The contemporary discourse surrounding the pro-life position is frequently obscured by confusing and problematic statements issued by influential leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, who seek to shift the focus of the debate away from its fundamental ethical core. While many well-regarded Catholic writers—such as Robert George, Patrick Lee, and Francis J. Beckwith—have provided persuasive arguments in defense of the pro-life view, not all high-profile religious commentary maintains this clarity. The goal of the pro-life argument is straightforward: to protect children in the womb from intentional killing. However, powerful voices are attempting to redefine the term “pro-life” to encompass a wider array of issues, often influenced by the political left, thereby injecting false moral equivalencies that confuse proponents and critics alike.
The integrity of the pro-life stance hinges upon a clear, formal argument, encapsulated by the repetition of three key words: syllogism, syllogism, syllogism. This core argument states: Premise one, it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings; Premise two, abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings; Conclusion, therefore, abortion is wrong. When this formal argument is abandoned or diluted, critics and even allies often “cloud the waters” or “muddy up the discussion” with external ideas.
The Catholic Challenge: Equating Intentional Killing with Refusing to Help
A prime example of this intellectual drift is found in recent commentary from a prominent Catholic representative, Pope Leo, who is identified as the first American pope. Weighing in on U.S. politics, Pope Leo made rare comments engaging in a “thinly veiled battle” with the White House over the true meaning of “pro-life”.
In a recent statement, Pope Leo argued that being truly pro-life necessitates opposing the death penalty and criticizing U.S. immigration policy. Following a decision by a Chicago Cardinal to award Illinois Senator Dick Durban a lifetime achievement award—despite Durban’s defense of abortion rights—the Pope urged Catholics to avoid judging political figures on a single issue. He then took aim, stating that someone who opposes abortion but favors the death penalty “is not really pro-life”. Furthermore, he questioned the pro-life credentials of anyone who is “against abortion, but [is] in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants or in the United States,” specifically referencing opposition to deporting those in the nation illegally. According to the Pope’s argument, supporting the deportation of illegal immigrants is “inhumane” and disqualifies one from being truly pro-life.
If Pope Leo wished to argue that the death penalty or deporting illegal immigrants were immoral on their own merits, there would be no particular issue, though one might disagree with his conclusions. However, the problem arises when he makes the “broad swipe” that opposition to these policies is a prerequisite for holding pro-life convictions, thereby “clouding the definition” of the term. Historically, the pro-life position has opposed the intentional killing of innocent human beings in the womb.
Dismantling the False Moral Parallelism
The attempt to establish moral equivalence between abortion, the death penalty, and immigration policy fundamentally fails when judged against the core syllogism.
The Death Penalty vs. Abortion: The death penalty, by definition, involves the intentional killing of individuals who are not innocent of committing capital crimes; they have been justly sentenced for those offenses. Abortion, conversely, involves intentionally killing someone who has done nothing to be charged or sentenced for a capital wrong. Therefore, the two acts are not morally parallel.
Even if a pro-life advocate were deemed inconsistent for supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion, this inconsistency would not invalidate the pro-life argument itself. The syllogism remains true regardless of how one applies their principles in other areas. Arguing otherwise constitutes a subtle ad hominem attack often employed by critics.
Immigration/Aid vs. Abortion: The moral gap between abortion and policies concerning immigration or aid is “immeasurably worse”. The debate over who to allow into the country is asking the question, “who ought we help?”. Abortion, however, answers the question, “who do we get to intentionally kill?”. These two questions are not morally parallel.
There is a world of difference between refusing to help someone and intentionally killing them. For example, a person who passes a homeless man without giving him money has not wronged or harmed him; they have left him in the exact condition they found him. If, however, one takes all his money and slits his throat, the victim is made “immeasurably worse off”. Similarly, abortion does not merely leave the unborn in the condition they were found; it intentionally kills them, worsening their position and their actual life. To link a position on abortion to supporting an “open border” or opposing deportation—even when migrants are “breaking the law by doing so”—is described as “intellectually dishonest” and based on “crummy moral reasoning”. The suggestion that opposing these “liberal leftist causes” invalidates one’s pro-life credentials is a moral equivalency that should be rejected.
