On Killing Abortion
More thoughts on the abolitionist vs pro-life debate.
I’ve seen a bit of confusion surrounding the pro-life vs abolitionist debate, so I thought I’d offer a few comments to help clarify the point of difference. These thoughts are largely based on conversations I’ve had with folks elsewhere.
When it comes to this topic, particularly in Australia, the disagreement is not ultimately about the end goal, but about the means by which that goal is reached. Both abolitionists and incrementalists say they want to see abortion abolished. Good! That’s true justice. The real question is how that goal ought to be pursued, and whether certain strategies compromise justice by making concessions for evil in the process.
For the abolitionist, opposing abortion is fundamentally a question of faithfulness. The Bible consistently places responsibility and emphasis on obedience, not outcomes. We are called to act righteously and justly, regardless of what we imagine the outcome will be. This is because the results ultimately belong to God. In other words, the end intended doesn’t justify the means employed.
This point is illustrated in several places within the Bible, but I’ll offer one obvious example: In 2 Samuel 6, when oxen, carrying the Ark of the Covenant, stumbled, the Ark fell. In that moment, Uzzah reached out his hand to catch the Ark. The action seemed good. The outcome seemed beneficial. Uzzah saved the ark from ruin. Yet he was struck down and killed in that moment because he acted in disobedience. God did not command Israel to protect the ark by any means. He commanded them not to touch the ark, whatever their intention might be (Num. 4:15). Hence, good intentions don’t justify the use of unlawful means.
Similarly, abolitionists argue that any legislative approach must be judged not merely by what it hopes to achieve pragmatically, but by whether it upholds justice without compromise. That means, without making any concessions for evil. This is where their central critique of incrementalism emerges.
Incremental laws, such as those banning abortion after a certain number of weeks, are often defended as reducing harm. However, abolitionists argue that such laws do more than merely restrain evil; they formally redefine it, and legally condone it.
A law that says “abortion is illegal after X weeks” necessarily implies that abortion before that point is both morally and legally permissible. In doing so, the law arbitrarily draws a line between children who may be killed and children who may not. From the abolitionist perspective, this is still the state explicitly sanctioning the killing of a class of human beings. And that’s an evil, the abolitionist would contend, that we should have no participation in—whatever our intentions may be.
It’s for this reason that abolitionists charge incrementalism with partiality in judgment. They argue that what we end up with is still an unjust law. And the Bible condemns unjust laws. Isaiah 10:1–2 pronounces woe upon “those who make unjust laws” and “issue oppressive decrees.” So, the issue is not whether a law reduces the total number of victims, but whether it upholds justice in principle. Even if only one innocent life is left unprotected, the law remains unjust. As such, limiting evil doesn’t make it righteous or just, especially if evil is still legally permitted to some degree.
To give another example: Imagine a society in which it is legal for men to marry multiple children. If legislation were introduced to regulate this practice, allowing a man to marry only one child instead of many, it might reduce the scale of the evil. Yet it would still enshrine the legitimacy of the act itself. Such a law would not merely restrain evil; it would redefine and make concessions for it. For abolitionists, this is precisely the problem with incremental abortion laws. They do not simply oppose injustice. They codify it, even if it is a lesser form of it.
All Christians should agree that God’s moral law is universally binding, not limited to the church. In the Old Testament, Mosaic civil laws are applications of that moral law to specific cases. That is, case-law. This is not to say that we should replicate every Old Testament judicial statute in a modern legal code, but it does mean that human law must reflect God’s moral standards of good and evil. Civil authorities are not free to redefine these moral categories. As Romans 13 assumes, civil authorities are accountable to God’s definitions of justice. We are not only to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but also to render to God what is God’s. The authority to define what is moral belongs to Him alone.
For that reason, abolitionists reject the idea that non-Christian lawmakers operate under a different or lower moral standard where evil is to be tolerated, even if under duress. The Bible presents God’s law as the standard by which all people, and especially rulers, are judged. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:9, the law is laid down for the lawless and disobedient. It is precisely those who enact or permit injustice who are accountable to it.
Finally, abolitionists reject the assumption that we must settle for imperfect justice simply because perfect justice cannot be fully realised in a fallen world. While comprehensive justice may await the end of all things, it does not follow that just laws are unattainable now.
A law that fully protects innocent life without exception is not an unrealistic ideal. It’s the very standard all Christians ought to be pursuing. It’s possible to write a just law today, and that wouldn’t be historically unprecedented either. Many Western countries once punished murder and rape with the death penalty. That is perfectly just. There’s no reason to imagine that standard is beyond recovery.
In short, the abolitionist position insists that evil must be opposed without qualification in both principle and law and without any concession for evil. Any legislation that permits the intentional killing of the innocent, even in a limited or regulated form, is, by definition, an unjust law.
Therefore, the abolitionist does not call for gradual accommodation, but for immediate and uncompromising justice, pursued in faithfulness to God, not in confidence in whatever pragmatic outcomes we presume to be more achievable.
You might still disagree with the abolitionist approach, but it’s best to do so with an accurate understanding of the abolitionist position first.
One thing the abolitionist must be aware of, however, is not unintentionally functioning like an incrementalist for the pro-abortion cause. The abortion regime was not established all at once, but rather, through decades of gradual legal, cultural, and political advances. It's the ultimate incremental approach. If every measure that resists abortion short of total abolition is rejected outright, the practical effects may be that the pro-abortion movement continues advancing incrementally while its opponents resist only in principle rather than in law.
In such a case, the question must be asked whether, by refusing to support partial restrictions, we are leaving each pro-abortion gain intact and uncontested, allowing the incremental erosion of protections for the unborn to continue advancing unchecked. While abolitionists rightly demand complete justice, does the refusal to oppose lesser evils through achievable legislative means unintentionally aid the steady consolidation of the greater evil they seek to abolish? In other words, is it possible they’re abolitionists in theory, but incrementalists for the pro-choice cause in practice?
In the end, however, we should ultimately stand with all those who are working to end the killing. Of course, some approaches will be wiser, more effective, and more faithful to Scripture than others.
We can’t expect everyone to arrive at the same conclusion all at the same time. Sanctification is a process, learning is a process, growing in wisdom is a process. None of it is instantaneous. Differences are inevitable, and that means grace is absolutely essential—regardless of what side you’re on.
What matters is that those differences are not used to serve the interests of the enemy we oppose. Though our methods and tactics may vary and our convictions develop at differing paces, if death is our common enemy, then a united front against that enemy should be our goal.
Few things serve the cause of evil more effectively than when those who oppose it turn their sights away from it and towards one another.