Praise God, Roe v Wade is dead.
At a national level, this is a sort of repentance for 60 years of genocide*, but there is a lot of work to do. There are three major areas of weakness I’ve seen in the pro-life movement that will now come into play as we move to the next phase of this war.
Note that henceforth on this blog, I’ll be referring to “abortion” as baby-murder and “abortion doctors” as baby-murderers. Euphemisms be damned.
Many pro-lifers have long used a sort of legal immunity to help hunt down baby-murderers. When mothers go and hire a baby-murderer, they lose the incentive to report the act because they’ll be self-incriminating. This is hardly unique to baby-murder, but it is a strategy used by some. I am not commenting on this strategy here.
Another fairly large subset of pro-lifers see this legal immunity as moral. That is, they see women absolved of guilt for procuring baby-murder. They read moral implications into the strategy rather than merely utilitarian goals.
This leads to a clear contradiction, here presented in the form of a syllogism:
- Murder is wrong
- Abortion is murder
- Therefore, given (1) and (2), abortion is wrong
- Mothers are not guilty when obtaining baby-murder
- Mothers are guilty if they hire a hit man to murder their children
(2) and (5) flatly contradict (4). The very same reasoning that leads to “baby-murder is wrong” also implicates women who procure it for the same reason they’d be implicated for hiring hit-men to murder their toddlers or teenagers (or anyone else for that matter).
There’s a massive blind-spot here, partly due to the feminist lie of female innocence, and partially due to that strategic use of legal immunity.
Pro-lifers need to stop seeing women as merely victims. Sure, a woman – especially a very young women coerced into it – is a victim. But there is guilt, too, and most women are not coerced and are not stupid. The blood is on their hands. We should not treat them differently than we would a woman who drowns her own children. When we do, it shows partiality, which God hates.
Adoption is a wonderful cure for the evil of losing one’s parents very young or being born in horrific circumstances. Christians have been adopted into God’s family. Christians ought to feel free to adopt and I’d argue even look for opportunities to do so, especially when they can’t have children of their own.
However, there is no obligation to adopt. Baby-murder advocates have long lied that pro-lifers only care about children before they are born, and they’ve used this lie to imply that baby-murderers care after they are born, which is another lie. Baby-murderers and their advocates hate children. They hate life and worship death. But that’s a bit beside the point. The fact is that this accusation exists and some pro-lifers have made it part of their cause.
I’ve seen many pastors and other pro-lifers on soap boxes call for Christians to step up and adopt unwanted children, lest they be seen as hypocrites. But that implies that it’s hypocritical to oppose baby-murder if you won’t then raise the not-murdered children as your own. This is absurd. It would be hypocritical to really believe baby-murder is fine but argue against it anyway, or vice versa. There’s no link between adoption and opposition to baby-murder except both are compatible with loving children rather than hating them.
Pro-lifers can’t be caught up in games like this that are intended to make them think the defeat of Roe is primarily a personal battle to show virtuous behavior. The real battle is legal.
The fight for good laws is perhaps the most dangerous ground for pro-lifers. This is because without robust laws punishing baby-murder like the horrific act it is, the decision that ended Roe v Wade will mean nothing. Ultimately, it would take a Constitutional amendment (should we remain a Constitutional republic long enough) to end baby-murder forever here, but in the meantime states can harshly punish baby-murderers and those who obtain them.
Pro-lifers, unfortunately, are often not prepared to call for harshness at all. They don’t see the legal aspect of baby-murder and instead see ministry opportunities. But that’s not how these same people treat murder more generally or even petty crimes. Pro-lifers would be comfortable with a man going to prison for murdering his wife, even if he repented. You’ll rarely find a pro-lifer who things a baby-murderer or a woman who tried to hire one should suffer even the most modest penalties. Much like the first weakness, this reveals a repulsive partiality on their parts; there a moral one and here a legal one.
Ours to Lose
These weaknesses are not insurmountable. If Roe could be defeated after the wickedness of the last half century, and if it could be defeated by justices appointed by Donald Trump of all people, I think we have reason to hope. Part of that hope will lie in purging the trash from our ranks; people like David French, Russel Moore, and others who claim to be conservative Christians and who actively opposed the man who made the destruction of Roe possible are wicked men who not only do evil but masquerade as something good. They are snakes and should be treated as such.
The momentum is on our side at this point, and this is our battle to lose. It’s time to shore up the weak points now rather than later, and take as much adjacent ground as possible.
* I have a theory that much of the madness that makes America look like Sodom on Steroids is God removing His grace as punishment for the sin of Roe. If that’s right, then maybe we’ll start to see states that abolish baby-murder turn practically paradisiacal compared to the hellscapes of California and New York.