The cultural atmosphere of 2020 was defined by a specific type of ideological pressure that many believed had subsided. During that period, the pro-life community faced a relentless demand to expand its “credentials” by affirming various social and political movements, most notably Black Lives Matter. Pro-life advocates were frequently told that unless they adopted specific secular logos and spoke out against alleged systemic abuses, they had to “surrender” their pro-life status. This was not merely a call for compassion but a deep-seated challenge to their character and consistency. Today, the sources suggest we have returned to this state of “craziness,” where a “woke mob” continues to use the same psychological tactics to redefine the pro-life mission.
The Return of the “Silence is Violence” Rhetoric
The current ideological climate mirrors the pressure of 2020, where silence on unrelated social issues is characterized as complicity in evil. A recent example involves the shooting of Alex Pred in Minnesota. Pro-life advocates are once again being pressured to rush to judgment—calling the incident “murder”—before all facts are established through investigation. Critics argue that failing to “speak out forcefully” against agencies like Border Patrol (often misidentified as ICE by the critics themselves) constitutes a failure to defend the sanctity of life.
This pressure often manifests as an attempt to “virtue signal” by adopting the terminology of the critic. However, the sources emphasize that Christians, above all others, should resist rushing to judgment until facts are known. To prove a charge of murder, one must demonstrate not just that a killing occurred, but that there was specific intent, purpose, and malice involved. Asserting murder without such evidence is a different claim than stating a killing was “unjust”. The demand for immediate condemnation is described as “nonsense” and a “gorilla tactic” rather than reasoned discourse.
The Unfair Standard of Consistency
A primary tactic used by “woke” critics is the accusation of inconsistency. Pro-life advocates are told their opposition to abortion entails a mandatory “equal consideration” for every other social issue deemed a “sanctity of life” matter by the left. Interestingly, this standard is never applied to the opposing side. For instance, “pro-choice” advocates are rarely challenged as inconsistent if they oppose school choice, parent-led opt-outs for sexually explicit school materials, or limited government. Nobody demands they surrender their “pro-choice” credentials for failing to be pro-choice across every area of life.
The pro-life position has a specific, traditional definition: opposing the intentional killing of an innocent human being in the womb. Redefining this to include a “whole life” or “pro-abundant life” ethic is often an attempt by outsiders and critics to redefine the pro-life job description. True inconsistency for a pro-life advocate would be advocating for the wrongness of abortion while personally supporting one for a friend or family member. One is not inconsistent merely for refusing to let a critic add “additional causes” to the pro-life mandate.
The Syllogism vs. The Messenger
Even if a pro-life advocate were shown to be inconsistent, this would do nothing to refute the core pro-life argument. The legitimacy of the pro-life view stands or falls on the merits of its syllogism, not the behavior of the person presenting it. The syllogism remains:
- Premise One: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
- Premise Two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
A critic’s attempt to focus on the advocate’s behavior is a Marxist or leftist attempt to redefine the debate. Rather than doing the “hard work” of refuting the humanity of the unborn, they resort to ad hominem attacks to knock advocates out of the fight. The pro-life argument stands on its own merits regardless of the alleged “misbehavior” or “silence” of the messenger.
Why the “Murder” Label is a Strategic Trap
The current “woke” pressure frequently demands that pro-lifers use the word “murder” to describe both abortion and various social incidents. However, there are significant strategic and legal reasons to avoid this terminology in pro-life apologetics.
To legally convict someone of murder, one must prove malicious intent and specific knowledge. In the case of abortion, it is very difficult to prove that a woman possesses the same knowledge as the abortionist. The abortionist uses ultrasonography and Doppler devices to target and confirm the death of the fetus—tools and visual data the woman is not privy to during the procedure. Furthermore, it is difficult to prove in a court of law that a woman woke up with “malicious intent” toward the child.
By using the term “murder,” pro-life advocates create unnecessary barriers and take on a much heavier burden of proof. Critics can “dodge” the argument by getting off on legal technicalities regarding what constitutes murder. It is far more effective to stick to the simpler, undeniable claim: abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. While Scripture forbids the shedding of innocent blood, it does not explicitly use the term “murder” for abortion; therefore, advocates can convey biblical truth without the strategic liability of the legal term.
Countering Dehumanization: The Case of Notre Dame
The “woke” influence has also permeated prestigious Catholic institutions, such as the University of Notre Dame, which recently promoted Susan Ostermann, a professor who supports abortion. Ostermann’s arguments rely on dehumanizing rhetoric based on size and visibility. She asserts that because 90% of abortions occur in the first ten weeks—when embryos are “too small to be seen” on an abdominal ultrasound—they are not “babies” or “fetuses”.
This argument is logically flawed and based on mere assertion. Body size does not determine value or rights, just as the fact that someone is “unseen” (such as a victim of trafficking or domestic abuse) does not change their humanity. Furthermore, Ostermann’s claim that these children cannot be seen is scientifically outdated.
Visual Epistemology: Winning with Imagery
In a culture that has moved away from linear, logical thought toward a visual epistemology, pro-life advocates must supplement rational arguments with imagery. Modern technology has changed how people formulate their worldviews; most people now learn through “imagery” and “scrolling” on handheld devices. To counter the “invisible” argument used by people like Ostermann, advocates can point to endoscopy.
Technology from organizations like the Education Resource Fund (ERF) allows us to see living children in the womb as early as four weeks post-conception with their hearts beating. As long as the culture views the unborn as “mere blobs,” the pro-life movement will struggle. By using sites like erf.science, advocates can provide direct visualization of the living human being, bypassing the refusal of some to think logically by appealing directly to their visual intuitions.
Preparing for the Ideological Battle
The resurgence of “woke” pressure necessitates that Christians and pro-life advocates be better equipped for the challenges they face in the real world. Organizations like Summit Ministries are vital for teaching students how to think—rather than just giving them answers—so they can resist the propaganda and “untested ideas” imposed on them by the culture.
Additionally, understanding the current worldview landscape requires engaging with literature that addresses these shifts. Rod Dreher’s Live Not by Lies and Doug Groothuis’s Fire in the Streets are recommended as essential reading for understanding the “woke attempt” to force Christians into premature condemnations or affirmations. These works provide the necessary background to see why the “woke” worldview does not align with a Christian worldview.
Conclusion
“Woke” is not dead; it is a recurring ideological force that seeks to silence pro-life advocacy through intimidation and the redefinition of terms. Pro-life advocates must remain focused on the merits of their argument rather than the character attacks of their critics. Consistency is found in fidelity to the pro-life syllogism, not in conforming to a secular social agenda. By combining rigorous logic with the visual truth of fetal development, the movement can effectively refute dehumanizing rhetoric and continue the work of defending the most vulnerable members of the human family.