The pro-life movement would do better to fight for life, rather than amongst themselves.
Editorial
Organisations often split and fracture, especially in causes or politics. But recent events in the pro-life movement in Victoria that have seen several groups struggling for control of one of the main pro-life organisations in that State which invite many observations, may also invite ridicule and frustration.
The messy and very public brawling in that State (which has also to varying degrees been a regular feature of pro-life movements around the nation for decades) has – yet again – betrayed a situation widely remarked upon for years among those for whom the sanctity of life, especially that of the unborn, is a matter of the deepest importance: that pro-lifers sometimes seem to spend more time and effort organising against each other than they spend promoting a political culture and legal framework in this nation based upon the principle of the sanctity of human life at every stage of its existence.
One might almost go so far as to say that the brawls, expulsions, exclusions and all the rest of the most recent Victorian mess are the best possible propaganda for the acceptance of abortion as the status quo and by a public disposed to indifference or moral equivalence on the issue. In other words and in a substantial sense, pro-lifers can all too easily lapse into doing much of their opposition’s work. By being willing to engage in and publicly expose their disunity and their venom for each other they invite a not entirely untrue perception that they are sometimes more interested in the issue of who controls which irrelevant splinter of what irrelevant rump organisation than they are in forging unity and alliances among their own ranks and fostering creative alternatives to the culture of Death.
Early this year The Record ran an informative piece of reporting and analysis by journalist Robert Hiini entitled ‘Divided We Fail?’ looking at the pro-life movement in this State. As far as The Record knows it was the first time any newspaper has investigated both the synergies and the fault-lines within the pro-life movement in a long time. Whatever good those who spend much or all of their time working for the unborn in this State may have done and still do, it was clear that they are often divided.
That there are a number of organisations in Western Australia and around the nation all calling themselves pro-life and all claiming that they are working for political reform in this most vital issue is not a problem at all. Diversity is wonderful, especially in such an important work as the cause of the sanctity of children’s lives.
But the fact that in some instances they have more or less informally excommunicated each other or refuse to have anything to do with each other definitely is.
The divisions and fatwas indicate strongly that the many chiefs who make up the pro-life movement around the nation do not actually understand the basic principles of strategy nor the overriding importance of forging a broader unity or synergies in the interests of advancing their cause. Nor do they appear to consider that their divisions can badly undermine their own credibility. Or, to put it another way, if they really wish to witness to the importance of the sanctity of human life one could ask why they so often refuse to speak to each other.
The real situation is much more likely to be as follows: the pro-life movement can be its own worst enemy, seemingly full at times of those who pontificate at others about the vital importance of the sanctity of human life (factually true) but for whom all too often in practice the issue is treated as their own personal hobby or fiefdom which they will not share. With some organisations one wonders why they continue to exist because it is not at all clear what they actually do.
In terms of understanding and using the media which is an enormous potential force for the common good of society they are clearly often resolute, but amateurish where sophistication is clearly required. They are consequently widely viewed as fanatics or quarrelsome eccentrics and their bitter divisions reinforce this perception.
More importantly there appears to be little or no grasp among many of the exigencies of the current situation while, overall, the movement appears to be dominated by those incapable of formulating realistic strategies or exercising resolution and self-discipline. Creativity, of the kind often seen in nations such as the US where real inroads have been made in many states, do not seem to be a characteristic of the movement here in Australia.
Assessing the movement as it is one must be realistic and recognise what is good about it as well: it has enormous obstacles to overcome, it is full of deeply good people who have gone against the tide, who have displayed courage and tenacity of a rare kind and, it must never be forgotten, have actually saved lives and supported many women who have saved their babies in very difficult circumstances. More importantly than this it embodies and continues to give witness to the greatest and most luminous truth – that every child’s life is sacred from the beginning. But the time for the pro-life movement to be little more than a group of irrelevant factions permanently suspicious of each other must go. History shows that while pernicious evils – such as slavery – can appear to be unstoppable small numbers of resolute people guided by their fidelity to an uplifting and light-filled moral vision can yet prevail. Their chances will improve greatly when they show one another the love they show to those they help.