The “whole life” trap

Immediately after the Battle of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln pressed Union Gen. George Gordon Meade to pursue Lee’s defeated army and destroy it before it crossed the Potomac. Meade’s reply was anything but comforting to his commander. He told Lincoln to be content that federal forces had succeeded in “driving the invader from our soil.” The president was not amused. “Will our generals never get that idea out of their heads? The whole country is our soil.”

Put simply, Meade had assumed the premise of his confederate opponents—namely, that southern secession resulted in two separate nations. Listening to some pro-life leaders, one could be forgiven for thinking they, too, have assumed the premise of their opponents. The premise asserts that unless pro-life advocates take on every injustice under the sun, they must surrender their pro-life credentials. To be truly pro-life, so the subsequent argument goes, pro-life advocates must be “whole life,” meaning they must show equal concern for all injustice and not single out abortion. Anything less than a consistent whole-life witness is a betrayal of our fundamental principles and will fail to convert skeptics to the pro-life cause. After all, Jesus cared for all marginalized people, not just a few.

The whole-life attempt to hijack the operational objectives of the pro-life movement was designed by pro-abortionists and sold to Christian leaders as “compassionate” and “consistent.” It’s not. If implemented, it will bankrupt struggling pro-life organizations on the heels of a historic Supreme Court victory that gave states freedom to protect unborn humans legislatively.

Pro-life advocates should steadfastly refuse to let whole-life critics rewrite their job descriptions. First, why should anyone believe that because you oppose the intentional killing of an innocent human being, you must therefore take responsibility for all societal ills? Indeed, why is the “whole-life” argument never used against other groups who target specific forms of injustice? If an inner-city ministry provides after-school daycare for fatherless kids, do we blast it for not operating 24/7? Should we call into question its humanitarian credentials for not diverting resources to care for all children?

Second, we will never achieve pro-life victory by seeking to fix every wrong in society. That’s an impossible task. We’ll achieve it when the state no longer permits the intentional killing of pre-born human beings. True, our tasks securing that objective vary and necessarily include pregnancy center ministry, apologetics, political strategy, and educational campaigns. But the objective itself is singular. Pro-life organizations exist to legally protect unborn human beings.

Third, whole-life promotes false moral equivalency. What issue comes close to the state-sanctioned intentional killing of 62 million human beings during Roe’s reign? That is the Holocaust times ten. As Christians, we will care about many issues, but demanding that pro-life organizations do more than save unborn humans is like telling abolitionists in 1860, “You can’t be against slavery unless you address its underlying causes.”

Fourth, whole-life advocacy exhausts battle-weary pro-lifers. Is saving babies enough? According to the president of a major pregnancy center ministry, the answer is no. The entire pro-life movement, not just pregnancy centers, must shift from “pro-life” to “pro-abundant life.” That is, pro-life organizations must “programmatically” work to build strong families, secure religious liberty, promote healthy marriages, encourage responsible fatherhood, and help families thrive spiritually.

How is that even possible? Pro-life advocates just got saddled with a backbreaking job description not even Superman can pull off. True, within the confines of the local pregnancy center, staff should focus holistically on clients. It’s unfair, though, to tell hard working pro-lifers—many who have spent decades sacrificing financially and vocationally to save children—that they must take on more work or fall short of their moral obligations.

Finally, taking on more issues will not convert our critics. When pro-abortionists say that pro-lifers are “pro-birth” rather than “pro-life,” we should call their bluff: “Tell me, if the pro-life movement takes on every issue that you demand we take on, will you join us in opposing abortion?”

We already know the answer. Meanwhile, it’s not pro-lifers who care nothing for kids once they are born. It’s pro-abortionists who do not care. Without exception, every abortion-advocacy group in the country from Planned Parenthood to the Democratic Party opposes legislation that protects children who are born alive after botched abortion procedures.

The abortion debate was never about other issues. It’s about one question: Can we set aside an entire class of human beings to be killed simply because they are in the way of something we want? If pro-lifers want to win in post-Roe America, we better not let critics define victory for us. We’ve got enough on our plates persuading our fellow citizens that intentionally killing innocent human beings is a grave moral wrong.