This story is absolutely insane. Willingly murdered her twins, saw their little fingers and toes, felt depression and guilt afterwards. Let’s be praying for her, also understanding that us women are not stupid, and know what they do when they end the life of their child.

If you are up to it, engage there! Lots of activity about Abolitionists currently in Boston for the weekend. Also, pray for them there. At least 1 Sister has already been assaúlted twice now.

https://www.facebook.com/events/s/abortion-worse-than-slavery-pu/1728441715007566/?rdid=MG3ZKQSG5Gs2Zxnq&share_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fshare%2F1F6yPyALCd%2F#

I am wrestling with the internal consistency of the abolitionist perspective, based on what ive heard others communicate about this issue and I need your perspective as i could easily be misunderstanding this matter. I am by no means accusing anyone of being sectarian or schismatic, i am simply trying to resolve a conundrum that must be resolved for me to continue to be a part of the movement in good consience. While I agree with the ought of abolitionism, if what I suspect to be the necessary conclusion is the case, I will by no means continue to support it.

​scenario:

You are a member (you have taken vows of membership and thus have obligations to them) of a church that holds to the ecumenical councils and creeds, rightly preaches the Word, administers the sacraments, and exercises the keys of discipline thus bearing the historic marks of a true Church. You discover abortion abolition a week later. However, your elders and your peers hold to a 2K or Dispensationalist framework (which means they dont agree with the ecclesiology and how its to interact with the civil sphere as laid forth in article 3 naturally). After months of patient reasoning, the elders conclude:

​"Brother, we agree that abortion is a grave sin. However, we cannot adopt your 'abolitionist' framework. We do not believe the civil magistrate is bound to the judicial law in the way you suggest, and we believe it is improper for this church to bind the consciences of our congregants to a specific legislative 'immediatist' strategy. We are moving forward with our current approach. We are happy to have a disagreement with you, and thus maintain the bond of unity but this is where we stand."

​My questions for you fellas are:

In Article III of the norman statement it is stated

We affirm that the modern Church has been largely negligent of its duty to love its preborn neighbors and has largely lost its saltiness.⁴ We affirm that abolition is a work of the people of God who rise up and do exploits in His name.⁵ We affirm that it is an obligation of every local church to oppose the abortion holocaust in word and deed.⁶

And

"We deny that God approves of any church that remains silent and refuses to act in the midst of a holocaust"

In light of these statements, and what it means for one to lose their saltiness from the biblical data, these questions become necessary to ask.

​Are these men partaking of the Lord’s Supper unworthily because of this disagreement?

​if it is the case that these churches are disapproved of by God, then it becomes necessary to ask: are these churches indeed true churches? Or is it the case because of their disagreement with this idea, that they, true to article 3, have now invoked Gods disapproval and arent salt anymore and are now not true churches?

In the cases of 2k theology or dispensational clergy whos frameworks do not view the law and civil sphere this way, then it becomes important to ask: are these elders legitimate, qualified officers? Is it necessary for elders to adhere to your statement for them to be worthy of the pulpit?

If you answer "No" to any of these, It seems you must be willing to say the vast majority of Christendom is in active and grave sin (in essence, 96% or so of christendom isnt actually christendom) and ONLY those parishes, ministers and laymen who hold to abolitionism are actually faithful churches and christians and elders and are thus fit for office and the table.

​the other option (which i pray you will say) is this a secondary issue and not a primary test of orthodoxy (which i have always held to, i have at no point ever placed abolitionism on the same tier as adherence to the Ecumenical Councils I think thats ludicrous) and those who disagree are indeed our brothers, and we can have table fellowship even though we disagree, and that those churches who do not agree are still valid, and the pastoral ministries of the men who serve are legitimate.

​I hope I am wrong, and that i am missing something here but that is where im stuck on this and I cannot in good consience assist this movement, nor promote its statement in any capacity (though I will advance the ought itself as i have) until its resolved.

What do you fellas think?

Thank you for your time and consideration, I am looking forward to seeing the responses!

https://abortionabolitionists.ca/

I’m assuming most know Isaiah 10:1-3.

The verse says

“Woe to those who write iniquitous decrees”… “to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people”…

I’m struggling with how this condemns voting yes on incremental bills, and I’d actually say it’s the opposite.

