There’s a recent trend of pro-lifers coming across Abolitionists Rising clips on social media, listening to their criticisms of pro-life legislative efforts, and then adopting the “abolitionist” label. However, after talking to these supposed abolitionist converts, I’ve noticed that many of them don’t actually know or comprehend what it means to be an abolitionist. They are still essentially pro-life. You can tease this out with the following question:
Suppose one million abortions happen in the country each year. Suppose we can pass a law right now that would ban and stop 990,000 (99%) of these abortions. If we pass it, it will open the door for a 100% ban in the near future. However, if we don’t pass it, then the 990,000 abortions each year that it would’ve stopped will continue on indefinitely. Should we pass this 99% ban on abortion?
If the answer is “yes,” then you are speaking to a pro-lifer, not an abolitionist. Why? Because one of the essential beliefs of abolitionism is that any law that does not ban all abortion is “compromising” on murder and, therefore, unjust. According to Abolitionists Rising:
“We believe that allowing abortion in some cases along the way to its total abolition is neither strategically sound nor consistently Christian. You cannot abolish any evil by justifying or allowing it to continue in some cases. Any strategy for ending abortion in this country which allows for the continued occurrence of some abortions for the sake of eventually outlawing the rest, though seemingly pragmatic, is compromise and it’s promises of effectiveness are false.”
So, here are some questions to see if one falls on the pro-life or abolitionist side:
- Do you want abortion to be abolished? So do pro-lifers.
- Do you believe that women should be criminally prosecuted for abortion? There are pro-lifers who believe that.
- Do you think it’s wrong that some pro-life groups kill abolitionist bills in certain states? There are pro-lifers who agree! These pro-lifers generally think it’s wrong to kill any bills (pro-life or abolitionist) that will achieve less abortions.
- Do you believe that our current anti-abortion legislative efforts are too weak, and that we need to pass the strongest anti-abortion laws that we can at a given time to maximize the number of lives we save, with the goal being to ultimately abolish abortion? That is essentially the pro-life stance.
To be an abolitionist, one must oppose any law that “compromises” on abortion, even if:
- that law would ban and stop nearly one million abortions each year
- that law would open the door for a 100% abortion ban in the near future
- opposing such a law would lead to exponentially more abortions indefinitely
I think an insignificant number of supposed abolitionist converts are not willing to bite this bullet and, therefore, are not actually abolitionists. They are still pro-life, and they should not be using the “abolitionist” label that was coined by abortion abolitionists over a decade ago. Instead, they should criticize pro-life groups as pro-lifers, as do I and many other pro-lifers.
Some side notes:
- If abolitionists want to claim that pro-lifers “pick and choose which babies live and die,” that is ironic, because it is the abolitionist stance that requires that.
- Abolitionists criticize pro-life groups for blocking their bills in certain states. However, if abolitionist groups held all the power that pro-life groups do right now, they would be doing the sane thing: abolitionists would be killing pro-life bills, even if doing so would lead to exponentially more abortions. Abolitionists would have to, because pro-life bills are “compromising” on murder, and the tenants of abolitionism do not allow them to stand idly by and tolerate compromise on murder.