Rob Schenck, a protestant minister, is widely known as a pro-life activist and leader from years back. He participated in a number of clinic rescues (blockading them) and for that has gone to jail quite a few times.
Just today I became aware of an interview that he gave to National Public Radio in which he hawks his new book, "Costly Grace". In the course of that interview he disavowed his previous activism. Here is a pertinent quote:
Schenck now sees abortion as a moral and ethical issue that should be resolved by "an individual and his or her conscience" — rather than by legislation."
"This is not a question for politicians," he says. "When your end goal is a political one, you will, without exception, exploit the pain and the suffering and the agony of those who face the issue in their daily reality, in their real life."
Schenck demonstrated two flaws in his thinking. First, no pro-life activist worthy of the title ever pretends that protection for babies is solely "a question for politicians", so I don't know what causes him to imply that. But while the legal front is not the only one on which we fight for the protection of babies, by the same token we can never pretend that law and politics can be neglected. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr himself recognized that when he said, "the law cannot make my white brother love me, but it can keep him from lynching me". The unborn child is a human being deserving of protection regardless of the capricious whims of his/her mother's "individual conscience".
The preceding sentence brings us to Schenck's second and even greater glitch in his thinking. Nowhere in that quote do we see any thought or concern given to the one who stands to lose his/her life - the baby. The words "baby" and "child" don't appear once in that quote or anywhere else in that interview. He whines about being "callous" to abortion-bound women's feelings. I submit that he has acquired a new callousness to the unborn child in deference to the mother's errant sentiments.
I checked Schenck's facebook page to see if perhaps NPR engaged in - shall we say - "embellishment" of this interview. Sadly, I saw no mention that NPR misquoted him, no sign of displeasure at how he was represented. He seemed to be in agreement with the interview report as presented.
In recent months I had noted on his page an inordinate desire to abridge our rights to self-defense to "reduce gun violence", and the promotion of amnesty for border-crashers. In other words, he adopted some leftist positions. I didn't think too much of these, as there can be room here for good people to disagree. Well, now I know that there was much more to the leftward tilt. I do hope and pray that he regains his perspective regarding the need to secure protections for the smallest and most defenseless of innocents - the unborn babies.
The Dismal Synod Results
1 hour ago