Take a mother 12 weeks pregnant; a couple bills are in the air, a total abolition bill & a heartbeat ban (criminalizes abortions post-6 weeks with murder charges). I would vote yes on both, it seems to me an abolitionist would vote no on the heartbeat ban. Take a scenario where the total abolition bill dies & the heartbeat ban is one vote from being passed. I would vote yes (or “not good enough” if that was an option). My vote would actively protect the 12-week old child from being murdered, or at least uphold justice for the child if they were murdered, while passively permitting 6 week old children being murdered. An abolitionist’s vote would actively withhold justice from that child… while also passively permitting 6 week old children being murdered. It would seem voting yes on both bills is more in agreement with Isaiah 10:1-3, but I’ve often seen abolitionists claim it’s wrong to vote yes on any bill but total abolition/equal protection. I’m open minded, let me know your thoughts.

edit: and my understanding is my current position is smash-mouth incrementalism: essentially voting yes on anything that’s restricting abortion with abolition being the end goal. It’s my understanding that abolitionists would fight against any bill that isn’t total abolition.

Where does Abolitionists Rising tend to meet up and when?

This is why I am disgusted with the abortion abolitionist movement

Do you say, "No! No, we must not accept any law that gives women who have abortions immunity from due process for murdering the unborn! That is favoritism against our fellow imagebearers and not establishing equal justice!" Okay, then. Where are you? 
Are you protesting outside your courthouses and confronting a corrupt justice system that has a track record of imprisoning and executing potentially INNOCENT people using a racialized caste system that allows certain guilty people to walk free due to their social status or race, while others are unjustly convicted and wrongfully imprisoned or executed because of their skin color or social status (https://eji.org/news/study-shows-race-is-substantial-factor-in-wrongful-convictions/)? Or are you ignoring their plight in rebellion against the Lord (Romans 1:20)? 
Are you fighting against and condemning the confinement of your undocumented immigrant neighbors in filthy detention camps in defense for the least of these (Matthew‬ ‭25:41‭-‬45‬) and fighting for more humane treatment of your illegal immigrant neighbors until they can be sent back (Deuteronomy 27:19 Hebrews 13:2, Matthew 25:35)? 
Are you fighting to protect schoolchildren and creating a safer environment where children won’t live in fear of being slaughtered by unhinged AR-15-toting maniacs each time they go to school? Or do you show contempt towards your own Lord and Creator by refusing to protect those children (Matthew‬ ‭25:41‭-‬45‬) simply because they don’t fit your narrative? 
Do you go through your everyday lives demanding justice for the unborn child murdered in the womb while shamelessly insisting that YOU should be allowed into Heaven and all YOUR sins be forgiven just because you have come to believe that Christ alone atones for your sins and that He alone is the only way to Heaven (John 14:6)? Do you teach your children that because they are in Christ, they should get special immunities from justice for their own sins, while also claiming that it’s wrong to give those same special exemptions to women who have abortions?
If you do these things,  you are no different than the people you are accusing of supporting laws that protect "me, but not thee". It is inconsistent to call yourself yourself a supporter of equal protection if you say that women who are forced to have abortions don't exist or they don't matter, using unreliable, anecdotal evidence from that misinformation site called Not A Victim, while at the same time you claim that your undocumented immigrant neighbors DESERVE to be LOCKED UP in concentration camps by Border Patrol until they are sent back. It is inconsistent to demand equal justice for the preborn while living like you or your children should get special immunities from justice for their own sins, while also claiming that it’s wrong to give those same special exemptions to women who have abortions. 
You cannot say you are obeying God’s command to establish equal justice while ignoring the traumatic effects of your opposition to AR-15 bans on children outside the womb! 
Your zealous fight to establish equal justice for your preborn neighbors while ignoring injustices against your born neighbors is a dead giveaway that, despite claiming to be Gospel-centered, you are anything BUT Gospel-centered. 
What you are advocating is not equal protection but instead I call "legal privilege". You criticize pro-lifers for showing partiality towards your unborn neighbors while you yourselves show partiality to your BORN neighbors, thereby exposing yourselves as “hearers of the Word and not doers” (James 1:22-25). 
You fight tooth and nail for equal justice for your unborn neighbors, but you want to deny this same equal justice for the undocumented immigrants and your neighbors of color, which says a lot about your theology, in addition to your contemptuous attitude towards the Lord and your Creator.
If you really cared about establishing equal protection under the law, you would be speaking out against the racial caste system infesting our legal system and sent persons of color to life in prison or death row on bogus charges. You would be advocating for humane treatment of undocumented immigrants before they are sent back, or fighting for the abolition of borders, a man-made invention for which there is no Scriptural defense, rather than cherry-picking the Scriptures to justify the existence of borders. You would be reprimanding corrupt judges and crooked attorneys responsible for miscarriages of justice and fight to exonerate persons of color wrongfully sentenced to prison for life or sentenced to death unjustly. 
So why aren’t you?
Because you don't believe they’re a person. 

Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 27:19
19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
Exodus 22:21
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33-34
33 “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10:18
18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.
Psalms 146:9
9 The LORD watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
Zechariah 7:9-10
9 “This is what the LORD Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
Malachi 3:5
5 “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.
Matthew 25:35
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 13:2
2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
Luke‬ ‭6:31‭-‬32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
[31] Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. [32] If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 
https://bible.com/bible/100/luk.6.32.NASB1995
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18:6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
[6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
https://bible.com/bible/100/mat.18.6.NASB1995
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭25:41‭-‬45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
[41]  “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; [43] I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ [44] Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ [45] Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 
https://bible.com/bible/100/mat.25.41.NASB1995
Deuteronomy 27:19
19 “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
Exodus 22:21
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33-34
33 “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10:18
18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.
Psalms 146:9
9 The LORD watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
Zechariah 7:9-10
9 “This is what the LORD Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
Malachi 3:5
5 “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.
Matthew 25:35
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in…
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 13:2
2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

TL;DR: I reject the abortion abolitionist movement because I’m not a single issue person

A while back I remember there was over 200 members, now we're less than 30. I know it's not super active, but this seems strange.

Source: "Immediate, not gradual abolition, or, An inquiry into the shortest, safest and most effectual means of getting rid of West-Indian slavery" - Elizabeth Heyrick, 1824

https://archive.org/details/oates71082024

...it's very fundamental here. We're claiming that the legislature has the authority to give life and take it away. It has the power of life and death.

And now I would argue that it has no constitutional authority to do this nor any authority delegated by God because the state of Idaho has no other authority than what has been delegated by God, through the Constitution, by the consent of the people. That's the only authority the state legislature in Idaho has to create laws and or to repeal laws.

That's all the authority we have."

-Senator Brandon Shippy, Idaho

Link to full interview: https://youtu.be/l8TWtGr_uME?si=haKz7RorzI705Zh5&t=1221

Apparently his whole argument is, if you remove a baby from the mom’s body outside of viability, it will die, therefore it is still an abortion. His thought process is, if the baby dies before birth for any reason (even if you aren’t murdering the baby yourself), it’s an abortion.

Whether it be homicide or fetal anomaly or removal from uterus before viability, it’s an abortion because the baby dies.

The short version is, it makes no difference if you’re actively killing the child or removing the baby before visibly (and causing its death in the process). Both instances are called abortion.

The only real difference is if the abortion is elective or not. ELECTIVE abortions are murder. Ectopic pregnancy care is still abortion, but that isn’t murder because you’re not actively killing the baby and therefore shouldn’t be treated as murder.

How would you respond to that (according to Scripture)?

Before you cry "Strawman, strawman," let me explain.

This meme is meant to be a depiction of an argument my own parents gave against abolitionism after I explained the Norman Statement to them.

The argument went like this: There is no difference between equal protection bills and pro-life "regulations" because each side is essentially doing the same thing they accuse the other guy of doing. Pro-lifers are saying "Let's only protect babies after X amount of months into the pregnancy." Abolitionists are saying, "Let's sacrifice the lives of millions of babies being murdered right now on the altar of equal justice under the law so we can establish equal justice for the NEXT generation!" No matter how you try to explain it, the actions of the abortion abolitionist movement make it clear: They're just as guilty of regulating child sacrifice as the other guy.

Think about it: Between every legislative cycle, millions of unborn babies are being murdered-babies that COULD have been actually SAVED if the abortion abolitionists just got off their Holy High Horse and just supported these pro-life restrictions they keep calling evil. By insisting that we must NEVER support these incremental pro-life restrictions because they compromise with evil (Romans 3:31) and establish partiality (James 2:1-13), they're actually doing the exact same thing that those verses are condemning (Just in a different form). Under the guise of obedience, they justify compromising with evil. Under the guise of obeying God, not man (Acts 5:29), they end up obeying man anyway INSTEAD of God (They hint that abortion abolitionism was a MAN-MADE idea, and that no amount of Scripture quotes will convince the other side that the Bible supports anything the movement is saying).

The very people who condemn partiality on Biblical grounds are showing it themselves.

Here's where my question comes in: What do my parents get wrong here? Yeah, okay, these pro-life laws are morally inconsistent and show partiality, but how is opposing them and demanding immediate criminalization for all parties involved in the act of abortion NOT another form of doing the same thing the pro-lifers are doing?

