The Day I Realized I’m Not Actually “Pro-Life”
- Krista Bontrager, DMin
- 1 day ago
- 11 min read
Updated: 45 minutes ago
About two and a half years ago, a video popped up in my feed that caught my attention. The title was, "Everything we say about the Pro-Life Movement is True." It was a confusing introduction to an ideological rift between pro-life advocates and abolitionists that I was completely unaware of.
I had never heard of abolitionism, so I began watching their content in an effort to understand their position.
It is not unusual for me to explore new ideas. What is unusual is for someone to change my mind about something. I don't change my mind easily. If you've read the book I wrote with my ministry partner, Monique Duson, then you already know that.
Abolitionists made a very simple point that kept me watching: If abortion is murder, then why can a mother intentionally kill her child without consequence?
I have always considered myself "pro-life." I always considered abortion to be murder. But I never fully reflected on the reality that mothers can schedule an appointment at an abortion center or order abortion pills online with a credit card, but not be prosecuted. Steps like these show clear intention to kill her child with malice and forethought, which is the very definition of murder in my state. (If you click through to the statute, you'll notice the exemption for abortion right under the definition of murder.) To be honest, I had never made this connection until I heard abolitionists articulate it on YouTube.
Now, I can't ignore it.
Since then, I’ve been reflecting more deeply on my own position through Scripture study and conversations with experts on both sides. More meetings are scheduled. In the meantime, here are some of my preliminary conclusions.
Three Streams Fighting for the Preborn
There are currently three major streams—with a few minor tributaries—who want to defend the dignity and rights of the preborn. Broadly speaking, all of them say they want to "abolish" or "end abortion." But they engage in that project in different, sometimes even contradictory, ways. While imperfect and brief, this is my attempt to provide some mental hooks to help organize those strategies into groups based on their common beliefs.
Pro-life Establishment
The broad goal of this stream is to end abortion over time, while working within existing political realities and recognizing that the abortion lobby is well-funded and aggressive. They often say things like they want to make abortion "illegal, unnecessary and unthinkable." Major advocates include National Right to Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and the March for Life, and their allied politicians and lobbyists.
Their core beliefs:
Pursue incremental restrictions, such as heartbeat bills, gestational limits, parental consent, and clinic regulations.
Treat women seeking abortion as “second victims” of the abortion industry, ones who need compassion and support.
Oppose criminal penalties against mothers.
Accept limited exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother) only when political realities require it.
Emphasize logic, biology and pragmatism to build broad coalitions.
Abolitionists
The broad goal of this stream is to call for and pursue the immediate end of abortion, without delay or qualification. This is seen as the only biblical way to establish “justice and only justice” for the preborn (Deut. 16:20). Advocates include Virgil Walker, Abolitionists Rising, Foundation to Abolish Abortion, Operation Save America and End Abortion Now, along with their allied politicians and lobbyists.
Their core beliefs:
Call for and pursue immediate, total criminalization of abortion as homicide from fertilization, with equal protection under existing homicide statutes and no exceptions.
Hold all parties accountable, including the mother.
Reject every bill that incrementally regulates abortion as an unjust compromise that codifies partiality and delays justice.
The Norman Statement, published by Abolitionists Rising, offers one synopsis of the abolitionists' position.
Smashmouth Incrementalists
In 2017, Pastor Doug Wilson published an article proposing a third stream. It's sort of a middle position between the pro-life establishment and abolitionists, sharing key tenets with both other groups. Like abolitionists, they are explicit in their desire to work toward end goal of the eventual criminalization of abortion. But like the pro-life establishment, they acknowledge that their effort must work within existing political realities. Incremental progress is compatible with (and often necessary for) eventual abolition.
Their core beliefs:
Affirm the ultimate goal of total abolition of abortion as the killing of human beings from conception.
Support any effective incremental restrictions that save lives now, while also stating the intent to return for fuller bans and eventual criminalization.
Reject the abolitionists’ “all-or-nothing” purity tests that refuse partial gains.
Wilson explained the historical background of the rather unusual title in a 2025 article: "I began using the phrase smashmouth incrementalism... because I was not entirely on board with abolitionism, at least the kind that I was seeing, while at the same time I wanted to acknowledge plainly that the abolitionist critique of some sectors of the pro-life movement was entirely justified. There were pro-life organizations that had lost their way." Smashmouth incrementalism sees itself as an aggressive, uncompromising form of incrementalism that seeks every possible restriction on the way to full abolition.
Again, my purpose in this section is to simply provide a basic road map of the major approaches, as well as help people ask better questions about their own beliefs on the issue. And as we will see toward the end of this article, there are also emerging factions within factions. It's a lot of "inside baseball" levels of detail at times.
