Divide or Discuss?
Article adapted from episode content.
Typically, I focus on equipping you to engage the pro-life argument persuasively with those who disagree with our mission. However, today, I want to take a slightly different turn. There’s a troubling trend I’ve observed growing within the pro-life movement itself, a tendency to foster internal divisions rather than productive, unified discussions. So, today’s central question isn’t about “how to win fights” against the abortion industry, but rather, when is it appropriate to draw a hard line and divide, and when is it imperative to seek unity and discussion, even amidst significant disagreements?
The inspiration for this crucial discussion came from an unexpected place this past weekend: the memorial service of Dr. John MacArthur, the great preaching pastor at Grace Community Church. The service itself was excellent from top to bottom—spectacular hymn singing, a 120-voice choir, and moving tributes from figures like Johnny Ericson Tada. But my biggest takeaway wasn’t the worship, as outstanding as it was. It was the presence and the tributes from a couple of speakers who I knew had theological disagreements with John MacArthur on certain points: Alistair Begg, the recently retired great preacher from Cleveland, and John Piper, who runs Desiring God Ministries. These men, despite their known debates with MacArthur on various issues, remained committed friends and colleagues.
Unity in Core Mission: A Lesson from Leadership
The profound lesson from Dr. John MacArthur’s memorial service was the enduring friendship and shared commitment to a primary goal despite differing on what I’d call “secondary issues”. Alistair Begg and John Piper, both prominent figures, had engaged in debates with MacArthur on specific theological points. Yet, they were “absolutely united in their effort to see Christ glorified, to see the gospel preached and see people come to a saving faith in Christ”. Their ability to offer tribute and remain united in purpose, even with genuine disagreements, served as a truly refreshing and powerful example.
This observation prompts a critical reflection for us as prolifers: “Too often, I think there’s this tendency to force a strident division point when there doesn’t have to be one”. It makes me think of a book I have titled “How to Win Fights,” and it’s interesting because the very first strategy it advances is incredibly simple, yet profound: “Avoid the fight. Don’t have it. Avoid it. That’s a win”. I genuinely believe that many internal conflicts we’re having within the pro-life movement are entirely unnecessary. Instead, what tends to happen is that we prolifers sometimes fall into “little tribes”. Within these tribes, we become convinced that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is not merely mistaken; they’re “downright evil”. We start to believe they “want children to die” and are even “finding a way to profit by being involved in pro-life activism”. This tendency to attribute “the worst possible motives” to those with whom one disagrees is, in my view, “just a bad way to poison the well” and it’s a practice we absolutely need to overcome. We need to do better in how we engage with our fellow advocates, focusing on our shared objective rather than creating divisions where none need exist.
Divide: Resisting Mission Drift and Protecting the Prolife Mission
While unity and avoiding unnecessary internal fights are undeniably crucial for the strength of our movement, there are indeed times when clear lines must be drawn. As prolifers, I believe we “absolutely must draw a line in the sand” against those who advocate for what I call “mission drift”. This refers specifically to the argument, often coming from what I’ve observed as the “political evangelical and Catholic left,” that one cannot be “legitimately pro-life” unless they embrace a “whole life” ethic.
The “whole life” argument typically suggests that merely opposing the intentional killing of unborn human beings is insufficient. Instead, one must also support a wide array of other “life issues,” such as refugee and immigrant rights (regardless of legal status), open borders, higher taxes for the poor, and opposition to war or capital punishment. The core premise, often hidden, undefended, and, frankly, ridiculous, is that “to oppose the intentional killing of an innocent human being, you have to fix everything wrong with society”. That’s just an “unfair, ridiculous claim to make,” and I’m saddened that too many prolifers are buying into it.
Let’s consider this from a purely pragmatic viewpoint. This mission creep is profoundly detrimental to our cause. Most pro-life organizations, as I’m sure many of you know, operate on “shoestring budgets” with “very limited resources”. I don’t know many pro-life organizations “rolling in the dough,” do you? To demand that these organizations divert their meager resources to a multitude of other causes is not just “ridiculous”; it’s entirely unsustainable. I’ve used this analogy before, but imagine someone telling the American Cancer Society that they are not a “legitimate medical organization” because they only fight cancer and not other diseases like heart disease, diabetes, lupus, or Crohn’s disease. Such an argument would be absurd, yet we prolifers face a strikingly similar demand constantly.