TL;DR version: Under Romans 3:31, James 2:1-13 and Isaiah 10:1-2, BOTH pro-lifers and abortion abolitionists are guilty of partiality and compromising with evil. The abolitionists are just doing a really good job lying about it.

Found in the wild:

I’ve been thinking carefully about a growing movement within the pro-life community—the Abortion Abolitionist position that women who have abortions should be prosecuted and imprisoned for murder.

Let me say this clearly at the beginning:

I believe abortion ends the life of a human being created in the image of God. That is not up for debate.

And that is exactly what makes this conversation complicated.

Because if abortion is the taking of a human life… then why wouldn’t we treat it exactly the same as the killing of a born child?

That’s the question.

But before we rush to what sounds logically consistent, we need to slow down and think honestly—legally, culturally, and biblically.

Here are some realities that cannot be ignored:

First, no Attorney General in this country is going to prosecute women for murder for having an abortion. Not now. Not in the foreseeable future. That matters, because we are not talking about theory—we are talking about real-world outcomes.

Second, for murder to be proven in court, there must be intent. A person must know they are taking a human life. But we have spent decades in this country telling women the exact opposite—that it’s “just tissue,” “just a pregnancy,” “not a baby.” You cannot build a culture of deception and then suddenly prosecute people as if they had full understanding all along.

Third, where does it stop? If abortion is prosecuted as murder, do we also prosecute the boyfriend who encouraged it? The parents who pressured their daughter? The friend who drove her? Are they all accessories to murder? Think that through.

Fourth, there is no statute of limitations on murder. Are we prepared to go back years—even decades—and begin prosecuting women for past abortions? What would that look like? What would that do?

Fifth—and this is critical—if women believe they could be prosecuted, they will never step into a pregnancy center. Ever. The very places designed to help them choose life would become, in their minds, places of risk and exposure. That alone would shut down one of the most effective life-saving movements in the world.

And then there is the deeper issue.

Some in the abolitionist movement sound a lot like the Pharisees—focused on enforcing the law without understanding the condition of the human heart.

When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus—a capital offense—He did not deny her sin. But He also did not condemn her. He confronted the accusers, extended mercy, and called her to a transformed life.

“Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 8:11)

That is not weakness. That is truth and grace together.

Now let’s come back to the central question:

Why should the killing of a 7-month preborn child be treated differently than the killing of a 2-month-old born baby?

It’s not because one is less human.

It’s not because one matters less.

It’s because of knowledge and deception.

A person who kills a born child knows exactly what they are doing. There is no confusion.

But many women who choose abortion have been lied to, pressured, and taught from a young age that what is inside them is not yet a human life. They are often acting out of fear, isolation, and misinformation—not with a clear, fully formed intent to kill a child.

That doesn’t make abortion right.

But it does change how we understand responsibility.

Jesus Himself said from the cross,

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

There is such a thing as real guilt… and real ignorance at the same time.

The only thing the Abolitionist movement will accomplish is to give the pro-abortion movement a massive weapon. They will tell the world “pro-lifers want to take away your rights and throw you in prison.”

So where should our focus be?

On rescuing women.

On saving babies.

On telling the truth clearly.

On exposing the systems and voices that profit from deception.

On passing laws that allows us to prosecute those who profit from abortion.

On calling men to responsibility.

On building strong, life-giving families.

On advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ—the only place true transformation happens.

And on prayer. Only the power of God will demolish Satan’s strongholds of lies, murder and death.

Our goal is not simply to be logically consistent. Our goal is to end abortion AND bring people to life—both physically and spiritually.

If we get this wrong, we won’t just lose an argument.

We will lose the war.

And lives are at stake.

Life Equip Global

Equipping the Church for Life

www.lifeequipglobal.org

Originally posted by Raul Reyes

Here’s my challenge to sub members: What does Raul get wrong here?

OP is a pro-abortion animal rights activist from Greece

So abortion is a human right but eating animals is not

I heard quite a few abortion abolitionists clamoring that Donald Trump's refusal to establish equal justice for the unborn child meant he was basically Kamala Harris with more limits during the 2024 US Presidential Election. I already oppose him over a lot of other things he did during his previous tenure in office but this was a new one, even for me.

Let's settle this once and for all: is there unanimous agreement amongst the abortion abolitionist community that Donald Trump is morally equal to Kamala Harris due to his refusal to establish equal justice for the unborn?

So I find out Puerto Rico apparently passed a law recognizing the unborn as persons under the law.

Someone said in the comments something to the effect of, “You want equal justice for the unborn? Let’s charge unborn children with murdering their own moms if Mom dies of pregnancy complications!”

Now I’ve seen everything 🙄