Sometimes numbers can clarify an issue, even if the numbers
are rough and speculative.
Let me try a question. A thought experiment, not a proposal.
Suppose you were intent on protecting children and women from abortion, and
could have control of some of the following. Which would you choose?
1.
The American government
2.
the feminist movement
3.
the environmental movement
4.
Christian-Muslim relations
5.
global migration policy
6.
education policy on all matters touching
eugenics
7.
a movement of pro-life nonviolence
Nearly every pro-life leader has made clear in the past year
that they would want #1. They consider the choice obvious, and will promptly sacrifice
all the other six to get #1.
May I try to explain an alternative view using numbers that
are little more than wild guesses? I just want to try to make a point. How many
lives (and moms) are at stake with each of these seven entities? If you try to
gain control or have some influence on them, how many lives are you trying to
protect? There are about 60 million abortions annually, globally. How many can
you influence?
The numbers overlap, and do not add up to 60 million. But:
1.
American government: 1.2 M lives (and mothers)
at stake
2.
feminism: 30 M lives (and moms) at stake
3.
environmental movement: 20 M
4.
Christian-Muslim relations: 30 M
5.
global migration: 20 M
6.
all matters eugenic (includes 2&3&5): 55
M
7.
nonviolence: 55 M
This is not meant to be definitive or anything – more of a
take-off point for a conversation.