The Protestant Challenge: Smearing Motives
The confusion is not limited to Catholic leadership; Protestant figures are also advancing “problematic” arguments. George Yansy, a Protestant professor at Baylor University, targeted Republican Christians who voted for Donald Trump, claiming they “turn[ed] their back on their principles to justify their support of an immoral, egotistical man”. Yansy asserted that these voters were motivated by “fear and hatred of their political opponents”.
This claim—that Republican voters supported Trump solely out of hatred for Democrats or fear of their opponents—is seen as unjustified. While acknowledging Trump is a flawed candidate, many voters chose him to “limit some of the evil” promoted by the opposing party, which they believe would “promote evil wholesale” with its policies. The motivation for opposing the Democrat party stems from a fundamental hatred of their “intrinsically evil policies that deal a severe threat to human flourishing,” covering issues like abortion, the definition of marriage, transgender ideology, and economic policies.
This opposition to policy is distinct from hatred of individuals. For instance, one can greet a neighbor who is a Democrat “charitably every day” while still vigorously desiring that their party’s policies “lose in the public square”.
For Yansy, or others like Russell Moore, David French, and Curtis Chang, to suggest that the sole driving factor for supporting Trump is political fear or hatred is an “ad hominemum attack” that is “beneath him”. The implication that supporting Trump is a “betrayal of their Christian witness” ignores the fact that evangelical support for Trump actually increased in recent elections, suggesting rank-and-file evangelicals are often “smarter than their so-called betters” who lecture them on morality.
The Democrat party is described as purging its ranks of dissenting voices, unlike the party of the 1980s that allowed figures like Governor Robert Casey to argue against abortion on the grounds that it was inconsistent with protecting the weak and vulnerable. Today, the party is characterized as affirming and pushing evil policies wholesale, from supporting abortion to insisting on policies that allow grown men in girls’ locker rooms or surgeries that “dehumanize human bodies”. Therefore, opposition to the party’s policies is a moral obligation for a pro-life Christian, not an act motivated solely by spite. To “smear the motives wholesale” of those who disagree is where the fundamental problem lies.
The Ultimate Distraction: The Burning Research Lab
Another recurring objection used to muddy the waters is the infamous “Burning Research Lab” thought experiment. The scenario posits a dilemma: You are in an inferno and can only save either a six-year-old girl or a thousand frozen embryos. Critics argue that because most people would instinctively save the six-year-old, it proves pro-life advocates do not truly believe the embryos are human or that their killing is morally wrong.
This scenario, however, makes the same crucial mistake of assuming a false moral equivalence. The question posed by the Burning Research Lab is: “Who ought we save first?”. The question posed by abortion is: “Who do I get to intentionally kill?”. It is acceptable to prioritize whom one chooses to rescue—for instance, choosing to save one’s own child over a stranger, which is “morally permissible” because, while everyone has an equal right to life, no one has an equal right to be rescued.
To suggest that choosing to save the girl over the embryos somehow makes killing the embryos “morally permissible” is ridiculous. The key distinction is that making a triage decision (who to save) does not grant the right to inflict lethal harm upon those left behind (who to intentionally kill). If one saves their child first, they do not then shoot those left behind.
Conclusion: Avoiding Mission Drift
The ongoing efforts by influential figures—whether Pope Leo or George Yansy—to redefine or complicate the pro-life position risk leading to “mission drift”. If pro-life organizations allow their mission statements to be redefined, they risk becoming unfocused and potentially bankrupting themselves. As noted by Frederick the Great, “he who fights everywhere fights nowhere”.
While a Christian should care about issues like the death penalty, immigration, refugees, and poverty, these issues should not be unfairly linked to the morality of abortion. It is vital to return to moral clarity: the issue of abortion boils down entirely to one question: Are we intentionally killing an innocent human being?. By adhering strictly to the syllogism, pro-life advocates can maintain their focus and ensure they are not “bamboozle[d]” into thinking their credibility is lost merely because they disagree with a specific policy on immigration or welfare. The difference between refusing to help and intentional killing remains the moral barrier that separates the debate over life in the womb from all other political and social concerns.