I do not think public discussion and debate among the three streams should be off-limits for thoughtful Christians. I would like to see more of it, not less, though I do wish the sides were less polarized. I would also like to see more dialogues characterized by persuasion, charity and grace as people like myself are wrestling through these important issues.
Where I Currently Stand
The deeper I've gone in this research, the more it has become clear to me that I had not thought my position all the way through. I made broad statements like, "I want to end abortion" or "I want abortion to be illegal" without thinking about the details and implications of those ideas. What does it mean to "end abortion," exactly? What consequences would actually be involved?
Thoughtful Christians agree that we are called to bring biblical standards of justice to the nations. The problem is, we cannot agree on the foundational ideas and goals of how to do that for the preborn. Abolitionists claim that equal protection laws would deter women in the states that pass them, just as the law deters other crimes such as theft and murder. This mother provides testimony about that position.
Meanwhile, pro-life advocates say that the social programming that "abortion is health care" and fetuses are "just a clump of cells" is too strong to enact equal protection laws right now. Too many young mothers would unwittingly find themselves swept up in the dragnet of the court system. The optics of "throwing mothers in jail" would be very damaging to the pro-life movement. And as one pro-life advocate asked me recently on a call, "How would it even be practical to investigate and prosecute a million more murders a year?"
This short video with Brent Leatherwood, the former director of the The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, is a good case study in the clash of these different approaches.
This brings me to a moment of insight.
About two months ago, I read the 2022 open letter posted on the National Right to Life website. Signed by 70 pro-life groups, they state their position very clearly: “We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.” Instead, they see mothers as co-victims with the baby of the abortion industry.
This letter was clarifying for me.
While leaders of the pro-life establishment say they want to "end abortion" or "make it illegal," their lobbyists also actively work to keep laws in place that protect women from legal accountability. And their open letter does not clarify whether advocating for criminalization will ever become a goal.
This inconsistency is increasingly seen by many everyday pro-life advocates as a glaring contradiction that violates Scripture. This comment responding to our recent interview with Scott Klusendorf represents the thinking of many people messaging me privately.
My stance is very simple…if the baby is a human life, and someone takes an innocent human life, they should be accountable and be criminalized. Accepting anything less is “teaching” the culture that people can kill a human life. Scott seems to think passing a law that cannot be enforced is bad. What about making a law to ban abortion but not have any criminal consequences? I am still learning but equal protection just seems logical and consistent.
I don't think it's an over-statement to say that abolitionists are changing the hearts and minds of everyday people who have historically been the base of the pro-life movement over to their side.
While the difference between the pro-life establishment and abolitionism is often characterized as being a difference about strategies—of incrementalism versus immediatism—I am no longer persuaded that's at the root of the divide. Strategy might be part of the issue, but I also think it's more than that. They have entirely different end goals. As uncomfortable as it might be, abolitionists are not wrong when they point out that there are significant voices within the pro-life establishment who are actively working to prevent criminalization. This is what I mean when I say that some groups are working to save the unborn in ways that contradict each other.
Reading that letter made me realize I don't share this value with the pro-life establishment. What I NOW mean by the phrase "end abortion" includes consequences for all involved in killing preborn babies. I believe the goal should be the criminalization of abortion as homicide from fertilization and no exceptions.
Here is a summary of my current position:
I support equal protection laws for the unborn and would factor them into my voting. Where we have the votes to pass equal protection laws, we should at least try to do it.
I support legislation that criminalizes abortion providers and would factor it into my voting.
I support vigorous prosecution and sentencing for rapists, for men who kill their unborn children, and for men who coerce women into abortion (including in trafficking situations). I have a friend who was forced into three abortions while being prostituted. There was no justice for the murder of her children. These issues would factor into how I vote for a district attorney.
Of course I also want hearts to change so that abortion becomes unthinkable. But I'm currently a skeptic about the claim that we must wait for increased public consensus before advocating for what is right. In states where pro-life legislators hold the majority and a pro-life governor is in office, why not at least attempt to pass equal protection for the unborn? Some would say, "Not now, but hopefully someday." Meanwhile, members of the pro-life lobby actively work to block equal protection laws. If I'm honest, I don't understand this approach. I've heard a lot of reasons from experts about why this is done, but I still don't understand it. The principle behind it seems wrong. I still have a lot of questions.
