INTERVIEW: Discussing Abortion in a Social Media World

Pastor Dan Burrell from Life Fellowship Church invited ERI President Josh Brahm to be interviewed for a four-episode series on pro-life dialogue for their podcast, LifeTalks. This is the second episode in that series. They address when to talk about abortion in this day and age, our responsibilities as pro-life voters, and how to manage support for organizations that back Planned Parenthood.

Questions:

  • 2:26: Why should we avoid discussing abortion on social media? Or should we?
  • 7:53: Is it a bad idea to even respond when you see one of your friends on Facebook that may put something up that is against our beliefs? (Is it our responsibility?)
  • 11:21: Is it better to have no restrictions on abortion rather than legislation with some restrictions but many exceptions?
  • 15:10 Is it right to use a candidate’s position on abortion as a litmus test as to whether or not you would support them politically?
  • 16:37: Should you talk about abortion in church?
  • 20:02: Is it right to give money to organizations that, while they do some good, support abortion providers like Planned Parenthood?

Related Links:

Overpopulation Can’t Justify Abortion

It might surprise you to know that tech giants Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX) and Jack Ma (Alibaba) think the world is heading towards a population collapse. It would certainly surprise Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who gave a speech on her Instagram account earlier this year about how climate change should lead people not to have children. She explicitly states that global warming will make life worse in the future, so it may not be ethical to bring children into such a world. Even more to the point, Bernie Sanders considers abortion a necessary tool for controlling population and avoiding “climate catastrophe.” Implicitly, both of these politicians are drawing on the idea that the world can’t handle more than a certain number of people without devastating consequences (such as widespread poverty, disease, and – yes – climate change). This notion is generally called “overpopulation.”

Overpopulation has been talked about on and off since 1798, when Thomas Malthus (a clergyman!) proposed that the world would essentially be ruined by further population increase. The global population was less than one billion when he wrote that, and the current global population is nearly eight billion, so he was pretty clearly wrong, but his basic idea persisted. It was reawakened in the 1960s by the book The Population Bomb, which projected that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the next decade (that…didn’t happen). The UN now projects that the world population will hit nearly 11 billion in 2100 before tapering off, and many people worry (once again) that most people on the Earth will end up hungry and poor. This kind of thinking is informed by the pessimistic population view, which holds that we won’t have enough resources to keep up with the growing wants of a growing population. The optimistic view, on the other hand, remembers that humans can do things like invent new technologies and/or better allocate resources.

This is all very interesting, you might say, but what does it have to do with abortion? Well, overpopulation holds that having more people is a problem. That means having babies is a problem, and it’s a problem to be solved by the aggressive provision of birth control, sterilization, and abortion. Much of the time, especially when it’s talked about publicly, this leads to support for open access to abortion and birth control for those who want them. It’s usually implied that people who are “properly educated” will choose such interventions over having more than two kids. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has repeatedly said this about Africa, the continent on track to have the greatest population growth in the 21st century.