Why Am I an Abolitionist?
There was a time when the African slave trade and race-based slavery dominated much of the western world.
Some people had no idea what was going on with the slave trade and the horrors of chattel slavery. They had the existential luxury of living their lives removed from the face-to-face encounters with evil.
But some people saw and encountered the evil and were willing to speak out for the oppressed and fight back against injustice.
William Wilberforce, a staunch opponent of the African slave trade and slavery, said it best:
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”
Quite sobering. It’s a short and straightforward statement that strikes at the heart of shutting one’s eyes to injustice and the need to combat it.
In the same way that Wilberforce and his comrades sought the abolition of slavery, I seek the abolition of abortion.
I fully understand that to some people my view is distasteful and shocking. I get it.
Abortion can be a profoundly emotional issue — I know people who have had an abortion. With that being said, I believe there must be an intentional approach that integrates logical, rational thought and the natural human emotions tied to the topic.
Much of what passes for discussion on this issue is really just people yelling at each other on Twitter or in the Facebook comment section. It accomplishes nothing other than wasting time.
I’d like to be different and break ranks.
I would like to lay a foundation of understanding and opine a sincere and seriously contemplated apologia.
So often, with challenging and complex issues such as abortion, there is an unfortunate tendency to have a quick-draw-Mcgraw attitude and start gunslinging insults at the opposition.
My hope is to avoid that trap. Conversations matter, and how we conduct ourselves when we have these conversations also matters.
I’d like to give a holistic approach to explaining why I believe what I believe and why you, the reader, should consider your own position on the subject.
If you find yourself daring to read through this piece in its entirety, I’ll send you a gold star. But on a serious note, you’ll get a glimpse into my journey of learning and wrestling with why I am against abortion and advocate for its abolition — and as a bonus, I threw in why I think the most levied common objections don’t hold up to simple scrutiny.
I Affirm…
Let’s review standard definitions:
- Abortion: deliberate termination of human pregnancy.
- Abolition: the outlawing of the practice of deliberately terminating [i.e., killing] the life of the baby.
- Pro-Life: the stance that babies have a right to life; the general position that opposes abortion.
- Pro-Choice: regardless of personal feelings and beliefs against abortion, we can’t decide for the woman; in other words, the woman should be able to choose whether she gets an abortion.
- Pro-Abortion: the position that abortion is reasonable and necessary for women and their [reproductive] freedom should be legal in all circumstances, and there should be no restrictions for the woman and her doctor.
I affirm an abolitionist view. And my position on the abortion issue is rooted in my affirmation of science, human rights, and theology.
#1 Science
I’m happy to admit I’m not a scientist or biologist, but that in no way entails that somehow I cannot come to the logical understanding of truth.
After investigating what is going on in the womb, I could not help but conclude and side with the truth that human life begins at conception.
According to the American College of Pediatricians:
“At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.”
This, to me at least, is a case-closed scenario. I don’t need 12 years of medical school to recognize that there’s distinct DNA that comes into existence that is separate from both the mother and father at conception.
And with the advent of ultrasound and sonogram technologies, we can see and verify that what is developing in the womb cannot be anything but a natural, distinct person.
In short, the baby in the womb — regardless of the stage of development — is a human being.
#2 Human Rights
Abortion, in my view, is a human rights issue.
Since the baby is a human being — and millions of babies have been killed under the banner of abortion or “reproductive rights” — then abortion is, by far, one of the most significant human rights offenses.
Following the ruling of Roe v. Wade, more babies have been aborted than the number of people who died during the slave trade or slavery; more babies have been aborted than those who died during the Holocaust; more babies have been aborted than those who suffered and died under the deadly iron fist of Stalin’s regime.
The shockingly high number of aborted babies is possible because tragedy always follows dehumanization.
Allow me to give you a few instances of recent memory.
Take, for example, the treatment of African Americans. They were kidnapped from their native lands and shipped over in brutal conditions to be mistreated, abused, and murdered.
Although we abolished slavery, the dehumanization of people of color continued into the era of Jim Crow. Legalized racism persisted in America, and the iniquity and injustices against black people came in harsh segregation, lynchings, brutal homicidal beatings, and house burnings.
[Side Note: I am, of course, quite aware that some claimed to be Christian and those that were, in fact, Christians who perpetrated the dehumanization, sinful oppression, and brutality against black people.
Segregationists and slaveholders used the Bible as justification for racism and slavery — even though the Bible does not condone racism or the kidnapping of other people and enslaving them and treating them with cruel malice.
