A couple weeks ago, scores of thousands of anti-abortion advocates visited Washington, D.C., for the annual March for Life. The marchers differed in many ways: There were men, women, oldies and youngsters, Catholic religious and even a contingent from Humanists for Life. One thing they all had in common was their steadfast belief that unborn human life is sacred and that abortion is wrong.
A majority of these people (at least those who could vote; most were teenagers) likely voted for Donald Trump for president based in part or in whole on Trump’s stated commitment to enacting pro-life policies and nominating pro-life judges. And they all cheered wildly when Vice President Mike Pence delivered a speech making the case for a compassionate approach to life. “I’ve long believed that a society can be judged by how we care for its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn,” he said. “Compassion is overcoming convenience. And hope is defeating despair.”
Quoting the Bible, Pence said, “‘Let your gentleness be evident to all.’ Let this movement be known for love, not anger. Let this movement be known for compassion, not confrontation. When it comes to matters of the heart, there is nothing stronger than gentleness.” Pence continued, “To heal our land and restore a culture of life we must continue to be a movement that embraces all, cares for all, and shows respect for the dignity and worth of every person.”
Pence’s speech was a hit with the marchers. But it perhaps seemed a little ironic to pro-lifers who take a more expansive view of what it means to be pro-life.
One of those pro-life advocates is Scott Arbeiter, president of World Relief, a group that helps to resettle refugees. In a New York Times op-ed today, he writes that he has long been pro-life but has come to believe that holding that view requires a more “mature” advocacy. “I must be ‘pro’ everything needed for that child not just to be born, but to flourish,” he writes.
Arbeiter says being pro-life means being pro-education, pro-job growth, anti-nuclear proliferation and anti-corporate greed. The issue Arbeiter focuses on most is the refugee crisis, and specifically many pro-lifers’ support for a policy that restricts refugees from being resettled in America.
As everyone knows, Trump has issued an executive order placing a moratorium on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Mike Pence, as governor of Indiana, issued an order suspending the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana saying that his “first responsibility is protecting Hoosiers.” A U.S. District Court judge and an appeals court both agreed that it was unconstitutional.
Arbeiter writes, “I understand the concern that many of my neighbors have about security. But how can I demand absolute security for myself (which I do not expect or demand in any other part of my life) while 65 million people are fleeing the very terrorism, war and persecution that are the antithesis of life?”
Catholics may recognize this argument as the “seamless garment” view of human life, an approach that says intrinsic evils and social ills are morally equivalent. Poverty, abortion, immigration, incarceration—they’re all basically the same morally and thus all deserve to be labeled “pro-life” issues.
But not all injustices are the same. People of good will may differ on how to address poverty or immigration. They may not on whether abortion is an intrinsic moral evil.
So, is refusing to allow Syrian and other vulnerable refugees into the United States akin to supporting abortion? Not really. Abortion destroys a human life every time, whereas most refugees who aren’t admitted into the U.S. will likely live if they aren’t resettled, even if it’s under terrible conditions in refugee camps or under authoritarian regimes. And protecting Americans from terrorism can also be viewed as a pro-life issue.
But that doesn’t mean they can’t go together anyway. As Arbeiter notes, the chances of terrorism are very low. Citing a Cato Institute estimate, he writes that “the likelihood of an individual American being killed in an act of terrorism committed by a refugee is one in 3.64 billion a year.”
“Somehow it does not feel truly and fully pro-life to be unwilling to give up one-3.64 billionth of my security to make room for someone bombed out of their city, someone who is homeless, cold and unwelcomed,” Arbeiter concludes.
Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner
