The pro-life movement currently finds itself at a philosophical and strategic crossroads, navigating internal debates that could redefine its mission for decades to come. A significant “dust-up” has recently emerged regarding a growing sentiment within the movement known as the “pro-abundant life” (PAL) model. While the proponents of this shift are characterized as well-intentioned, committed Christians who are certainly not the enemies of the cause, their ideological framework presents a potential crisis for the movement’s efficacy and focus. The core of the concern lies in the demand that the pro-life movement move beyond the specific goal of ending abortion to take on a vast, holistic array of social and spiritual responsibilities.
Defining the Pro-Abundant Life Shift
According to its own literature, the pro-abundant life movement seeks to rhetorically and programmatically link the saving of unborn lives with the building of strong families, healthy marriages, improved parenting, and thriving faith lives. The proponents of this view argue that the traditional goal of the pro-life movement—saving babies and ending abortion—is “not sufficient”. They contend that unless the movement adopts a broader mission encompassing fatherhood initiatives and marriage counseling, it lacks legitimacy.
This represents a radical departure from the historical focus of the movement. PAL advocates question whether the goal of the movement should even be to overturn Roe v. Wade or defund Planned Parenthood. Instead, they submit that while saving lives is necessary, it should not be the primary goal of the movement as a whole. This shift is not merely a suggestion for how individual pregnancy centers might expand their care, but a demand for how the pro-life movement in its entirety must change its programmatic focus.
The Danger of a “Backbreaking” Job Description
The most immediate concern regarding the pro-abundant life mandate is the sheer logistical and financial impossibility of its requirements. When a movement is told it must “programmatically” take on new tasks, it means that organizations must devote limited resources—money, staff, and time—to these additional causes. In the real world of non-profit advocacy, most pro-life organizations operate on thin budgets and tight perimeters. They are not overflowing with the capital necessary to address the host of issues PAL demands.
For an organization focused on pro-life apologetics, a shift toward PAL would mean diverting efforts away from defending the unborn in the public square to engage in marriage counseling or discipleship. Such a job description is described as “backbreaking,” requiring a level of output that “not even Superman can pull off”. This brings to mind the military adage: “He who fights everywhere fights nowhere”. By trying to solve every societal ill associated with the family unit, the movement risks losing its ability to fight the specific injustice of abortion.
Furthermore, this programmatic expansion ignores the economic reality of donor intent. Donors who give money specifically to save children from abortion would likely be justified in redirecting their support if they discovered their funds were being used for general marriage counseling or parenting classes. They would rightly expect that those tasks be handled by entities better suited for them, primarily the local church.
The Role of the Church versus the Movement
A fundamental critique of the pro-abundant life model is that it conflates the mission of a specific social movement with the Great Commission of the church. Jesus commanded the church to go and make disciples; He did not give that specific mandate to pro-life non-profits or pregnancy centers. While it is commendable for a pregnancy center to partner with a church to ensure a woman is plugged into a fellowship where she can grow as a Christian, it is an entirely different matter to suggest the pro-life movement must take on these ecclesiastical responsibilities to be “legitimately” pro-life.
The church already possesses the mandate, the theological training, and often the larger budgets required for marriage counseling, parenting classes, and spiritual discipleship. To demand that pro-life organizations—which are already struggling to save children from a culture “hellbent on killing those kids”—take on the church’s role is to invite burnout and bankruptcy. The movement does not need “additional causes”; it needs “additional support” for the primary mission of protecting the innocent.
Rebutting the Historical Analogy of Abolition
Pro-abundant life advocates frequently attempt to justify their position by drawing parallels to the abolition of slavery. Some claim that the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists were “largely a failure” because they did not simultaneously take on the broader task of ensuring total social and legal equality for Black Americans at the moment of emancipation.
However, this argument is criticized for projecting modern cultural expectations back onto the mid-19th century. At the time of the Civil War, the immediate and urgent goal was the preservation of the Union and the end of the institution of slavery. Lincoln understood that there were incremental steps to be taken; he realized that one had to save the Union first to have any hope of freeing the slaves.
Similarly, in a modern culture that does not value children as intrinsically valuable image-bearers, the most immediate danger is the physical destruction of the child in the womb. While Christians should certainly have a broader agenda—supporting efforts to end poverty, hunger, and sex trafficking—the specific mission of the pro-life movement must remain focused on the “immediate danger”. One can support multiple good causes as an individual Christian without demanding that every pro-life organization programmatically adopt all of them.
The Ad Hominem Trap and Internalized Critics
Perhaps the most subtle danger of the pro-abundant life movement is its accidental adoption of the premises used by the political left. For years, pro-abortion activists have used a distraction tactic: attacking pro-lifers for not doing enough about poverty, immigration, or capital punishment. This is a classic ad hominem fallacy, attacking the person or their perceived lack of “consistency” rather than addressing the moral status of the unborn.
The left uses these issues as a distraction because they have no logical argument to justify the “tearing a baby apart in the womb”. When well-intentioned people on the right begin to say it is “not enough” to save the baby, they are subtly absorbing these fallacious premises. They are essentially agreeing with the critics that the pro-life position is illegitimate unless it solves every other social problem simultaneously. This validates a “probirth” slur that is intentionally designed to silence pro-life advocacy.
Real-World Application: The “Less is More” Strategy
When PAL proponents are asked what their vision looks like in the real world for a typical pro-life speaker or advocate, the response is often described as “crickets”. In a practical sense, it is absurd to expect an advocate to spend one day on abortion, the next on fatherhood, another on marriage counseling, and the remainder on discipleship. This lack of focus dilutes the message and makes the advocate less effective at any single task.
Conversely, the “less is more” philosophy has shown significant results in the field. For example, a pregnancy center in San Antonio, Texas, led by David McCall, reports saving nearly 300 babies in a single year. When asked for the “secret” to such high success, the answer was a singular, unwavering focus on saving the child as the sole objective. While they provide boutiques and support for mothers, their programmatic resources are not spread thin across a dozen different social initiatives. They focus on their mission and leave the church to do its job.
Conclusion: Maintaining the Syllogism
The pro-life movement’s strength lies in its moral and logical clarity. The foundational argument is a simple syllogism: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings; abortion does this; therefore, abortion is wrong. The mission is to teach people how to defend this view and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Those who advocate for the pro-abundant life model are not the enemy, but their ideas represent a “backbreaking” departure from reality that threatens to bankrupt and exhaust the movement. A pro-life organization that remains committed to saving children in the womb against a hostile culture has nothing to apologize for. By keeping the main thing the main thing, the movement ensures it remains in the “hot seat” for the right reasons, rather than being distracted by a job description that no one can realistically fulfill.
Analogy to solidify understanding: The pro-abundant life movement is like a lifeguard being told that it is “not enough” to pull a drowning child out of the ocean. Instead, the lifeguard is told they must also programmatically ensure the child has a college fund, a stable home life, and a healthy diet before their rescue can be considered “legitimate.” While all those things are vital for the child’s flourishing, if the lifeguard tries to coordinate them all while the child is underwater, the child will drown. The lifeguard’s unique, urgent mission is to save the life; the rest of society—and the family—must step in once the child is back on solid ground.