Where I'm Still Wrestling
When I first began watching abolitionist content on YouTube, I kept thinking, "This position is completely impractical." What I have to come to understand is that abolitionists don't care about the practicality of their position. They see themselves as using the Bible as their starting point and then proceeding to build laws and policies from there. (This might explain why so many of them seem to be presuppositionalists in their approach to apologetics.) Knowing this allowed me to set aside my over-riding concerns about the impracticality of their approach and begin to hear out their arguments. (because....the Golden Rule of Apologetics)
And that hasn't always been easy. They have their own set of insider lingo and that can make it challenging for someone new to wade into the conversation. Until about 3 days ago, I still didn't understand why they constantly say that heartbeat bills "promote partiality" and are "laws of iniquity." It has taken a considerable amount of effort on my part to understand their case.
I support the first pillar of the abolitionist position: the explicit goal of our efforts ought to be the criminalization of abortion as homicide from fertilization, with no exceptions. We must hold all parties accountable, including the mother. That outcome will only be achieved in God’s providence and by humanity’s repentance.
I’m still processing the second pillar of the abolitionist position: the insistence that we must reject all incremental regulation of abortion because such bills are unjust compromises that codify partiality and delay justice. From the abolitionist perspective, it must be equal protection laws or nothing.
Let me try to explain their reasoning. While legislation such as heartbeat bills appear to save the lives of some babies, abolitionists argue that what these laws actually do is train the culture to accept the killing of other babies—specifically those younger than the cutoff (for example, under six weeks). One abolitionist leader recently explained it to me this way: heartbeat bills are equivalent of advocating for a law that criminalizes rape, except the rape of children. No Bible-believing Christian would call that justice. That is why abolitionists take an uncompromising “all-or-nothing” approach and see proposals like heartbeat bills as promoting demonic levels of partiality. I understand the logic of their case, but I’m still thinking through aspects of this approach.
This brings me to those tributaries that I mentioned earlier. As with most efforts to categorize beliefs, not every person will fall neatly into one stream. An individual may hold a hybrid of certain beliefs with one stream and other beliefs from a different stream. For example, not all smashmouth incrementalists agree on how their end goal of abolishing abortion should be accomplished. For example, Scott Klusendorf called himself a "smashmouth incrementalist" on a recent interview with us (see below), but he also views equal protection efforts as imprudent and premature in our current cultural climate. Our friend, Sam Sey, was recently asked on a podcast (see 25:13) if he is a “smashmouth incrementalist.” Sam initially said “Yes,” but then clarified that he does not use that term. While he admires Wilson, he prefers to call himself a “biblical incrementalist.” And where does someone like Roman Catholic advocate, Lila Rose, fit into all this? I don't know, exactly. In this post on X from earlier this year, she uses the rhetoric of abolitionism but doesn't provide clarity about what she means in terms of policy implementation.
Likewise, not every single employee at a particular organization may hold personal views consistent with every point of their org's strategy. While someone's employer might be a public signer on the National Right to Life open letter, an individual employee may hold personal beliefs more along the lines of a smashmouth incrementalist.
My friend, Alisa Childers, said on a recent podcast (see 2:38) that she sees herself as an advocate for equal protection, but she doesn’t identify with the abolitionist movement.
Alisa is also a signer on the "Statement in Support of Equal Rights Protection" published by the White Rose Resistance. Prominent conservative Christian voices like Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Frank Turek, and even Dr. Abby Johnson (a former leader in the pro-life establishment) have also signed it. This seems to be another emerging faction (coalition?) that wants to prioritize equal protection (pillar one) but doesn't seem to be using the language of immediacy (pillar two). Members of this group likely vary in how much incremental legislation (heartbeat bills, for example) they will tolerate versus opposing it on principle as injustice toward the babies left unprotected. For now, they have chosen to unify around the language of equal protection. At this point in my journey, I would probably put myself in this faction. (I am speaking for myself here, not institutionally on behalf of the ministry.) But that could change.
For decades the dominant rhetoric insisted, “We can’t do anything to stop abortions until Roe is overturned.” But that excuse is now gone. The hard truth is, overturning Roe has not diminished abortions. The pro-life lobby has made few gains since Roe was overturned. If anything, the challenge seems to be increasing. The abortion rates are higher now than they were in June 2022, driven significantly by the rise of mail-order chemical abortions. As one prominent pro-life leader recently said to me, "We are losing ground on every level." In fact, now we are also facing government sponsored expansion of IVF technology, along with rhetoric framing it as a pro-life issue.
These realities have made me more open to reconsidering my position, new strategies and investigating whether abolitionist policy makers can have more success than the pro-life stream. While I would prefer having the laws that protect born people also protect preborn people, I honestly don't know much about the policy-making side of this issue yet. So far, all Monique and I have accomplished is to clear away some underbrush in an effort to get clarification about the major ideas on various sides of the issue. How this translates into public policy is a something that we are only beginning to explore.
The journey that Monique and I are on involves researching a very large and complex issue. Please pray for us. Ask the Lord for wisdom as we continue to have more conversations with experts on all sides.
