I believe abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. I believe abortion should be treated as a crime, and that the act of abortion itself should be illegal. I support equal protection and do not believe there should be a special legal category that permits someone to intentionally kill an unborn child simply because that child is in the womb. I believe that our goal should be to bring about the immediate end of abortion.
On those fundamental points, I agree with many who consider themselves abortion abolitionists. On the day that we finally end abortion, I will join the abolitionists in cheering from the mountain tops and praising God.
Where I primarily disagree with the abolitionist perspective is on how we end abortion. I believe that incrementalism (the use of gradual improvements over time) can be a tool that we use to achieve our final goal of ending abortion.
Abolitionists believe that incrementalism is sinful. They say we must never support unequal weights and measures, and we must never support an unjust law. Because of this, they will publicly advocate against anything short of a total ban on abortion.
Having spoken with many abolitionists, including prominent leaders in their movement, I have concluded that most are sincere and acting in good faith, desire to honor God, and follow what they view as the proper understanding of the scriptures.
I simply believe they are incorrect.
The Problems with Abolitionism
In practice, the position is unreasonable.
Even if there was a bill that was Germ-X level effective and would ban abortion in 99.99% of cases, but allowed for the legal abortion of certain babies, the abolitionist must oppose that law due to the injustice applied to the 0.01% of children who could be legally killed (I have directly asked Abolitionists who have told me they would oppose such a law).
Remember, any unjust law cannot be supported regardless of how many lives it could save. This is the abolitionist’s justification for voting against heartbeat bills or other pro-life legislation which falls short of perfection.
Abolitionists often cite scripture like Isaiah 10:1-2 which says:
Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
It is certainly true that unjust laws which protect some, but not all, babies should not be our final goal. However, sometimes we must play the cards we hold and do our best with what we have.
We should always pursue the greatest obtainable good at any given time.
For example, if I was governor and I had two bills on my desk, one which banned abortion at heartbeat, and one which banned all abortion, I would not hesitate to sign the bill which bans all abortion. However, if I was governor and only had the opportunity to sign the heartbeat bill, I would also do so without hesitation.
As I explained before, an Abolitionist would refuse to sign the heartbeat bill into law (even in a pro-abortion state like California) because it is not a total ban.
But are abolitionists correct, does scripture forbid Christians from using incremental improvements?
I do not believe it does.
In Mathew 19:8 Jesus says, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” In Genesis marriage was established between man and woman as the two become one flesh yet Moses allowed and regulated divorce. At the time, the surrounding cultures in Assyria, Babylon, and Hittite lands would allow divorce in a much more casual and unregulated way. Moses’ rules on divorce came as a significant restriction and regulation on divorce at that time but failed to meet God’s ultimate desire and design for marriage.
Another example of Biblical incrementalism is seen in the blood avenger system described in Genesis 9, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the ancient Near East blood vengeance would often become a brutal cycle of retaliation. The Mosaic law regulated the practice, but still allowed vengeance killings where the nearest male relative of the killed person could hunt down and kill their killer. Cities of refuge were established for the accused; a place they could flee to and receive a fair trial. This was done to protect people who accidentally killed someone. Not only was this an incremental regulation of the bloody retaliation system of the time, but it was also “unjust” as certain people (old, slow, or disabled) would not be able to flee fast enough to avoid being killed while others could. Later the Apostle Paul instructed us to not repay anyone evil for evil and not to take revenge but to leave room for God’s wrath. Romans 12:17-19. This is a clear example of an existing moral evil present in a culture being regulated, restricted, and eventually ended rather than an immediate 180-degree reversal.
Finally, in Esther, Haman gets a royal decree authorizing the murder of Jews. In Persian law these royal decrees were basically irrevocable. Because of this Mordecai and Esther could not undo what was done, and instead a counter decree was made allowing the Jews to defend themselves from attackers. This was an incremental improvement to the law, but it was still unjust as it remained fully legal to kill a Jew. They worked within an existing legal structure to limit the damage of an unjust law.
Much like these examples from scripture, we are operating inside of an existing political and cultural reality. Our country has spent many years allowing the murder of innocent children. Pro-life laws are not introducing murder; they are reducing murder. They are not introducing injustice; they are limiting injustice.
Pro-life laws are directionally just, though they may not be achieving total justice in the moment. It would be totally different if pro-lifers chose to go backwards and introduce laws permitting more abortions.
While I appreciate the zeal and vigor of many abolitionists and share their desire to finally end abortion once and for all, I am greatly frustrated by their efforts to kill pro-life legislation which would help save babies.
As an advocate for life, if you ever find yourself fighting along Planned Parenthood, it might be time to reevaluate.
Defending Life,
Victor Nieves
President, Life Issues Institute
Leave a Reply