This pressure for mission drift extends even to pregnancy center ministries, where groups suggest that “being pro-life isn’t enough,” and one must be “pro-abundant life”. This translates into an expectation to take on tasks like discipling believers, building strong families, fatherhood initiatives, and religious liberty causes. Such an expansive and vague mandate creates a “backbreaking job description that will not only bankrupt their ministries, but burn out people in the field at a rate that none of us can afford to see happen”. Therefore, I firmly conclude that a “very hard line in the sand” must be drawn against those who promote such mission drift. I deem it “unjust to the core” and strongly advise against listening to them. We “must divide from them” on this point because it fundamentally undermines our core mission.
Prolife: Cultivating Unity Amidst Tactical and Denominational Differences
In stark contrast to the absolute necessity of dividing over mission drift, many disagreements within the pro-life movement are, in my view, secondary issues. These should not lead to division. Instead, they should be arenas for discussion, respectful debate, and what I call “co-belligerence”.
One common example is the debate over tactics for abortion opposition, specifically the use of graphic images of abortion. For my part, I believe that using such pictures can be “the most loving and persuasive thing we can do”. However, I am entirely willing to work with those who disagree on this strategic approach. I maintain my conviction that they are wrong on this point—that the pictures are effective and necessary—but I also emphasize, “We don’t need to have a division fight over this. We don’t need to divide and say, ‘Well, you’re not legitimately pro-life because you disagree with me on the pictures'”. Our shared goal outweighs this tactical difference.
Another significant source of internal division often revolves around denominational differences, particularly between Protestants and Catholics. Let’s be upfront: we don’t agree on everything. There are genuine theological disparities on core doctrines like justification and authority, making “co-confession” impossible. I get that. But it absolutely does not follow that I shouldn’t work with Catholics to stop abortion. In fact, my stance is clear: “I’m willing to work with anyone to stop abortion if I don’t have to give up my own core convictions to do it”. And in my experience, no Catholic has ever asked me to affirm their unique doctrines, such as the sacred place of honor of the Virgin Mary or the nature of the Eucharist, in order to cooperate.
Both Protestants and Catholics agree on fundamental principles that underpin the pro-life stance. We concur on a “biblically grounded view of human value,” the Imago Dei, and the intrinsic value of human beings, rejecting a performance-based view of human worth. We both agree that our value doesn’t come from immediately exercisable functions like cognitive development or the ability to interact with our environments. This shared understanding forms a strong basis for working together on legislation that protects the unborn and in outreach to those at risk for abortion. Yet, some individuals mistakenly attempt to inject theological divisions where they are not necessary for our shared mission.
I’ve even encountered situations where I or others were banned from speaking at pro-life events due to disagreements on entirely unrelated theological issues, such as contraception or the age of the earth. While event organizers are certainly free to choose their speakers, I think it’s “suspect” when they book an expert, convinced he or she is the best person for a particular subject, but then demand a “statement of faith” on an issue “largely unrelated to the subject the speaker is going to address”. Such actions unnecessarily divide people into “tribes” and prevent us from learning from specialists. As a self-identified “Protestant evangelical” and “five-pointer when it comes to Calvinism” – I absolutely believe in Reformed theology – I can tell you that I have “benefited greatly” from Catholic moral theologians like Francis J. Beckwith, Peter Kreeft, Hadley Arkes, Robert George, and Pat Lee. Their “outstanding pro-life arguments” are incredibly helpful for teaching apologetics, and I can use them without compromising my Protestant distinctives. I think it’s a “very small-minded” person who refuses to learn from anyone who doesn’t agree “right down the line on every issue”. This kind of thinking hinders our collective growth and effectiveness.
Abortion: Navigating the Abolitionist Divide with Prudence
A more recent and, frankly, more disturbing internal division, in my view, arises with a small group of people who oppose abortion called abolitionists. Even here, while I disagree with many of their concepts, I believe we ought to be open-minded and listen to what each other has to say. My concern with abolitionism isn’t just that they have different ideas; it’s how they approach the debate.
