I am pro-life. Life begins at conception. From conception to natural death, life is to be
protected. I celebrate the impending reversal of Roe v Wade. In the post-Roe
USA, I pray that we will all work together to abolish abortion in all 50 states.
The pro-life movement has done all that was possible under American law to save babies from the
Holocaust of abortion. Heartbeat laws, fetal pain laws, laws requiring abortion clinics to meet
the certification requirements of ambulatory care clinics—all of these pro-life measures
have reduced the number of abortions.
A new movement has arisen that has called itself the "abortion abolition movement" (as though all
pro-life advocates weren't in favor of the abolition of abortion). This movement and the pro-life
movement share equally a desire to see the absolute end of abortion. They equally regard life as
sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. They equally believe that abortion is
murder.
But these two movements (the pro-life movement and the abortion abolition movement) differ at several
points:
-
"Abortion Abolitionists" generally oppose exceptions in law to save the life of the mother.
-
"Abortion Abolitionists" oppose "incrementalism," which is their label for all of the heartbeat
laws, fetal pain laws, clinic-certification laws, fetal viability laws, etc., that I mentioned
above. That is to say, the "abortion abolitionists" oppose the pro-life movement. They do so
explicitly by name. The charge the "Pro Life Establishment" with being responsible for all of the
abortion deaths that have taken place while the pro-life movement has been working. Sometimes
members of this movement allege that the pro-life movement has all along furtively wanted to
keep abortion going so that they could continue to raise money. This is a terrible, slanderous
lie and a slap in the face to everyone who has worked tirelessly in the pro-life movement.
-
"Abortion Abolitionists" insist upon criminal prosecution of mothers in abortion. The pro-life
movement insists upon criminal prosecution of abortionists in cases of abortion.
-
"Abortion Abolitionists" insist that states invoke nullification, that they declare that
they will not follow federal law or Supreme Court rulings regarding abortion, in effect daring
the federal government to force compliance at the state level.
I am decidedly committed to the pro-life movement, and I am decidedly not a member of the "abortion
abolition" movement. Here are a few reasons.
First, I am not an "abortion abolitionist" because I appreciate the pro-life
movement and all that it has accomplished. I will not dishonor the work of the pro-life movement by
calling it sinful. God is about to set aside Roe v Wade as a result of a pro-life law
passed in Mississippi. The "abortion abolitionists" opposed the Mississippi law and all laws like it.
I support these pro-life laws and rejoice at what they are about to accomplish.
Second, I am not an "abortion abolitionist" because I believe fervently that the
law must explicitly acknowledge an exception allowing for abortion in cases like ectopic
pregnancies when the life of the mother is in jeopardy and an abortion is necessary to save her life.
Those who are opposed to any exceptions for fear that they might be exploited ought to consider that
the Old Testament law against murder did not prevent God from also providing exceptions (consider
Exodus 22:2-3, for example).
Third, I am not an "abortion abolitionist" because I believe that nullification is
a bad idea. It's a bad idea for the nation in general. It's a bad idea for the cause of
abolishing abortion! The end of Roe v Wade will only send the question of abortion
down to the states. The best hope for a coast-to-coast abolition of abortion is a federal
personhood amendment or a federal law abolishing abortion. If the strategy of nullification is
successful (and if it doesn't provoke a civil war), what's to prevent Massachusetts and California
from just ignoring any such federal law?
Fourth, I am not an "abortion abolitionist" because I believe that the best legal
approach is to prosecute abortion providers for abortions. This has been the repeated statement of
the Southern Baptist Convention, including in their declining to amend a resolution just last year
when "abortion abolitionists" tried to insert language calling for the prosecution of women.
Every time an abortion happens in a clinic, an abortionist is guilty of what ought to be a crime.
It is the abortionist who actually performs the killing act. Prosecuting abortionists will almost
entirely eliminate surgical abortion.
Sometimes abortion is also an act in which a woman has been guilty of what ought to be a crime. But
this is not always the case. Someone has performed the abortion, and that's always the abortionist.
Someone has paid the abortionist (murder for hire), and that is sometimes the pregnant woman, but
not always. Some people have been complicit in the abortion (nurses, administrators, etc.), and
sometimes that also is the woman, but not always.
Sometimes sex traffickers and pimps bring in abducted minors and pay for them to receive abortions.
These girls didn't consent to the sex that got them pregnant and didn't consent to the abortions to
kill their babies.
I'm talking about situations like this.
The women most likely to have been coerced (abuse victims, abducted teens) are the women least likely
to be able to afford to mount an affirmative defense of coersion against murder charges.
Also, although state law in states like Texas have held abortion to be illegal all along since 1973,
it is important that people not be prosecuted for crimes that they committed while the government
was telling them that their actions were perfectly legal. We oppose ex post facto laws,
whether de facto or de jure.
I say we prosecute abortion providers and see how far that goes toward abolishing abortion. Killing a
preborn child is the taking of a human life. It is murder. Anyone who sought for an abortion to be
done or is complicit in accomplishing an abortion is guilty of what ought to be a crime. But the
right thing to do is to prosecute abortion providers.
Finally, it is ironic that the closer the "incrementalist" pro-life movement comes to actually accomplishing the
abolition of abortion, the more strident abortion abolitionist voices become. One would think that our
differences would be decreasing and that our level of division would decrease as we get closer to our
shared goal.