Dropping Bombs is Not the Same as Dismembering Babies

Article adapted from episode content.

I want to immediately address a pervasive and often disingenuous objection hurled at pro-life advocates, particularly in times of global tension. With recent news regarding U.S. military action, such as the targeted strikes in Iran, critics are quick to seize the opportunity to discredit the pro-life cause. They argue, “You claim to be against all killing, yet you support this war. This makes you inconsistent.” Today, I intend to demonstrate that this objection is completely beside the point and does not make one inconsistent when arguing against abortion. In fact, it often reveals a profound failure to make crucial moral distinctions.

The Syllogism: The Bedrock of Pro-Life Argumentation

The foundation of effectively defending your pro-life view rests on three simple yet profound words: syllogism, syllogism, syllogism. Once you clearly define your pro-life argument, you gain the power to steer the conversation back to the core issue, even when critics inevitably attempt to change the subject or resort to personal attacks.

A common tactic employed by those seeking to undermine the pro-life position is the ad hominem attack. This involves attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, a critic might say, “You’re supposed to be against all acts of violence, and yet you support this military action. There goes your whole case!”. My response to such an attack is always to concede, if only for a moment, the personal accusation: “You know what? Maybe you’re right. I’m the worst person in the world. I support war, yet I’m against abortion. I’m inconsistent and not credible”. But then, the crucial question follows: “How does your objection, even if true, refute my case that abortion is wrong? How does that disprove the humanity of the unborn or somehow make abortion okay?”. The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on the character or perceived inconsistencies of the person making them.

As a Christian, I readily acknowledge my own imperfection. My standard for righteousness is divine, and I fall far short. But my personal failings do not invalidate the truth of my argument against abortion. Critics frequently deploy ad hominem attacks, claiming pro-life advocates hate women, support capital punishment, or only care about “American fetuses” while ignoring other humanitarian crises. These are nothing more than distractions designed to sidetrack you from the main point. The debate over abortion is never about you, or about them; it’s about who has the better argument, supported by the better evidence.

Distinguishing Evils: Intrinsic vs. Contingent

To properly understand why opposing abortion while supporting some military actions is not inconsistent, we must learn a critical distinction drawn by Catholic moral theologians: the difference between intrinsic evils and contingent evils. This distinction is incredibly helpful for making sense of complex moral issues like war and how they differ fundamentally from something like abortion.

• Intrinsic Evils: These are actions that are “wrong on the face of it” and are never justified under any circumstances. They are intuitively known to be wrong and are self-evidently so. Examples include rape, murder, torturing toddlers, and spousal abuse. An intrinsic evil “must always be opposed”.
• Contingent Evils: These are actions that “might be wrong,” but their moral status depends entirely on factors like circumstances and context. A decision about their rightness or wrongness requires careful consideration of these specific factors.

War and Abortion Through the Lens of Intrinsic and Contingent Evils

Applying this distinction clarifies the perceived inconsistency. The pro-life argument against abortion can be framed as a straightforward syllogism: “It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion does that. Therefore, it’s wrong”. This places abortion firmly in the category of an intrinsic evil, as it involves the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human life.

War, however, is a more nuanced matter. Not all military actions are morally equivalent.

• Unjust War (Intrinsic Evil Applied): Consider the actions of Hitler during the London Blitz, where the intentional bombing of central London was for the express purpose of killing civilians and instilling terror. Similarly, invading a peaceful, law-abiding country solely to seize resources, enslave its people, or for self-enrichment is an unjust act of war and inherently wrong. Such actions, which involve intentional murder or widespread unjust harm, align with the concept of intrinsic evil.
• Just War (Contingent Evil): A war fought in self-defense, or a targeted military action to neutralize a clear and present danger, falls into the category of a contingent evil. For example, if a country defends itself against an invasion force intent on taking resources or enslaving its people, its defensive actions are not morally equivalent to the unjust aggression. While undesired outcomes like civilian casualties might be foreseen in such a conflict, the intent is not to kill civilians but to achieve a military objective, such as neutralizing a threat. The recent U.S. military action in Iran, described as a “strategic, very targeted, very narrowly defined military action designed to take out a nuclear threat,” with no civilian targets or ground troops involved, is presented as an example of a justified, targeted military action. Its intent was to destroy nuclear facilities of a country that has openly threatened Western nations and sworn to destroy America. This is fundamentally different from invading a peaceful nation for greed or enslavement.

