have gone through a traumatic marital breakup or the death of their partner; they could be drug-addicted or people who just presented late, not knowing they were pregnant; or young girls hiding their pregnancy.”

According to Emily’s Voice, 97% of abortions are performed to protect the psychosocial (mental, emotional and social) health of the mother.

International research shows women will still seek abortion, even if it is illegal.  Surely we don’t want to return to the days of backyard abortions?  Do pro-lifers really want that?  If not, what is their solution?

3. Are they pro-life in other areas of life?

One of the contradictions I’ve noticed with some pro-lifers is that they advocate for saving babies while also supporting capital punishment and the right to bear arms.  A statement regarding Troy Newman declared he “has never advocated violence against abortion providers or facilities and has instead adamantly encouraged pro-life activists to work through the legal, legislative, and justice systems to bring abortionists who are breaking the law and harming women to justice.”  Mr. Newman said he had been misquoted and yet in his book, “Their Blood Cries Out,” he states, “In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people … The innocent blood of the New Covenant in Christ has the power to atone for all the innocent bloodshed from the beginning of time to the end, and to purify the whole earth — the land. Rejecting that innocent blood is to reject the only standard that is effective against innocent bloodshed, excluding the lawful execution of the murderers, which is commanded by God in Scripture.

While the Hebrew Scriptures do command the execution of murderers, they also command the execution of children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9); a woman who displeases her husband because she can’t prove she was a virgin when they married (Deuteronomy 22:13-20); and a person who works on the Sabbath Day (Exodus 31:14).  It’s interesting to note that God gave mercy to the first murderer, Cain, and Jesus did the same for the woman caught in adultery.  For more on this read my blog, Why the death penalty is wrong.

4. Are they concerned about the damage they do to the Christian faith?

Pro-life protesters that continuously and openly harass and intimidate patients and staff, including blocking footpaths, following them, shouting at them, taking photos and videos, and even striking them, hardly give Christians a good name.  David Kinnaman in his book Unchristian put it this way, “Many outsiders … believe Christians have a right (even an obligation) to pursue political involvement, but they disagree with our methods and our attitudes … they claim we act and say things in an unchristian manner; they wonder whether Jesus would use political power as we do; and they are concerned that we overpower the voices of other groups.”

For this reason the Church is often seen as conservative and negative.  We become known for all that we’re against rather for what we stand for.  The church is often perceived as being “anti from a distance” without compassionately listening to people’s stories or engaging with them.  We also become known for focusing on one or two issues (gay marriage and abortion) while ignoring other issues completely, such as the plight of the poor, the homeless and the asylum seeker, care of the environment, adoption and foster care for children in need, the predicament of the persecuted church (and other religions) and fighting for victims of human trafficking and domestic violence.

Christians need to learn to engage in the right way.  We are called to share the good news of forgiveness, mercy and grace through Jesus: “Keep in mind that politics only gets you so far.  You change people’s lives most deeply by transforming their hearts, by helping them embrace a passionate, thoughtful, personal connection to Jesus.” (David Kinnaman)

Our actions should be merciful, respectful, gentle and careful especially towards those whose opinion is different to ours.  As the apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”  (Colossians 3:12).  Jesus put it this way: “In everything treat others the same way you want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12).  That would be a great start for pro-lifers!