Pro-Life Dialogue Anti-Patterns
There’s a new meme by “Progressive” thinkers that attempts to shame Pro-Life advocates into silence, calling them a hypocrite if they don’t actively campaign for the well-being of children and yet claim to be Pro-Life. This meme follows a pattern of many “Progressive” narratives that shut down any any meaningful conversation about an issue. It is what I would call an anti-pattern for effective dialogue.
What is an anti-pattern? It started off as a software engineering term, and it means something that may be commonly used but is actually ineffective or counterproductive when practiced. (see https://www.yourdictionary.com/antipattern) So a dialogue anti-pattern is one that shuts down discourse on a topic. I suppose if you want to shut down conversation, dialogue anti-patterns are an effective tool, but they are counterproductive to building healthy relationships. Some examples of these anti-patterns include: physical violence; verbal assault, attacking the character, motivation or credibility of your colleague; mocking opposing viewpoints; changing topics without resolving issues; and focusing on edge cases to divert attention from areas of agreement. Every dialogue anti-pattern impedes civil discourse and many destroy relationships.
We’ve seen the destruction of civil discourse growing in Social Media as well as mainstream news, politics and alarmingly in public. It’s unhealthy and needs to stop, and for each of us to be effective in building relationships, we need to avoid the anti-patterns. We should treat everyone with respect and consideration, seeking to focus the conversation on one topic at a time. The truth is that not everyone who embraces these memes is trying to shut down dialogue. Admittedly, some people are only interested in pushing an agenda, but most people have good intentions. Treating people with respect even as we boldly disagree is the only way to discover truth together. Some people may never embrace truth, but if it’s presented in a loving and respectful way, others may discover the truth over a period of time.
So back to the meme I mentioned: how can we respond to the claim that Pro-Lifers who don't equally advocate for the well-being of mothers and children are hypocrites? Perhaps we need to first listen and paraphrase so that they can understand we hear what they are communicating. We may acknowledge that these are important issues and ask thoughtful questions about the specific issues that need stronger advocates. We can even ask why they assumed you would disagree with them on these important issues.
If they believe we understand where they are coming from, they may be open to healthy discourse. If they aren't then the conversation may only benefit observers, but if they are willing to have a healthy conversation, we can point out that before we can even talk about the well-being of a person, they need to be alive. Life is foundational. There is a priority of the values that this nation was founded upon: the Creator endowed each of us with the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But how can we advocate for the happiness of an individual if they don’t first have the liberty to pursue it? How can we advocate for the liberty of an individual if they are no longer living? There is a priority in these values: Life, then Liberty, then the Pursuit of Happiness. Also, there are limits to our rights; no one should be allowed to pursue happiness at the expense of another person’s rights.
So our conversation about "Abortion rights" shouldn't discuss edge cases until we’ve reached agreement on the majority of abortions. Is an embryo a human life? Is a newborn a human life? Is someone with profound disabilities a human life? All may be incapable of living on their own without assistance from others, yet the cells of each of these carry a code that says “human”. They are, each of them, people who need protection.
The edge cases are more difficult. When we talk about the edge cases, such as when a mother's life is in danger, it is clearly a case of life versus life, and the individual conscience of the mother needs to be respected. The edge cases of rape and incest have so many factors that could be a case of life versus life given the emotional trauma involved. Innocents have already been hurt and we need to come alongside to bring healing and restoration. If it were me, I'd have no laws in these edge cases other than to allocate resources to help women in these awful situations.
God values His creation and has made mankind in His image to love God and love each other. Male and female God created us, and God values the innocent, especially those who cannot care for themselves. Throughout the Old and New Testament, He demonstrates His desire for us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, to provide for those who have severe limitations. And when we murder the innocent or allow the murder of innocents, He tells us that there will eventually be a judgement.
Who is more in need of protection than a baby?
Since 1973 ~60 million lives have been lost to abortion. In a country with ~300 million people, we have lost 1 in 6 of the population He envisioned for America. What countless opportunities to love and be loved have been lost? What grand innovations were never instantiated? How many women have struggled with depression over the loss of a child they were convinced would ruin their life rather than help complete it? How many men have chosen to live as grown-up boys because they never manned-up to a life of responsibility?
It’s not that I don’t care about the well-being of anyone. It’s that life is foundational to the well-being of everyone!
It seems so obvious to me: how can anyone claim to support the well-being of anyone if they first don’t value human life?
Father forgive me and my countrymen for what we have allowed and show us how to respond in love and truth and strength!
copyright ©2020 Mitchell Malloy (http://mitchellmalloyblogspot.com/)