Those people — genuine believers or not — acted inconsistently and hypocritically with the Way of Jesus and were rightly condemned and called out by other Christians, such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr., to examine what Christ actually teaches. Additionally, the composition of the Abolition and Civil Rights movements which fought back against the injustices of slavery and segregation was inherently religious].
How about another example of the disregard for human dignity and rights? The Holocaust. It was the Nazi Third Reich's purposeful effort to exterminate those they considered subhuman: the Jewish people.
I bring up these examples merely to demonstrate human history’s pattern for dehumanizing people.
We always hear talks and discussions of “Never Again,” that one day we shall progress past the premeditated abuse, oppression, and mass killings of our fellow human beings.
And yet, here we are. In our current age, the group most dehumanized is the Unborn.
Look at the following picture.
I see a human being whose life was tragically taken away because she simply existed in a woman’s womb — what do you see?
In my lifetime, I have seen pro-choice/pro-abortion people’s perspective gradually shift from abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” to abortion at any time and without any restrictions, that it's ultimately between the mother and her physician.
And some within the pro-choice/pro-abortion conglomeration would even argue that abortion is not a necessary evil but a moral good.
I shudder with sadness at such a thought. Abortion a moral good? Why is this the case if the baby is a human being?
#3 Theology
A biblical and historically affirmed doctrine in the Christian church is that God created human beings in His image. Theologians have coined this teaching as the imago Dei.
There is something special about humans that separates us from the animal species. And it is the stamp of God’s sacredness.
In the womb, there is a transcendent and mysterious connection between God and humanity [see Psalm 139: 13–16, Jeremiah 1:5].
The imago Dei underpins and grounds why I find abortion immoral and an insidious injustice.
Abortion is the desecration of God's attentive and affectionate work in creating humans in His image. The Lord detests the shedding of innocent blood [see Proverbs 6:17].
Suppose God is the author of life and has demonstrated His purposeful and intentional work in the creative care for humans. In that case, I cannot help but conclude that abortion is incompatible with the biblical understanding of human persons.
Not So Fast You Religious Fanatic!
Can we get through the unnecessary roadblock before explaining why I’m an abolitionist?
If I had a dollar for every time I heard or saw someone say that people who are against abortion due to any trace of religious belief need to back off or keep their beliefs to themselves, I might rival the wealth of Elon Musk — dogecoin to the moon!
The common accusation is entirely disingenuous to throw at a person for two reasons:
- A person being anti-abortion doesn’t automatically entail religious belief. Secular people can be pro-life or recognize that abortion is not a good thing.
- A brief survey of human history would demonstrate that people with religious beliefs have been champions who fought against injustices, such as the slave trade, slavery, civil rights, etc. Should those people have kept their mouths shut and their faith to themselves instead of fighting against immorality and injustices? Having religious beliefs does not [and should not] exclude or prohibit one from the abortion discussion.
We have been told by those who craft coordinated cultural campaigns that pro-life people are religious, extreme fundamentalists who want to control women’s bodies. I disagree, wholeheartedly, with this notion.
The reasons for people being against abortion can vary. Being pro-life does not necessarily entail that one is religious. A person can be secular and denounce abortion.
Christopher Hitchens was one of my favorite authors and speakers. If you recognize the name, you know that Hitchens was anything but religious; he was one of the four horsemen of the New Atheism movement.
On the topic of abortion, Hitchens posited the idea that “Once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of ‘the woman’s right to choose.’” Does that sound like a religious bigot trying to control women’s bodies?
Next, there is often a plea to invoke Separation of Church and State to shut down and shut out people with religious backgrounds or convictions from the abortion conversation.
This, by far, is one of the most common complaints I see on social media and have heard in real life.
The often-used phrase “separation of church and state” originates from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.
In its proper and historical context, the principle of separation of church and state prohibited every level of government from coercion or involvement in religion or even the preferential favoring of one religion over the other.
The separation of church and state does not bar religious people from public life or public discourse on social or political matters.
If it were the case that local, state, or federal government established a law that outlawed abortion because the Muslim or Christian God said so, then the outrage and objections would be more than justified within our constitutional framework.
But it seems that whenever I see or hear people use the separation of church and state argument, it is nothing more than an attempt to club religious people over the head.
It does not logically follow that because a person may have religious beliefs that influence their position on abortion, they must refrain from the public discourse about it. Furthermore, it doesn’t mean that a person’s religious beliefs are the legal bedrock or foundation of a law to restrict or outlaw abortion.
Unless there is a law enacted with paragraphs and clauses explicitly stating the reasoning is purely religious [Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.], then it is just a straw man argument to insinuate that people are using their religion to legislate other people.
The Abolition of Abortion
Granville Sharp, the avid abolitionist lawyer, once declared that “the toleration of slavery is the toleration of inhumanity.”
In the same tone and temperament, I believe that the toleration of abortion is the toleration of inhumanity.
I am against abortion because I am for the sanctity and dignity of human life. Babies have just as much a right to live as I do.
At a base level, abortion dehumanizes the baby in the womb to kill the boy or girl. This must end.
The abortion injustice must be made illegal in the same way that the dehumanization of slavery and segregation was outlawed.
Abortion doctors and abortion facility providers should be held accountable.
Again, I understand that some believe my stance is an extreme or untenable view. Nevertheless, I remain resolved to stand by my carefully considered convictions. Others may ignore or try to rationalize and justify evil, but I won’t. I cannot abide by it.
The biological science is clear: the baby growing in the womb is a distinct and unique human being.
The human rights view is clear to me: we should neither dehumanize babies nor kill them.
The theology is clear to me: human beings are created in the image of God; therefore, they have intrinsic value.
If babies are human beings, then killing babies is a human rights violation. If it’s a human right violation, then I must stand up for the weak and vulnerable and speak out as a voice of the innocent.
I’m a follower of Jesus and His way of life. I make no apology for it. I recognize that part of my opposition to abortion is deeply rooted in my distinct Christian faith.
I refuse to be a Christian and actively support or passively stand by a dehumanizing position and practice.
To me, pro-choice/pro-abortion beliefs will not fit into the biblical framework of God as the intentional and intimate author of human life. It would be like trying to force a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit, if you catch my drift.
If a Christian supports abortion, I invite them to take a step back and examine their presuppositions.
Why would [or should] a Christian support abortion? And how does one come to that conclusion?
What exegetical Scripture study would ground a supportive position for abortion? Is there a common and consistent historical tradition of abortion advocacy by the Apostles, early Church fathers, or Reformers?
In my view, there is none.
While some suppose they can brush off Scripture and complimentary historical viewpoints against abortion, I cannot.
I think that supporting abortion and being a Christian are incongruent; there’s a heavy tension between the two.
But please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t mean that one is cast out of the kingdom of heaven or one cannot have salvation in Christ if they support abortion — or if they’ve had one. I mean that the consistent and coherent biblical view doesn’t match the pro-choice/pro-abortion positions. In short, there’s no corresponding harmony.
As one person rightly noted: Christians who support abortion may not fully understand abortion, Christianity, or both.
Consider it this way: if I am united to Jesus Christ and His Spirit dwells in me, how does God view abortion, and how should I view abortion?
For me, the answer is abolition. To push back and expel the dark, immoral practice of abortion.
In future generations, I hope they will look back at this era in human history with horror.
In the same way we look back with utter revulsion at dehumanizing events — such as race-based slavery, civil rights injustices in the Jim Crow America, the Holocaust, etc. — I hope that our children and grandchildren will be appalled that we would allow abortion to be a legal and acceptable position to practice.
And it is my ambition that serious Christians will continue to be a voice for the voiceless and come alongside the women who face the deeply difficult and emotional decision to abort or continue the pregnancy and show them the same love and grace Christ showed us.
Whether it's donating money to pregnancy centers, helping provide baby resources like diapers or formula for mothers, serving through babysitting, opening up our homes to create spaces for women and the baby, getting involved in foster care, or even adopting, may the Church continue to actually be about the loving business of the kingdom of heaven.
If we truly believe in the power of the Gospel and that the Spirit of Christ resides in us, then we must say and do something about abortion.
How can we call ourselves followers and representatives of Jesus and His way of life if we just talk the talk but never walk the walk?
Bonus Section for the Robust Reader: Common Objections
I readily confess that this section could be relatively longer than it is — to be honest, it would be best in book format.
I wanted to dedicate time to addressing the common objections by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates. And to offer up simple responses and questions to those who may wish to use them.
#1 Bodily Autonomy: My Body, My Choice
This may shock you, but I affirm that women have the right to their bodies and to make decisions in the appropriate circumstances and contexts.
But, I suppose, if a woman decides it is her “right” to kill another human being, that’s where I must protest.
There is, you see, more than one body involved.
The mother’s body is not the baby’s body — despite what pro-choice/pro-abortion people propose.
When a woman gets an abortion, she is not aborting her own body but the growing baby's body. The child is a separate and unique human being.
[Side-Note for any Alice who wishes to go down the rabbit hole into Wonderland: The great irony is that the principle of “my body, my choice” has a historical root in early Christianity.
