Her.meneutics: Should Pro-lifers Call Black Children an 'Endangered Species'?

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« A Black Maid's Expose | Main | A Sinking Argument on Gender and Courage »

March 11, 2010

Should Pro-lifers Call Black Children an 'Endangered Species'?

The controversial Georgia ad implies that, like endangered species, black children should be protected up until they're born.

LaTonya Taylor, guest blogger

Perhaps you’ve heard about the controversial billboard campaign sponsored by Georgia Right to Life, that state’s largest pro-life organization, in partnership with a Christian group called the Radiance Foundation. In signs put up around Atlanta, as well as through a dynamic website, the campaign puts the abortion issue squarely in the faces of passersby with the image of a young child next to the startling words, “Black Children Are an Endangered Species.” It’s a provocative image and caption, created in part by black and biracial people with compelling stories related to pro-life issues.

I applaud the campaign’s message and the attention it draws to the devastating impact of abortion in the African American community (one CDC survey reports that African American women have abortions at three times the rate of white women and almost twice the rate of other racial groups). But I find the use of “endangered species” language and imagery to describe black children to be profoundly inappropriate.

First, there’s the problem of comparing African Americans to animals. Because of the ways those kinds of comparisons have been made to dehumanize blacks in the past, I think the campaign’s organizers should have reconsidered leveraging the “endangered species” comparison for its shock value and attention-grabbing potential.

I understand that the point of the Georgia campaign, like those “Save the Baby Humans” bumper stickers, is to emphasize the hypocrisy in caring more about animals than we do about people. But black children aren’t animals — and that’s precisely why their lives are important. They shouldn’t be compared to the Okaloosa Darter or the Galapagos Petrel, or some other species most of us haven’t heard about and don’t care about the survival of.

Further, the copy and imagery the campaign’s organizers have chosen creates a false choice between saving lives and recognizing those lives as human — which is precisely the point of the pro-life movement, as well as the blind spot it’s sometimes accused of having, particularly as it relates to African American lives.

Think about how we often regard animals on the endangered species list: they are protected with the hope that they can be released back into the wild, where they can survive on their own.

The late Spencer Perkins identified the problems with this kind of thinking in 1989, in a classic Christianity Today article entitled “The Pro-life Credibility Gap.” In Perkins’s view, the Christians who were most visible in leading the pro-life movement were often not as interested in other issues of justice for African Americans. He wrote, “I feel that if the love of Christ compels me to save the lives of children, that same love should compel me to take more responsibility for them once they are born.” Though Perkins was making the point about white pro-lifers, it’s a question for all of us to consider.

An “endangered species” mentality de-contextualizes and dislocates many children from the possible sources of the issues they may face. Comparing black children to an endangered species limits our thinking about what they will need to live healthy lives. I do not believe that is the intention of the campaign’s organizers, but I do think it is an unintended consequence of the language they’ve chosen.

I’m pleased that a national spotlight is being directed on a critical issue. I just wonder if those Georgia groups could have garnered similar attention without the “endangered species” meme.

LaTonya Taylor is a communications professional and graduate student in Chicago. She is a contributing editor to Kyria. This post is condensed from an article that appeared on UrbanFaith.com on March 5, 2010.

Comments

Ms. Taylor,

I appreciate the fact that you've highlighted our campaign, but find it frustrating that you omit some significant details. Facts matter. The African-American population has 3x the abortion rate than the white population and 2x the rate of all other races combined. This campaign is created and led by one who is black as Obama. It is championed here in Georgia and beyond by a team of African-Americans who obviously do not regard black children as a separate species or compare them to animals. 'Species' doesn't mean animals. You write of "decontextualizing" when you are guilty of it yourself by ascribing the wrong meaning to words. This argument is the main expression of mass distraction from pro-abortion advocates (not that I'm intimating that you share their views) in order to thwart the focus from the deep racism that has defined the history of Birth-Control-turned-Abortion-on-Demand.

No one made this argument when NPR called black male librarians an "endangered species" in 2008, or TIME magazine called black men an "endangered species" due to the violence and crime in the inner-city, nor actor Robert Townsend's "Diary of a Single Mom" that called black fathers an "endangered species". Of course, in none of these instances were black individuals being compared to animals, but considered lesser in number (with the latter two examples) due to circumstances causing their death.

It is also a canard to generalize pro-lifers who supposedly are "not as interested in other issues of justice for African Americans." I've been involved in the urban community all of my adult life, pouring my time, my energies, my love into the lives of children as a mentor, program coordinator and community activist. And many pro-lifers I know are also deeply involved in trying to deal with the social issues that plague the black community. So please do pro-lifers, like us, a favor and acknowledge the work that is done on a daily basis to help others rise from their seemingly insurmountable circumstances.

You speak of what you believe the intentions of the campaign's organizers to be. But you could be proactive instead. Actually go to TooManyAborted.com and find out for yourself instead of relying upon conjecture.

The copy and the imagery do not propose a choice, but a simple fact that is bolstered by statistics. The human species is endangered by the act of abortion. Period. And nowhere in America is the human species more endangered by abortion than the black community.

