Article adapted from episode content.
The discourse surrounding the pro-life movement in 2026 is increasingly characterized by intellectual confusion and personal vitriol. To effectively navigate this landscape, one must possess a keen understanding of categorical distinctions and the fortitude to withstand character-based intimidation tactics. Pro-life advocates are currently facing pressure from both external critics and internal “purists” who demand that the movement be something other than it is: a specialized effort to protect the unborn from intentional killing. By examining recent cultural events and internal debates, we can identify a pattern of “category errors” that threaten to undermine the movement’s strategic efficacy and moral clarity.
The Problem of Categorical Distinctions
A fundamental error in modern Christian thought is the failure to distinguish between the mission of the church and the witness of public organizations. This was vividly illustrated by the reaction to the Turning Point USA (TPUSA) Super Bowl halftime show. The performance featured Kid Rock, who, after a segment of his typical provocative music, was reintroduced by his given name, Robert Richie. Richie performed an urgent song titled “Till You Can’t,” adding an original verse that explicitly mentioned a man on a cross dying for sins and urged the audience to give their lives to Jesus while they still had the opportunity.
While many were moved by this public profession, some evangelical circles criticized the show for offering a “watered-down” or “consumer Jesus” gospel. This critique represents a category mistake. As noted by Virgil Walker, Turning Point USA is not the church; it does not shepherd souls, disciple converts, or carry the weight of weekly exegetical preaching. It occupies a platform in the entertainment world—a space where Christ is generally mocked—and used it to exalt His name and encourage Scripture reading. Judging a public witness organization by the standards of a local church pulpit is a failure to recognize the proper lane of the organization.
Category Errors in Pro-Life Apologetics
This same categorical confusion frequently plagues pro-life apologetics. Many Christians argue that the pro-life movement must become a “gospel movement” to be legitimate, asserting that any defense of the unborn that does not include a full presentation of the gospel is a failure. This demand overlooks the fact that the pro-life movement is judged by a single standard: how well it saves children from intentional killing.
While adopting a pro-life worldview is a sign of proper discipleship, the movement itself is not primarily an evangelistic organization. If a pro-life group is effective at winning souls but fails to save children, it has succeeded as a mission agency but failed as a pro-life entity. Furthermore, when Christians engage the unchurched—such as a secular “Aunt Betty” from Boston—it is strategically appropriate to use arguments from science and philosophy that non-believers cannot easily dismiss. To criticize such a defense for not mentioning God or Jesus is to fail to recognize that the goal is to establish a shared moral premise with those who reject religious truth claims.
Similarly, critiques of sonogram images used in Super Bowl ads for “not conveying the fullness of the view” ignore the context of the entertainment venue. A clear sonogram image plants a vital premise in the mind of the viewer: the child in the womb is “one of us”. Expecting a Super Bowl commercial to perform the work of an exhaustive apologetics seminar is another failure of categories.
The Ethics of Cooperation and the Public Good
Another contentious issue involves ecumenical cooperation, specifically between Protestants and Catholics in the pro-life cause. Critics often accuse evangelical pro-lifers of “compromising the gospel” by speaking at events—such as the Live Action Young Adult Leaders Summit—where the audience is predominantly Catholic.
This objection fails to distinguish between an ecumenical religious service and working for the public good. Saving lives is a common good that transcends theological differences regarding justification or authority. To illustrate, no one would refuse a Catholic paramedic or doctor the right to resuscitate their own child based on theological disagreement. If one is willing to work with Catholics to save their own child, it is hypocritical to refuse to work with them to save someone else’s child.
Cooperation in the pro-life cause is akin to a “bucket brigade” during a forest fire; atheists, Muslims, and Christians all work together to save their neighborhood because putting out the fire aids human flourishing. While a Christian would not work with non-believers to conduct a discipling church service, they can and should work with all people for the protection of innocent human life.
Answering Character Assassination
As the intellectual climate grows more hostile, pro-life advocates are increasingly subjected to character assassination rather than reasoned debate. A poignant example involves Dr. Thaddius Williams, a professor at Biola University, who was attacked for choosing to speak on abortion. Critics labeled his focus “ridiculous and foul,” demanding to know why he was not instead fixated on the activities of ICE agents or Border Patrol.
These responses are intimidation tactics derived from the Marxist playbook, specifically resembling the “struggle sessions” of the Chinese revolution. Such sessions were designed to shame citizens into silence through personal attacks, focusing attention away from the “murderous regime” in power and onto the perceived moral failures of the dissenters. The demand that a pro-life advocate must be equally vocal about every social issue to be “legitimately” pro-life is a bluff.
The most effective response is a return to the pro-life syllogism: it is wrong to kill innocent human beings; abortion kills an innocent human being; therefore, abortion is wrong. An advocate’s argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on the advocate’s character or their silence on other topics. Pro-lifers must refuse to be shamed into silence by those who use “whataboutism” to avoid the moral reality of the unborn.
Internal Attacks and the “Profiteering” Myth
Perhaps the most insidious attacks come from within the pro-life world, where some “abolitionists” accuse established leaders of wanting abortion to remain legal so they can “profit” from the cause. Such claims are demonstrably false. As 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, groups like Life Training Institute (LTI) are required to make their officers’ salaries public record.
In reality, many pro-life leaders have made significant financial sacrifices. For instance, LTI’s leadership has functioned for years without a regular salary, often drawing less than $6,000 annually from the organization. Those with the skills to be effective pro-life speakers could easily find far more lucrative careers as life coaches, television ministers, or political pundits. Historically, pioneers like Joe Shidler labored into their 90s and passed away in “near poverty” after closing untold numbers of clinics. To accuse such individuals of “profiting off blood money” is a gross reversal of the truth.
Fact-Checking Legislative Misinformation
Finally, pro-life advocates must be equipped to refute misinformation regarding legislative reality. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney has recently claimed that state-level pro-life laws are “preventing women from getting life-saving care” for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies.
A rigorous examination of state statutes reveals this to be propaganda. No red-state pro-life bill contains language prohibiting life-saving medical care in emergencies; in fact, they typically make explicit exceptions for the life of the mother. If a doctor is “reluctant to save a woman’s life” due to fear of prosecution, the failure lies with the doctor’s ignorance of the law, not the statute itself. Cheney’s appeal to “hearsay” and “what might be” is not actual evidence. Organizations like the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) provide the factual medical and legal data necessary to debunk these “scare tactics”.
Conclusion: The Mandate for Intellectual Toughness
In 2026, the pro-life advocate must be both intellectually tough and categorically precise. Students and laypeople must be equipped through programs like Summit Ministries to recognize the bad ways people argue about abortion—including the five common ways people bring up things that are beside the point.
The movement must resist the pressure to become a general social-welfare organization or a substitute for the local church. By keeping the main thing the main thing, advocates can remain in charge of the conversation rather than feeling like they are in the “hot seat”. Ultimately, victory requires a refusal to be silenced by character attacks and a commitment to defending the unborn based on the objective truth of their humanity.