Tom Holland — the atheist historian, not the devilishly handsome Spider-man actor — wrote about how Christian women in the early church, to resist the typical sexual male dominance in the ancient world, were pioneers in their efforts to champion female dignity and the notion that women have the right to their body. For further details, see his critically acclaimed book, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World].
Why is the mother granted the right to my body, my choice but not the baby? Again, the baby is not the mother’s body. The baby in the womb has its own unique DNA, brain, heart, limbs, etc.
It appears perfectly rational and acceptable, to me at least, that if we grant that the human mother has a right to her own body, then the human baby growing in the mother’s womb also has a right to their body.
To those who disagree, why would the human baby not be afforded the same respect and rights as the mother? How teasing does that seem that one human [the mother] has a right and will not recognize it for another [the baby]?
My body, my choice cannot be a right if it only applies to the woman who claims it.
#2 It’s Not a Human, Its _____
- A clump of cells? — — What does that mean, though? From a technical, reductionist standpoint, human beings are clumps of cells. Our bodies consist of trillions of cells. I am one skinny clump of cells. So the question is, why do pro-choice/pro-abortion activists use that phrase? Are they trying to delegitimize and dehumanize the baby?
- A fetus? — — The original word fetus comes from the Latin language and has several meanings, all in the same ballpark. A fetus in Latin generally refers to bearing/breeding/bringing forth conceived young or offspring. In a medical sense, the word fetus refers to the stage of human development after the embryo. So when someone says, “it's not a human; it's a fetus,” then the logical question is, “what’s a fetus?” What is the fetus in the human mother’s womb?
- Not alive? — — If the baby is not alive, how is it growing? Dead things don’t grow. Seems like a radical redefinition of what being alive means.
Did you see the persistent pattern of stripping the baby in the womb of their innate humanity?
I refer people to read feminist author Naomi Wolf who called out her fellow pro-choice/pro-abortion supporters. Her honesty is shocking; she does not shy away from the reality that the baby is human.
#3 Origin of Life and Humanity
If a person says they don’t believe human life begins at conception, then when would they say life begins?
Commonly thrown around ideas have been the following:
- Heartbeat? — —How does a heartbeat make one a human? If the heartbeat confers the essence of humanity, then do we strip the humanity of people with pacemakers? Do patients during heart transplant surgery lose their humanity? If a person’s heart stops beating — for example, for 20-30 seconds — then are they no longer human for that moment?
- Brain Function? — — Do people in comas or people who are pronounced brain-dead lose their human essence? What does brain function even mean? How does one justify and verify that brain function confers the essence of humanity?
- First Breath Outside of the Vaginal Canal? — — Why does breathing outside the womb magically make the baby human? Why or how does exiting the womb make one inherently human?
- Consciousness? — — Why should consciousness be the standard of what makes someone human? Consciousness is a highly vague and loaded term, so I’m not convinced that consciousness designates humanity.
- Sustainability? — — What does sustainability or viability mean? Is there an objective and agreed-upon standard? And why would sustainability and viability be the standard for humanness? Suppose the baby [let’s say born prematurely at 29–30 weeks] can survive, with medical help, outside the womb. Why is it not moral to kill the baby then, but it's fine to kill the baby in the womb? What objective standard or metric determines that?
- Want/Burden? — — Not wanting to be pregnant and have a baby doesn’t mean one has the right to kill the baby. It appears to be a non-sequitur. Moreover, it reveals a stunningly seared conscience by the one who would propose such a thing. Why is abortion morally necessary because the mom doesn’t want it or could burden her? If want/burden is the standard, could you apply that to a two-year-old child? Why or why not?
#4 You Can’t Tell Others How to Live Their Lives
Some people propound an unusual philosophy that, somehow, telling other people what to do/not do is egregious, narrow-minded, and bigoted.
To state such a thing is, no doubt, highly unproductive for two reasons:
- Telling a person that they should not tell others how to live or what decisions are moral or unethical is self-defeating — because if one truly believes we can’t instruct others how to live, then how can you tell someone not to say to others that abortion is right or wrong? It’s a violation of basic philosophical thought.
- We all live within an ethical framework; everyone has a moral compass and a north star. Thus, we are constantly making moral observations and judgments. And we are prone to pronounce our morality from our soapboxes.
The fact of the matter is we can tell other people what is moral and immoral— assuming we agree there is such a thing as right and wrong.
I wonder if the same people who support abortion and say that we cannot tell women whether it's okay to get an abortion would apply that same fundamental standard to a man who thinks sexual attraction to children is okay or if someone thinks cheating on their spouse is permissible.