Critics fail to make this crucial distinction between intrinsic and contingent evils, attempting instead to “muddy the waters” and discredit the pro-life cause without actually refuting the core argument against abortion. They equate morally distinct actions to make pro-lifers appear hypocritical.

The Pro-Lifer’s Own Pitfalls: Avoiding Irrelevant Arguments

It’s not just critics who make mistakes; sometimes, pro-life advocates fall into similar traps by attacking the character of abortion advocates rather than sticking to the argument. This is a mistake we must diligently avoid.

One particularly egregious example is the argument that abortion is wrong because Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist or a eugenicist. While there is ample evidence to suggest Sanger held deeply troubling views and aimed to eliminate the black race, this fact does nothing to establish the truth or validity of your pro-life argument. Even if Sanger was “the devil incarnate,” her character flaws do not logically disprove the morality of abortion or prove its wrongness. Just as the case for capitalism stands on its economic merits regardless of the character flaws of historical capitalists, the case for or against abortion stands or falls on its own merits. You can attack the character of people all day long and get absolutely nowhere in advancing your argument.

The central principle for both sides of the debate should be: “Less is more. Keep the main thing the main thing”. And the main thing, the core question in the abortion debate, is simple: “What is the unborn?”. If the unborn are human beings, then the question becomes whether it is morally permissible to intentionally kill them for convenience.

Many common pro-choice arguments, when closely examined, reveal an unstated assumption that the unborn are not human beings. For instance, arguing that a woman cannot afford another child to justify abortion would never be applied to a three-year-old. Similarly, the assertion that “viability gives us value and a right to life” is an unsubstantiated claim, not a reasoned argument for why a human being’s value suddenly changes at a particular developmental stage. These are simply attempts to justify abortion by making the debate about something other than the humanity of the unborn.

Another common pitfall for pro-lifers is getting defensive about criticisms that they “only care about life in the womb” and not about poverty, gang violence, or immigrant support. Some believe that by proving their broader social concern, they can win over opponents. Let me make something very clear to you: “No, they won’t”. I have patiently listened to critics list every societal ill they believe pro-lifers should fix. When I offer to address all their demands, using our scarce pro-life resources, and then ask if they will join me in opposing abortion, the answer is “100% of the time with absolute certainty is no”. This is because their real position is a commitment to abortion as a “fundamental right,” and they are not about to change their minds. Trying to change their minds by changing your behavior is “pure fantasy”.

Principle Over Popularity: The “War of Ideas”

We must understand that we are engaged in a “war of ideas,” a battle of convictions. We should not expect to be liked by those who fundamentally oppose our stance, especially activists who demonstrate a “demonic fixation on killing children in the womb”. While civility and reasonable discussions are important—as a Christian, I am commanded to love my enemies and be a gracious ambassador—this does not mean we should betray our convictions or give up our persuasive arguments to gain popularity.

“The arguments always, always, always come down to who’s got the better evidence, who’s got the better case. They do not come down to who is more likable”. While we should do all we can to be likable, we must never be so likable that we “give up your principles and the persuasive arguments you have at your side”.

Conclusion: Remaining Focused in a Post-Roe World

In a post-Roe v. Wade world, the central message remains: “Less is more”. We must consistently “keep the main thing the main thing”. The main thing is, and always will be, the core pro-life argument. I urge you to utilize resources like our Prolife 101 course to equip yourselves to be persuasive ambassadors, ready to recognize and deflect distractions from both opponents and, sadly, sometimes even from within our own ranks. Our focus must remain steadfast on the fundamental moral question of abortion and the intrinsic value of every human life.