I don’t care if you like it, is it true?

Article adapted from episode content.

Hello friends, welcome back. In today’s cultural climate, it seems we’ve increasingly elevated personal comfort, emotional resonance, and marketing appeal above the unwavering bedrock of truth. Whether discussing profound moral issues or navigating the intricacies of personal life choices, the prevailing sentiment often seems to be: “Does this feel good? Is it convenient? Will it win friends and influence people?” But as we delve into some of the challenging questions facing us today, I want to pivot to a far more critical inquiry: “Is it true?” I don’t care if you like it, if it’s easy, or if it makes you popular. The fundamental question must always be about truth, about the merits of an argument, and about adhering to a biblical worldview, even if it gets me in trouble with some of my own people.

The Illusion of “Having It All” and the Pro-Life Message

Recently, I attended a graduation at a Christian college, eager to hear a message that would inspire graduates to pursue God-glorifying activity or embrace a biblical worldview. Instead, the keynote speaker offered a pep talk, largely directed at the graduating women, assuring them, “Don’t let anybody tell you you can’t do it all”. Her core thesis was that a woman could achieve an inspiring career and still be just as good a mother as one who stays home to nurture her children, encouraging them not to resign themselves to being wives and mothers.

Now, I have no problem with a woman pursuing a career or having a drive to make a difference in the corporate or non-profit sector, especially in her young adulthood. But we must challenge the notion that a woman can equally pursue a career and simultaneously be equally invested in nurturing her husband and children. I don’t know that that’s doable. In fact, I think it’s not. I think you got to pick one.

This kind of thinking has unfortunately seeped into pro-life circles. Some pro-life messaging suggests that women don’t need abortion because they can have great careers even with kids, or their husbands can stay home. The idea is to oppose abortion by promoting the notion that women “can have it all”. I find this approach deeply troubling.

Let’s be clear: If we are engaged in a sales pitch about who offers the easier solution to a problem pregnancy, pro-lifers are not offering the easier solution. The pro-abortionists have the “easier and better answer” in terms of expediency. Their solution involves a 15-minute procedure that ends the “problem” of a child interrupting a career path or requiring financial investment. What do we offer that pregnant woman? We offer her 18 years of challenge, potentially more, where she will need to provide for that child, and usually set aside her career and education path to commit herself to being a mother. We are not going to win the sales pitch marketing battle with Planned Parenthood. We need to be done with that.

Instead, we must make our primary case a moral one. The moral case is straightforward:

• Premise one: It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
• Premise two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
• Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Whether we are influencing ballot initiatives or speaking to women, our primary case should be that abortion is a moral wrong because it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. We have to keep the main thing the main thing.

We bend over backwards trying to make it seem like we have a great solution for women facing crisis pregnancies. We do have a great solution if we’re talking morality, because we convince her not to kill her child. But we do not have a great solution if we’re talking marketing. The abortionist can indeed offer the woman both her career and a quick way out. We simply cannot do that.

If we are being honest, a woman who gives birth after a crisis or unintended pregnancy will face a solution that is costly to her, involving significant investment of her time, energy, and emotions, and requiring sacrifice of many things she could have done otherwise. We ought to be upfront about that, and not try to pretend we can create superhuman women who can do it all. I am simply not persuaded that you can have both worlds at the same time if you are a woman. I believe you have to pick between a career, which is fine if chosen, or being present in the home for your children.

I often hear the excuse, “It’s not quantity of time, it’s quality of time that matters”. I think that is entirely bogus. Anyone involved in parenting knows you cannot simply schedule meaningful moments. They emerge because you are present in that moment. Deep, meaningful connections and conversations with children don’t happen because you schedule them for a specific time on a Tuesday. They happen when you’re tucking a child into bed and they ask a profound question about suffering or faith. They happen in the car on the way to school. These are moments where you need to be present.

A child needs both a mom and a dad to provide the right responses and immensely contribute to their development. I believe we, as Christians and pro-lifers, have too easily bought into the world’s assumption that women “have to have it all”. I don’t know how you can bring home all the stress of the working world – and a good argument could be made that women’s bodies were not designed to handle that stress – and still be psychologically fully present for your children during the minimal hours you have with them.

Therefore, I think we as Christians need to rethink this idea that women can have it all. No, I think you have to pick between whether you want to be a mom or a career woman. And for young Christian men seeking a mate, you need to pick a woman who wants to be a wife and a mother; that’s what they aspire to. While there may be a need for two incomes early in marriage, when it comes to having a house full of kids, a parent needs to be there, and that parent needs to be the mom. Moms are the nurturers, dialed into their kids’ emotions and struggles. While dads help, moms pick up on these things, and there is a nurturing aspect that I do not believe can be present when the woman is consistently working outside the home.

The danger for pro-lifers is trying to compete with Planned Parenthood by telling the world we want women to “have it all” even with our solution. You cannot fool a serious thinker by promising they can have a baby and all their career aspirations. Pointing to a few celebrities who “managed to do that” is not persuasive. The way to persuade a woman not to have an abortion is not to give her a “phony idea she can have it all”. The way to persuade her is with moral reasoning that clearly states it is wrong to intentionally kill your unborn offspring. We need to talk morality before we start talking productivity or functionality.