Would they have the courage of their conviction to apply that same notion across the various spectrum of life’s moral scenarios? I suspect not.
#5 Men Don’t Get a Say on Abortion
Why can’t men talk about, have an opinion, or take action on something like abortion? Why is maleness a disqualifying factor?
How is that not committing the Bulverism fallacy?
Being a male does not exclude one from having an opinion on abortion and being able to talk about it. And those who would suggest such an incredulous thing might need to revisit an introductory philosophy course.
The complaint that men can’t be a part of the abortion discussion or can’t regulate women’s issues is most humorous since a Supreme Court comprised of all-male justices oversaw the case Roe v. Wade.
So if someone’s position is that men can't be in the abortion arena, then logically, one would have to conclude that the justices who ruled on the Roe case were out of bounds.
#6 What About Rape & Incest?
I wonder if the people who interject and ask this have bothered to investigate the statistics on the subject. The fact of the matter is that in cases of rape and incest, these make up less than 1% of all abortions.
Moreover, I would ask this: would you agree that the other 99% of abortions are wrong?
- Suppose the answer is No; all other abortions are not wrong and are permissible. Why are you using traumatic coercive events to justify the normalization of all other abortions? It feels like a straw man argument. It’s nothing more than an attempt to take statistically marginal and rare cases and extrapolate them to all abortion cases.
- If the answer is Yes, all the other abortions are wrong, then why or how does the one injustice of rape or incest require the injustice of killing a baby in the womb? It does not logically or even emotionally follow that the trauma of another event can resolve the trauma of one event. [Furthermore, rapists should be castrated and given prison for life].
#7 You Only Care About the Baby Being Born & Not What Happens After
This claim comes from a presupposition that anti-abortion people generally just want women to give birth and refuse to do anything else. “You only care about unborn babies and not actual children” is a comment widely promulgated by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates.
To which I would say, how did you come to that conclusion? Is there a verifiable study that reveals pro-life people do absolutely nothing to help babies after birth?
One quick example. For those who may not know, Christians adopted abandoned babies left out to die in the ancient Roman world. Does that sound like people who don’t care about babies after they are born?
#8 If the Child is Born, then the Baby Will Be Born into Fostercare or in Bad Situations
There is a constant cry about the failures of the foster care systems. “There are too many children in foster care!” Okay, that doesn’t explain why abortion is a necessary action or even morally good.
This is an insidious form of the “quality of life” argument. The idea is that “well, these kids will be born, and they will have to live in the foster care system, and their life will be miserable, or the kids will be born into poverty and suffer; therefore, it's okay for the mother to have an abortion to prevent all that.”
But how is that not a non-sequitur assertion? It does not logically follow that abortion is the only way to deal with the potential disadvantageous outcome.
Furthermore, the line drawn seems quite arbitrary. Why stop at the problems of just poverty or foster care? Many other things in life cause burden, pain, and suffering.
How is saying abortion is a solution to prevent suffering or poor quality of life nothing more than a modified version of eugenics? Rather than looking for specific genes, they look for particular preferential situations.
#9 You Don’t Care About Women
Unborn babies and women are worthy of dignity and respect because both are human beings with equal rights.
The heavily pushed notion that somehow not supporting abortion entails one does not care about women is emotional manipulation.
It does not follow that abortion and supporting women are symbiotic. To do so would press through the deep, uncharted waters of redefining the essence and experience of womanhood.
Surely no honest, reasonable, and rational person would want to insinuate that being pro-life is equivalent to being anti-woman. Hating women because one does not want mothers killing their babies? How ridiculous.
#10 Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Only Get Rid of Safe Abortion
Abortion, by its very definition, is not safe. Someone always dies [i.e., the baby].
There is a popularly imagined myth that tens of thousands of women were dying in back alleys because of abortions before Roe v. Wade. Bernard Nathanson and Larry Ladder, the founders of N.A.R.L. Pro-Choice America, used this myth to bolster their case to legalize abortion.
How on earth can abortion be safe if death is always involved? Death is anything but safe.
Resources for Further Investigation:
- Live-Action: https://www.liveaction.org/
- Students for Life: https://studentsforlife.org/
- Secular Pro-Life: https://secularprolife.org/
- Institute for Pro-Life Advancement: https://www.instituteforprolifeadvancement.org/
- Standing with You: https://www.standingwithyou.org/
- Feminists for Life: https://www.feministsforlife.org/
- Americans United for Life: https://aul.org/