Ryan Bomberger
Co-Founder of The Radiance Foundation
Creator/Director of 'TooManyAborted.com' campaign

I can't believe I'm actually responding to this website on this topic but what I want to say is that by its very use of the word "species" this ad relegates black people to something different from other people. Species in human taxonomy refers to Homo sapiens—humans, not race. Humans of ALL colors/races belong to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. There is no white species or red species or yellow species or black species among humans just as there are no Doberman species or Golden Retriever species or Spaniel species or Chihuahua species among dogs. They are ALL Canis lupus familiaris. WHY do we insist of segregation in our thoughts and actions?

Ryan,

As I hoped to convey in my post, I appreciate the work of your campaign, and I do not doubt your motives or the comprehensive nature of your work. I have, indeed, spent quite a bit of time on toomanyaborted.com, and agree with you about the urgency of this situation. As you have said, the facts matter, and they speak loudly.

I am aware of the denotation of the word “species,” but I suspect you and I disagree about what it connotes. For what it’s worth, I didn’t like hearing the term “endangered species” applied to the other groups you reference, either.

My hope is that since we are both communicators who care deeply about this issue, our discussion can model agreement about a problem, even as we disagree about a particular rhetorical strategy.

Best,

LaTonya Taylor

"But I find the use of “endangered species” language and imagery to describe black children to be profoundly inappropriate."
Ms. Taylor, your analysis seems to be nit picking. As you know a metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action that it does not LITERALLY (my caps) denote in order to imply a resemblance." It's the resemblence - and all that it connotes - that is important here. And it does that well. Most people in this country are intelligent enough to understand Mr. Bomberg's subtle use of language. So for me, your article begs the question: What would you suggest that would be better? If you are going to criticize - even in the best sense of that word - surely you have something better in mind? Let us all in on it.

I also did not quite understand you bringing up the "social justice" comment, either. I've seen proaborts use this strategy to do one thing: diminish the credibility of those who are called by God to protest the wholesale slaughter of the innocents. I don't believe I've ever heard any prolife organizations criticize Mr. Perkins for not protesting at the aboratoriums. Each of us are to be faithful to God's calling. And each of us are limited to 24 hours a day. Now if you had evidence that certain Prolife organizations don't care about living children - well, that would be different, and your criticisms would be legitimate. But to bring it up like you did seemed to imply maybe Mr. Bomberg's organization - like those unnamed and uncaring prolife organizations - did not care for the social welfare of living children, either.

I have to agree; it is straining at gnats to focus on the term "species" rather than to applaud and support the effort to highlight--and turn around--this tragic situation.

cUm, metafore's comment could not be more spot on. Helloooo... a different species?!!!

*Um (sorry for the typo!)

I can't believe we are distracting ourselves with some fine differences of what a metaphor could mean. A metaphor is just a metaphor. It has its limits. If one uses a magnifying glass to study a metaphor, she is bound to find a lot of unsatisfactory or "inappropriate" representations. Jesus uses the metaphor of a "thief" to liken Himself when He returns. That is grossly inappropriate-one may say, but that is totally besides the point.

Thank God people are realizing what horrible racism and social reconstruction are involved in the prochoice movement. Many thanks to the Radience Foundation for this shocking wakeup call. And I'm sorry you face attack from the inside. Ms. Taylor is out of line, nitpicking at metaphors. The point is very much that this is how the other side sees our children. It should shock us into action.

Words have nuances and context can change the meaning from benign to malignant in a nanosecond. Imagine a picture of an African-American family having a picninc. Could mean anything. But, make the food fried chicken and watermelon and the picture instantly becomes something nasty even though there is nothing inherently wrong with either food. Tell a joke about a woman. Could be anything. Specifically make the woman a blonde, and it could instantly be a whole different thing. Even if you think there's nothing wrong with the metaphor, the reality is that many, many African-Americans, even those who might otherwise agree, are deeply offended. Do you want to be right, or do you want to change lives?

And, if you actually want to change lives, here's the truth about the so-called "pro-life" side, or maybe all of Europe is racist:

"There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward... At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics ... measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1. No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions? One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

The connection was explained to me by a wise and holy man, Cardinal Basil Hume. He was the senior Roman Catholic prelate of England and Wales when I lived in London; as a reporter and a Catholic, I got to know him. In Britain ... [a]bortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. ... The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Typical Christainity Today response, while Christainity is under vicious attack and abortion rules they are annoyed by a choice of words.

"...make the food fried chicken and watermelon and the picture instantly becomes something nasty even though there is nothing inherently wrong with either food." Well, this really has to suck, especially if you are KFC, or Churches Chicken or some other chicken fast food joint...(and it really sucks if your business just happens to sell chicken AND watermelon combination meals!) You don't dare use pictures of AA folks eating chicken in your advertising - b/c if you do you are nasty and racist...but then if you don't then you are racist and nasty. What's an advertiser to do?