Truth Over Expediency: The Infertility Debate and Embryo Ethics

Another challenging area where truth must prevail over convenience or sentimentality concerns Christian couples struggling with infertility. Allow me to speak pastorally first: there is a tendency in Christian circles to treat couples facing the incredible pain of infertility with a very cavalier attitude. Many Christians do not realize how devastating infertility is. It is too easy for us to glibly say things like, “Why don’t you just go adopt?” or “Maybe God’s got a better plan for you”. While these things may be true in the long run, they are not the first things you should say.

I believe that while some assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are wrong, not all of them are, and they can be used if they fall within certain biblical guidelines or “fence posts”. So, what should we communicate to Christian pro-life couples dealing with infertility?

First, any assisted reproductive technology that involves discarding embryos, donating them to research, or screening them for defects and then subsequently destroying the ones that “don’t make the grade” would be biblically out of bounds. This is for the same reason abortion is out of bounds: it’s clear that all humans have value because they bear the image of God. Genesis 1 and James 3 teach that because humans bear God’s image, the intentional killing or shedding of innocent blood is strictly forbidden. Destroying embryos does exactly that, even at the earliest stages of development. You cannot use an immoral means to achieve a good result. Yes, getting a baby is good, but not if the technology used involves destroying embryos in the process.

This raises significant questions about In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). In IVF, eggs are extracted, fertilized with sperm in a test tube, and multiple embryos are created. These embryos are then either frozen or freshly implanted. The problem is the enormous wastage of embryos involved in current IVF practice. Clinics often create multiple embryos at once to avoid repeating expensive treatments like egg harvesting and sperm collection. The couple then faces the problem of leftover embryos, often encouraged to donate them to science (where they will be destroyed) or discard them. Both options are unethical if, as I believe, a distinct, living, and whole human being exists from the earliest stages of development. Furthermore, there is a substantial loss of life that occurs during the transfer of embryos to the woman’s womb. This raises the question of whether we ought to be creating embryos that we know have very little chance of surviving the transfer protocol.

So, when counseling these couples, the biblical message should be: not all ARTs are evil, but ensure that whatever one you choose falls within biblical fence posts. Do not offer glib, hurtful answers like “Why don’t you just adopt?”. Couples need to arrive at conclusions about adoption or foster care on their own timetable, not be driven to them impatiently.

Arguments Stand on Their Merits: Resisting Personalization and Moral Equivalency

This brings me back to the core principle of truth. Not long ago, I spoke with a progressive pastor who disagreed with my pro-life position. He argued that my position “can’t possibly be true” because it would imply that he and his wife were “murderers” for having discarded embryos during their IVF process. Notice what he did: he tried to refute the pro-life argument not by examining the evidence—whether abortion is wrong, or if IVF embryos are valuable human beings with a natural right to life—but by rejecting it due to its uncomfortable implications for his personal situation.

This is a critical error in reasoning. You cannot refute an argument by saying, “I don’t like the consequences where it might lead” or “I don’t like where the evidence leads, therefore that position can’t be true”. People do this with Christianity all the time, rejecting Jesus because accepting Him would mean giving up enjoyable sinful practices. But the case for Christ is either valid and sound, or it is not; you cannot dismiss it because you dislike the implications. People often avoid facing up to moral reality by pursuing what is expedient for them, rather than pursuing truth.

So, when people say to you, “Oh, if you’re saying abortion’s wrong, does that mean you think I’m a murderer because I had one?” it is perfectly fine for you to say, “I’m not going to get into judging you personally. I’m just going to stick to where the evidence leads. You draw your own conclusions.”. I think you should do that, especially in this post-Roe era, where people increasingly personalize everything. Accusations like, “So you think I’m the worst person in the world? As bad as Hitler?” are attempts to divert from the argument itself. Remember, arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on the person making them or the person hearing them. Stick to that, and you will always keep the main thing the main thing.

This applies also to the attempt of some Christians to aim at moral equivalency by lumping together disparate issues, arguing that they are all equal in moral weight. For example, claiming that “abortion is wrong, but so is denying people entrance to our country” and therefore “there’s no moral difference between abortion and closing the border”. Such reasoning, as I’ve previously discussed, simply doesn’t work.

Conclusion

In all these discussions, from the role of women in family and career to the ethics of reproductive technologies and the very nature of moral argument, our compass must be truth, not convenience, popularity, or personal preference. We must reject the notion that we can “have it all” if “all” includes contradicting fundamental moral truths or sacrificing what is truly good and right for superficial ease. We must approach difficult conversations, even on deeply personal issues like infertility, with compassion, but also with unyielding adherence to biblical principles, even when those principles reveal challenging truths about widely accepted practices. We must, at all costs, avoid the temptation to bend our arguments to fit current cultural whims or personal comfort. The question, always, must be: “Is it true?” Because if it is true, it stands, regardless of whether you like it.