For those unfamiliar, abolitionists advocate for a “complete ban on abortion and a ban now that also punishes women for murder,” viewing any incremental steps to limit abortion as, “in principle compromised”. While I disagree with their assertion that incrementalism is compromise, I do want to have a “good faith debate about prudence and political strategy” without demonizing one another. The problem is that the vast majority of abolitionists I have dealt with are not willing to have this kind of nuanced debate. Rather, they immediately leap to accusations: “the only reason you won’t support our bill is a. you’re compromised and b. you want abortion to continue so you can continue to make money on it”. I’ve actually had abolitionists tell me that I’m “profiting off of abortion by going out and speaking on it”. Let me tell you something: if I wanted to make a lot of money in public speaking, I wouldn’t choose a topic like abortion, where most of the time I don’t get paid anything to speak, and when I do, it’s certainly not on the level of a corporate speaker. I chose this field because “I am in principle dedicated to saving children”.
The core disagreement with abolitionists lies in “prudence”. While I agree in principle that “all unborn humans should be protected in law,” the wisdom of leading with bills that seek to prosecute women for murder is highly questionable in today’s cultural climate. My question is, “in a culture that already thinks prolifers hate women and want them to die… is it wise to lead with bills that say we want women prosecuted for murder who have abortions?”. Such bills, I argue, have “no chance of passing” in today’s culture and only serve to alienate politicians and the public. This hinders the actual goal of saving lives. A bill that simply bans abortion, on the other hand, could actually save lives.
To illustrate the critical importance of prudence, I often invoke the historical example of William Wilberforce. Wilberforce, the renowned abolitionist, strategically “pulled back his abolitionist bills in the early 1800s” when the political climate was unfavorable. He understood that pushing them at the wrong time would only create “unneeded obstacles” to their future passage. This was not a compromise of his ultimate goal of ending slavery, but an act of wisdom and prudence. Similarly, I argue, being “careful about timing” and how bills are introduced “does not make you compromised. That makes you wise. That makes you prudent”.
I recently had a personal experience with this. I have a friend, Jason Storms, who is an abolitionist and has even been a guest on my show. A few months ago, here in Georgia, abolitionists were trying to put forward a bill that basically allowed women to be punished for homicide for abortion. While consistent in principle, I publicly opposed this bill due to my prudence concerns. Jason and his friends asked me to testify in support of it, but I declined. We disagreed, and they were likely disappointed, but here’s the deal: “We left not by yelling at each other, but by praying for one another and with embraces of friendship and talk about looking forward to the next time we can meet”. That, my friends, is the way we need to proceed as prolifers.
Conclusion: Unity Through Discussion for the Prolife Cause
The overarching message for the pro-life movement is clear: the culture intensely hates us. “Every major institution in the nation is against us”—academia, the media, popular culture, music, entertainment. In such a hostile environment, “We cannot afford to fight with each other”.
The key to our survival and success is to distinguish carefully between core principles where division is necessary—like resisting mission drift—and secondary issues—like tactical approaches, denominational differences, or prudential legislative strategies—where discussion, learning, and co-belligerence are vital. We must prioritize our shared mission of protecting unborn life.
Think of our movement as a vital ecosystem. It thrives on diverse contributions—different ideas, different approaches, different strengths. If every species insists on absolute uniformity, the ecosystem collapses. Instead, we must learn to coexist, to discuss our differences respectfully, to collaborate where our goals align, and to understand that varied methods can still contribute to the same ultimate outcome. Just as a strong building needs different materials to function effectively, our pro-life movement needs the strength of diverse individuals working together. “Let’s discuss rather than divide” to effectively pursue the common, urgent goal of saving children.
Episode Transcript
This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.
Hello friends. Would you like to know how to win fights? Well, I’m going to talk about the best way to win a fight in today’s episode. Welcome to The Case for Life podcast. I’m Scott Klusendorf, your host. I want to remind you of our primary sponsor, Life Training Institute. If you would like to look at a speaker or someone to come to your event and teach pro-life Apologetics, we can provide that for you. And you can take a look at our sites to see where you can contact us in that regard.
I want to talk today about fighting. Now, this is a little different than what we usually talk about on this show, which is aimed at equipping you to engage the pro-life argument with those who disagree. But there is something troubling to me that is happening more and more. And I’m going to take a few minutes here to just kind of talk. Maybe it’ll seem off the cuff. Maybe it’ll seem a bit unrehearsed, but so what? Here goes. I watched an amazing funeral this weekend, this last weekend.
It was that of Dr. John MacArthur, who many of you know, the great preaching pastor at Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles area. And I watched his memorial service online, and it was just excellent from top to bottom. I mean, the Gettys are leading the worship. You had speakers like Johnny Ericson Tada. You had people that John had known that attested to his faithfulness in ministry. The hymn singing was just spectacular. 120 voice choir. I mean just topshelf stuff. But I’m going to tell you what my biggest takeaway was.
It wasn’t the Gettys leading worship, though that was just outstanding. When is it not outstanding when they’re doing it? But my takeaway was this. There were a couple of speakers there that I knew did not agree with John MacArthur on every point. And the two speakers I’m referencing are Alistair Beg, the recently retired great preacher from Cleveland, and John Piper, who runs Desiring God Ministries. Now, I know that both men have had their debates with John on certain issues. And I’m not going to rehearse all that here.
It’s not important. But here’s what is important. They remained friends and they remained committed to the goal each of them was following, which was to get the gospel message out to as many people as possible. And though they disagreed on some secondary issues, they were absolutely united in their effort to see Christ glorified, to see the gospel preached and see people come to a saving faith in Christ. No doubt about that. And it was refreshing to watch a memorial service where you had people giving tribute to John MacArthur who didn’t agree with him on everything.
And I think there’s a lesson there for us to learn, not only as Christians, but as pro-lifers. Too often, I think there’s this tendency to force a stridident division point when there doesn’t have to be one. And I referenced at the start of the show a strategy for winning fights. And let me tell you what I’m thinking here. I actually have a book somewhere behind me on those shelves called How to Win Fights. And it’s interesting what the very first strategy they advance is.
Here it is. Avoid the fight. Don’t have it. Avoid it. That’s a win. It’s a W when you can walk away from a fight you don’t need to have. And pro-lifers, I think there are some fights we’re having, we don’t need to be having internally. I think what tends to happen with pro-lifers is we get in our little tribes and we are convinced that anybody that doesn’t agree with us is not merely mistaken. They’re downright evil. They want children to die and they’re finding a way to profit by being involved in pro-life activism.
I think this is just a bad way to poison the well. It attributes to those you disagree with the worst possible motives. And I think we need to do better. So, I’m going to give you some examples of where I see this happening in the pro-life cause. And then I want us to think again about that funeral that just happened this weekend for John MacArthur where there were people who had disagreements with him, but they knew where they were united. They knew where they needed to focus their efforts for the larger cause.
And there’s a lesson for us to learn there as pro-lifers. All right. So, are there things that as a pro-lifer I think we need to divide over and draw very strong lines? Yes. I’ll give you one. We absolutely must draw a line in the sand between those of us who want to work to save children from abortion and those who are coming along from largely the political evangelical and Catholic left telling us that we’re not legitimately pro-life unless we become as they put it whole life take on every other life issue under the sun.
Their argument basically goes like this. To have a consistent pro-life ethic, you have to not only be against killing unborn lives, you have to be in favor of supporting refugee lives, immigrant lives, whether they’re here legally or not. You’ve got to support an open border. You’ve got to be willing to fight for higher taxes so more government money can go to help the poor. You have to be willing to be against war or capital punishment. I mean, the list goes on and on.
And I think as pro-lifers, we must absolutely with every fiber in us resist mission drift that says to be legitimately pro-life, you have to take on a whole bunch of other issues. Just from a pragmatic viewpoint, let’s just set aside for the moment everything else just pragmatically. How can we expect a pro-life movement that is largely bankrupt? I mean, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many pro-life organizations rolling in the dough. Rather, most of us are operating on shoestring budgets trying to do the best we can with very limited resources.
And to come along and tell pro-lifers, “All right, now you have to divert your resources to take on all these other causes.” I mean, that’s ridiculous. As we have said on this show before, imagine someone saying to the American Cancer Society, you’re not a legitimate medical organization because you only fight one disease, not all of them. How come you’re not taking on heart disease? H how come you’re not taking on diabetes? How come you’re not taking on lupus or Crohn’s disease?
All you do is fight cancer. You’re not really pro medicine. You’re just anti-cancer. You don’t count. Well, that’s a ridiculous argument, but pro-lifers essentially are told the same thing all the time. The basic undefended and hidden premise in the whole life argument goes like this. Because you oppose the intentional killing of an innocent human being, you have to fix everything wrong with society. Well, that’s just an unfair, ridiculous claim to make. And I’m saddened that a lot of pro-lifers are buying it.
Even in pregnancy center ministry, we’re hearing pregnancy centers be told by groups that say, you know, being pro-life isn’t enough. You have to be pro-abundant life. And by that, that means you got to take on discipling believers. You have to take on building strong families. You have to take on fatherhood initiatives. And you have to take on religious liberty causes. You just gave pregnancy center workers a backbreaking job description that will not only bankrupt their ministries, but burn out people in the field at a rate that none of us can afford to see happen.
So I am going to draw a line and say if you are dealing with people who claim to be pro-life, but they want to send us on a route that’s going to result in horrendous mission drift and burn our people out in a way that is just unjust to the core. I’m going to oppose that and I’m going to draw a very hard line in the sand and say don’t listen to those people. We must divide from them. That is different though than someone who comes along and says, you know, I’m pro-life.
I want to save babies. But I don’t think we should be using graphic pictures of abortion to do that. I think that’s not the best strategy. Okay, I deal with that all the time. And here’s the way I deal with it. I do the best I can to convince them that using the pictures will actually be the most loving and persuasive thing we can do. But at the end of the day, if they dig in and they’re not going to let me show a video of abortion at a pregnancy center banquet or some other event I’m at, I agree to work with them anyway.
And here’s why. Not because I think they’re correct. I absolutely think they’re wrong. But we don’t need to have a division fight over this. We don’t need to divide and say, “Well, you’re not legitimately pro-life because you disagree with me on the pictures.” That’s an example of this. Here’s another one. I have encountered some pro-life events that refuse to allow a Catholic speaker because Catholic and Protestants don’t agree theologically. And by the way, we don’t. Let’s be upfront about that. We have very different views of both justification and authority.
There’s not a way to bridge the two views together. So, I get that we should not have co-confession, but it doesn’t follow that I shouldn’t work with Catholics to stop abortion. In fact, I’m willing to work with anyone to stop abortion if I don’t have to give up my own core convictions to do it. And no Catholic has ever said to me,”I need you to affirm the sacred place of honor that the Virgin Mary has. And I need you to affirm that praying to her is is right and good.
And I need you to affirm that the eukarist is the correct way to approach our relationship with the living Christ.” I have never affirmed any of those things, nor will I, and I’ve never been asked to. But some Protestants I have seen refuse to work with good Catholics who want to stop the killing. Now we cannot agree theologically but we can agree to be co-elligerent. We can agree for example that we are going to do the best we can to teach a biblically grounded view of human value.
And Catholics and Protestants agree on that. We agree in the IMO day. We agree that humans have intrinsic value in virtue of what they are. We reject a performance view of human value that says hey our value comes from immediately exercisable functions we perform like brain cognitive development like feelings, sensation, ability to interact with our environments or whatever other thing people throw out as being decisive. Protestants and Catholics both agree those are faulty ways to view the human person. And Protestants and Catholics should work together for legislation that protects the unborn.
And they should work together to reach out to those at risk for abortion to save their children. There’s there should be no debate about that. But some people want to make it theological when it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. I’ve seen it go the other way, too. There have been a couple of times I have been banned from speaking after being scheduled to speak at a pro-life event because I would not sign a form about contraception or about some other Catholic doctrine because I would not affirm that I was deemed not appropriate for that conference.
Now, let me be clear. I think event organizers are absolutely free to choose whoever they want to speak at their event. I don’t have a problem with that. But I think it’s kind of suspect when you book a speaker known to have expertise in a particular field. In fact, you’re convinced he or she is the best possible person to bring in to teach on a particular subject. But then you force that person to sign a statement of faith or what amounts to a statement of faith on an issue that is largely unrelated to the subject the speaker is going to address.
That’s where it starts to get unnecessarily divisive and it doesn’t need to be. All you do there is divide people into tribes. Instead, if you really are concerned about it, don’t invite the speaker who might disagree with you on a secondary issue in the first place. Now, I think it’s a tragedy in Christian circles that we think we have to have absolute agreement on everything before someone can come in as a specialist and address the field they actually have expertise in.
I don’t talk about contraception in my pro-life talks. I don’t talk about the age of the earth. That’s another one that I got attacked on once. I was scheduled at a conference and they bumped me out of it because I would not sign a statement saying it is absolutely heretical to teach that the earth is anything but 7,000 years old. Well, I don’t talk about the age of the earth when I teach pro-life apologetics. I do assume intelligent design in my arguments, absolutely.
But I don’t have to get into a debate about how old is the earth in order to effectively teach pro-life apologetics. But some people want to make that secondary issue the issue. And it ends up dividing us in ways that it doesn’t need to. And not only that, we don’t learn from people that we might learn from. Okay? I make no no bones about it. I am a Protestant evangelical. If you want to know the truth, I’m a five-pointer when it comes to Calvinism.
Okay? I absolutely believe in reformed theology. I am a Protestant to the core of my being. I have a Protestant and what I believe to be a biblical view of justification. I believe all spiritual authority is finally grounded in the Bible itself and that is sufficient for us. Okay. So, there’s no doubt my distinction is Protestant. But have I learned from some Catholic moral theologians who have put forth just outstanding pro-life arguments? You better believe it. I have benefited greatly from people like Francis J.
Beckwith Catholic. Peter Craft Catholic, Hadley Arcus Catholic, Robert George Catholic, Patrick Lee Catholic. They are devout Catholics, but they have put forth pro-life arguments that are very helpful for those of us teaching apologetics. And I can use those arguments and benefit from what I’ve learned from them without being asked to compromise my Protestant distinctives. But I think it’s a very small-minded person who says, “I will not learn from anybody except those who agree with me right down the line on every issue, secondary or not.” Now, there’s another way this is playing out in pro-life circles today, and this one disturbs me greatly, and that has to do with a small group of people who oppose abortion called abolitionists.
Now, even here, even though I disagree with many of the concepts in abolitionism, I do believe that we ought to be open-minded and listen to what each other has to say. Here’s my concern with abolitionism. It’s not that they have ideas different than my own. For those of you that might be unfamiliar with the debate between abolitionist and pro-lifers, abolitionists believe that anything other than a complete ban on abortion and a ban now that also punishes women for murder is going to fall into the zone of compromise.
And they believe that any incremental steps to limit the evil of abortion are ultimately in principle compromised. I disagree with that. However, I think I should be willing to hear what they have to say about tactics for more effectively advancing legislation. Let’s have that in-house debate without demonizing one another. The problem is the vast majority of abolitionists that I have dealt with are not willing to have a good faith debate about prudence and political strategy and what’s realistically possible in today’s culture.
Rather, they immediately go from here’s our bill, why won’t you support it to the only reason you won’t support it is a you’re compromised and b you want abortion to continue so you can continue to make money on it. I’ve actually had abolitionists tell me this. The only reason you’re not an abolitionist is because you’re making money being pro-life. And you are you know getting your livelihood paid for. You’re profiting off of abortion by going out and speaking on it. Let me tell you something.
I’m a pretty good public speaker. If I wanted to make a lot of money in public speaking, I don’t choose a topic like abortion where most of the time I don’t get paid anything to speak. And even when I do, it’s not on the level that a professional speaker talking about life coaching or talking about how to have a positive value of yourself or how to make it in a career field. I could make a lot more money speaking for Fortune 500 companies, motivating their employees, making that circuit than I will talking about an issue that almost nobody wants to talk about and showing videos that make people vomit their lunch.
I mean, obviously I’ve chosen a field because I am in principle dedicated to saving children, but the thing that I hear from abolitionists is when they have a bill, and I’ve had them approach me, they’ll put forward a bill and it will say the following. We want to protect all unborn humans from conception. Okay, so far so good. But then they say, “And we want women who have abortions to be subject to the same penalties for murder that other women are who kill their children.” All right.
Now, we have a prudence issue to discuss. We agree in principle that all unborn humans should be protected in law. No debate about that. But I think there is a prudence question to ask here. And that is in a culture that already thinks pro-lifers hate women and want them to die. Is it wise to lead with bills that say we want women prosecuted for murder who have abortions? We want them thrown in jail and go to the gas chamber, electric chair, lethal injection, whatever.
And by the way, the other side will play all those things up. Is it wise in that kind of culture to advance a bill about penalties that maybe we ought to table that for another day? Maybe we let the culture catch up to the fact that, hey, we shouldn’t be killing human beings in the womb in the first place, and we let more of a pro-life ethic infuse the culture before we try to drag people kicking and screaming against us because they think the only reason we’re doing this is we hate women and want them to die in prisons and in the gas chamber.
All right? And by the way, if you think that rhetoric is extreme, just go take a look at what the left is saying about pro-life legislation today. So what is more important? Saving the children with a bill that says all abortion is banned. We don’t kill any of them. They’re all protected. And a bill that says we’re going to lead by punishing women for murder. What is the difference between those two bills? Here’s the difference. The first bill could actually save lives.
The second bill has no chance of passing in today’s culture and only alienates lack of a better word, chicken pro-lifers, proiffers with no spine who claim to be pro-life politicians, but when it comes time to vote for a pro-life bill, they’re afraid to do it because they think they’re going to face political backlash. Are people who are afraid to support the unborn going to support a bill that leads with prosecuting women for murder? I don’t think so. And the public isn’t going to buy it either.
This bill has no chance of passing. So why are we advancing these kinds of bills? And the answer from abolitionists is because the Bible says we have to have equal weight weights and measures. And if we don’t, it’s an abomination to the Lord. Well, despite pulling that verse entirely out of context, I can tell you right now that the proverbs were not written by an author that was thinking about abortion. It was not on his mind. He was thinking about much deeper things.
But the point is this. We can have a discussion about what penalties ought to be. But should we demonize people who say in the spirit of prudence and wisdom we need to be careful how we introduce our bills and what the timing looks like? You may remember those of you that have studied history that William Wilburforce actually pulled back his abolitionist bills in the early 1800s because the political climate was very unfavorable. He actually took them off the table and just kind of tabled them for a while.
Said, “Nope, we’re not going to talk about this.” Why? Because the culture at the time was convinced that abolitionists were allies of the French in the war that was going on at the time between Britain and France. And by him pushing those bills at that time, he would have only put unneeded obstacles in the way of their future passage. And so he was prudent and he used wisdom to say we need to be careful about timing. We need to be careful about how we introduce this and what the cultural moment looks like.
That is not compromise. Compromise would be you don’t want slavery to go away. So you put up incremental ways of limiting it but not banning it so you can continue to profit from it. And there were people in parliament doing that. And Wilbur Force had no patience for them. And rightfully so. But to say, you know, just politically to be prudent, we got to be careful that we don’t overplay our hand at the wrong time. That does not make you compromised.
That makes you wise. That makes you prudent. And I think there’s a point in the pro-life movement today where some of us, whether it’s contraception or abolitionism or dividing along denominational lines, we’re not thinking prudence. We’re thinking about demonizing those who disagree with us. And I think there we should be very, very careful. Why not opt for a good faith discussion that doesn’t attribute to our opponents the worst possible motives? We’re going to take a break. When we come back, I’m going to talk to you about a friend I have who happens to be an abolitionist.
I’ve had him on this show and I’m going to talk about what we have discovered in having good faith relationship. We are friends. In fact, I think very highly of this guy. We disagree, but we do not demonize one another. And I’ll talk about why I think that matters when we come back from the break.
Welcome back, friends. We’ve been talking about do we divide or do we discuss? And I mentioned before the break that I have a friend, his name is Jason Storms. I’ve had him on the show here as a guest. He would support, broadly speaking, the more abolitionist view that our legislation should go for the complete package rather than taking incremental steps. Now, I happen to disagree with him on some points and he disagrees with me. But here’s what you might find surprising.
We are actually friends. In fact, I’ve had him stay at my house. We’ve hung out together on my back deck having conversations long into the night. We’ve sat around fire pits and discuss things. And it’s been very cordial, friendly, enlightening. I have learned things from him, and I trust he’s learned things from me. And here was a classic example. A few months ago here in Georgia, abolitionists were trying to put forward a bill that basically allowed women to be punished for the crime of homicide the same way with abortion as they would any other child that dies.
Now, is that consistent? Yes. But because of the concerns I mentioned earlier, I was not in support of that bill. And Jason and his friends came and asked, would you be willing to join us at the capital and testify in support of the bill? I turned them down for the credential reasons I’ve talked about. Now, I was perfectly willing to support a bill publicly that said all embryos and fetuses should be protected from conception, but I did not believe this was the time to introduce homicide or murder penalties for women who have abortions.
Now, they disagreed with me on that and they were probably disappointed they left without me endorsing their bill. But here’s the deal. We left not by yelling at each other but by praying for one another and with embraces of friendship and talk about looking forward to the next time we could meet which I very much do. That’s the way we need to proceed as pro-lifers. Friends, the culture hates us. Every major institution in the nation is against us. Academia, the media, popular culture, music, entertainment.
We cannot afford to fight with each other. Let’s discuss rather than divide.