On my drive home from work each day I pass one of these billboards. As a Black woman, I will say that I have mixed feeling about the term "endangered species"...I understand the intent, but I think the campaign could have come up with a better term. A comment on another site said, "Black babies are not baby seals." The late Mr. Perkins was spot on about the prolife credibility gap. Pro-lifers work for anti-abortion legislation (I consider myself to be pro-life), but then campaign against laws that would help single mothers raise these kids. I know I wll sound like I'm buying into a conspiracy theory, but I have read all the stats about the high abortion rate in the A-A community wonder why we're being singled out. I think there are plenty of white girls having abortions, because the number of available white babies to adopt has nose-dived--and explains why a lot (not all) of folks adopt internationally.

The numbers don't add up. If black women are having the most abortions, then how in the world are black women consuming so much government assistance. Do you not need children in order to utilize the system. How can black women be the majority on welfare, majority of abortion participate, majority of out of bearing children out of wedlock and majority of STD infected. Something is not adding up. The numbers are getting twisted. I am single, have never been pregnant and don't have a STD and I am a black female. According to these statistics lately, I should have had something wrong with me.

RLynn, you said, "Pro-lifers work for anti-abortion legislation (I consider myself to be pro-life), but then campaign against laws that would help single mothers raise these kids."

This is my biggest political frustration; as a Christian I believe that allegience to one particular political party is impossible. In order to truly outlaw abortion, which I support doing, we need to educate our kids on the front end and give them tools and resources to prevent pregnancy, which *typically* pro-lifers are against, unless it's abstainence only. In addition, if abortion is outlawed, this will mean many more children brought into the world under non-optimal conditions. We need to make sure these children are fed and have health care, and yet much of the Republican agenda, which includes pro-life legislation, is against welfare and universal health care, and typically favors slashing of budgets at all costs, which we often don't see the end results of unless you tend to be in social work or receive aid from the state. Too many preventative programs have been cut, and many were broken because of severe underfunding from the start.

Perhaps the answer is not welfare, but then, what is it? What as believers will WE DO to help children whose parents do not have the proper education and resources to raise them?

In order to get to a place where there is no such thing as an "unwanted" child, as believers we need to be the ones to step up with our actions, serve our communities, and quit talking about a utopia with the condition of low taxes.

Wow, this quote from the Adoption blog article a few days ago sums up the point of "unwanted" children:

These questions rely on what theologian and ethicist Paul Lauritzen has called the “myth of unwanted children.” ... To speak about ‘unwanted children’ is to fail to take seriously what is perhaps the most compelling reason women relinquish children, namely, poverty” (p. 126).

If abortion goes away, poverty doesn't. What do we do to help the impoverished in our nation so they can raise their own children?

Tiffany--I hear you, I have lived a celibate life, and therefore, have never been pregnant or had a STD. News came out the other day that half of the A-A women in the country have genital herpes--I have a number of A-A female friends who are believers and I know they have also lived celibate lives...even though it is in obedience to Christ, you do feel a little bit like a freak.
SJ--I'm not sure what the answer is and I don't want any political party to feel like they have me in their back pocket. I often wondered how many of those Christians shouting at women at abortion clinics would personally offer to take them home and help them through the pregnancy and with childrearing or adoption...I may be wrong, maybe some did. I just recall overhearing conversations of folks who allowed themselves to be arrested back when Operation Rescue was in vogue. They only went and gave their names (in order to be released) when being in jail conflicted with their family vacation.

I find this campaign morally and factually wrong.

Morally, babies of no race are more deserving of protection from abortion than babies of any other race. Abortion is a grisly end that no one of any race deserves.

Factually, the last I knew, African American women were producing more that 2 live babies each. The AA population is growing, not endangered.

I find it interesting that it has taken so long for a campaign such as this to start. Why? Well, when you consider that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a devote racist, and we all know it, why wouldn't you use that as part of your argument or campaign to outlaw the murders entirely? Hey Ryan, you should use her own words and put these on the billboards.

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

Black people ARE endangered species. May as well call it like it is. ANd as for Ms. Sanger being a racist. I don't think so. Let's face reality and facts. America (both North & South America) were not willing to incorporate the black population into American society after the ending of slavery. Outside of a few blacks to serve as domestic servants (quasi-slaves) neither nation had any use for people of African descent and still don't.

Let's stop sanitizing history. Ms. Sanger was aware of this fact (the unwillnigness to include black people in American society) and simply gave blacks a way out via abortion and family planning services.

As a black woman I am glad that I have these options available to me, a choice my grandmother didnt have. I don't have to give birth to children and watch them suffers the horror and degradation of America's continued racism.

That day when people will be judged by the "content of their character and not the color of their skin" will be a long time coming in American society. Until that day comes, those black women who want to spare their children a lifetime of pain, should be allowed abortion and family planning services as tools to assist them with their choices.

Abortion is not about pro-choice, it is about racism and eugenics.

I have to agree; it is straining at gnats to focus on the term "species" rather than to applaud and support the effort to highlight--and turn around--this tragic situation.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Should Pro-lifers Call Black Children an 'Endangered Species'?

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Should Pro-lifers Call Black Children an 'Endangered Species'?

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives