Pro-life, pro-choice, or other? There was a time when I thought the 
first two were the only major camps. Sure, there were always variations 
of people within each camp but, by and large, most people fell into one 
of the two. However, I've recently learned of another camp. This 
particular camp shares similarities with the religious zealots of biblical times. 
For those who may be unaware, the zealots were those who were religious 
fanatics to the point where they would murder the opposing government 
officials. One could consider them religious assassins. While this third
 category isn't necessarily out bombing abortion clinics (nor would they 
advocate such tactics), their extremism is performed in a very 
different, yet equally as dangerous, manner. So who is this mystery 
category? It contains those deemed as abolitionists. The most prominent 
group in this category is known as Abolish Human Abortion (AHA).
AHA
 members come in a variety of shapes and sizes but they all have one 
thing in common: abolishing abortion. 
On this particular point, I have no disagreement. As
 Christians, the complete eradication of evil should always be strived 
for. However, we must also understand we live in a fallen world with 
unregenerate sinners. Thus, it should also be understood that, this side
 of heaven, we'll never achieve that end goal. AHA is an interesting 
group as it neither falls under pro-life nor pro-choice. In fact, they 
will openly proclaim that both movements entertain evil and are wicked. 
Not so long ago, I would've been scratching my head asking myself what 
else is left. Now, it's not quite as confusing. My end conclusion? AHA 
is both misguided as well as dangerous.
When
 I first heard of AHA, I decided to follow them on Facebook and even 
shared some of their posts. Imagine my surprise when I heard they were 
picketing churches and protesting bills that directly attacked abortion.
 While it's easy to mischaracterize groups with whom you disagree, I 
want to ensure I accurately portray their stance in this blog post. 
Essentially, AHA members are abolitionists. Anything short of the 
complete eradication of abortion is considered unsatisfactory. To this 
end, I agree. Where we part ways is in the methods used to achieve such a
 goal. While the pro-life camp is typically accepting of incremental 
laws that whittle away at abortion little by little, AHA is 
diametrically opposed to such bills. The main reason for this is because
 they feel it's showing partiality toward some babies while showing 
acceptance and compromise toward others. A perfect example would be the 
recent "heartbeat bill" that multiple states are currently looking at. 
The pro-life movement is generally in favor of bills such as these 
because we're willing to accept baby steps. At no point are they deemed 
satisfactory but they are accepted as first steps toward a more 
comprehensive goal. However, as stated, AHA believes them to be wicked 
bills that dehumanize and promote the murder of babies without 
detectable heartbeats. While being a noble cause, it's misguided at best
 and deadly at worst.
Before
 we go any further, I find it important to remind us all that God is 
sovereign in all He does. In His infinite wisdom, He has allowed 
abortion is be legal in our country. Regardless what happens from here, 
He's over all. That fact doesn't negate our responsibility to care for 
the little ones and to be a voice for the voiceless (Proverbs 31:8-10). After all, that's 
the entire position of the pro-life movement. Yet, AHA will openly 
declare this to be a foolish approach. If one were to say the end goal
 is to save lives, they'll openly deny such a charge. In fact, they 
openly criticize pro-lifers as being willing to save lives at all costs.
 By "all costs," they mean being willing to accept incremental bills. 
While we declare incremental bills to be more palatable and more likely 
to be passed (which, in turn, saves some lives in the process), they 
believe, by promoting these bills, we're accepting evil and promoting 
the deaths of other babies so long as we save some. With this outlook, 
it's not hard to see why they believe us to be wrong. It sounds monstrous! Sadly, it's a 
strawman. Allow me to explain.
Abortion
 is currently legal in our country. We don't have to pass any laws to 
legalize the murder of prenatal babies as it already exists. If a law is
 passed that prohibits the murder of prenatal babies of whom a heartbeat
 is detected, while allowing the murder of those of whom there is no 
heartbeat detected, it isn't synonymous with newly creating a law that 
legalizes their murder. Again, this is because that law is already on 
the books. It simply means we've now saved countless babies in the first
 pass and are coming back to save the rest in the next pass (or however 
many passes it may take to achieve the end goal of abolition). It's 
whittling away at existing law and removing its power little by little 
when taking it head on would prove to be too much. A lumberjack doesn't 
go into the woods and demand an oak tree be felled. No, he swings his 
axe and, with each connection, removes a part of the tree. He continues 
to do this until the tree is too weak to stand and, finally, falls under
 its own weight. Just as an oak is brought down by incremental swings, 
so the path to abolition will be through incrementally removing the 
authority of existing abortion laws. By opposing such measures and 
tactics, while AHA may be able to feel upright, just, self-righteous, and 
treating everyone equally, all they really accomplish is equally leading
 all babies to the slaughter. This isn't noble. It's illogical and 
wicked. It has more to do with the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-11 who, in his
 self-righteousness, was thankful that he wasn't "unjust" as the tax 
collector next to him. While maintaining a feeling of righteousness and 
pure justice, real human lives are being lost because they refuse to 
allow any law to pass that doesn't include all babies from being rescued in a single pass. Again, in their stubbornness, it only results in no babies
 being saved while they're afforded the opportunity to snub their nose 
in the air and mock those who are making every attempt to at least save 
one. Yes, if only even one is saved, it's all worth it as we continue 
making progress toward abolition.
Sadly,
 it appears the abolitionist movement is expanding into other groups and
 is no longer limited to the likes of AHA. While many of these new 
groups oppose the fanatical approach and tactics used by AHA, they've 
begun to adopt the view that incremental bills are wretched. In many of 
these groups, it's less of a sense of self-righteousness and more of a 
belief that incremental bills won't work and that we'll lose precious time that 
could've been spent working on abolition bills. While we disagree on the
 likelihood of such "totality" bills passing, I can at least appreciate where 
they're coming from. Unfortunately, it still tends to be illogical and 
dangerous. For instance, one common objection to the heartbeat bill is 
that, since it's the abortionist performing the heartbeat ultrasound, 
he/she will be more likely to either skip the ultrasound altogether or 
purposely miss the heartbeat by performing the ultrasound in the wrong 
place. Essentially, the view is that the abortionist can't be trusted. 
Therefore, the heartbeat bill is pointless and babies with a heartbeat 
will be aborted anyway. Is there any credibility to this argument? I 
dare so there's not. Let me explain why.
I
 can understand the skepticism which would lead one to assume the 
abortionist will purposely miss the heartbeat or perform the abortion 
anyway. It's a healthy sort of skepticism. However, it's also pure 
speculation rooted in presuppositional assumption. Think of it another 
way. People are always trying to find mechanic shops who are willing to 
fudge numbers to help a modified car pass a smog test. As much as 
mechanics are generally automotive enthusiasts and don't particularly 
like smog laws, finding a shop that will do it is extremely difficult. 
This is because most mechanics aren't willing to risk losing their 
livelihood and being unable to put food on their table over a random 
customer. Another example is gun shows. We've all heard the "gun show 
loophole" but it's also a myth. I've bought a gun from a gun show and, even 
as active duty military, I had to provide certain paperwork in order to get one. They were adamant that they couldn't 
sell me one without the paperwork being provided first to prove my 
residency in the city. Most licensed gun vendors aren't willing to risk 
losing their license and affect putting food on their table all for a 
stranger. Will there be those who will do it anyway? Of course! However,
 they'll be criminals and, if they get caught (be it by audit or by 
investigation after probable cause comes to light), they'll face the 
consequences. I'm very convinced most abortionists will play by the 
rules out of fear of losing their livelihood should they get caught. To 
add to this thought, if we're going to enter the realm of speculation, 
imagine how many pro-life pregnant women will receive a positive 
heartbeat ultrasound by a credible healthcare provider only to go to a 
mill and feign wanting an abortion in order to "catch" an abortionist 
telling her there's no heartbeat. They'd be too easy to catch and 
prosecute. Again, most aren't willing to lose their careers and 
negatively impact their family's way of life over a stranger. As it 
stands, most of the remaining abolitionist objections are rooted in the 
same flawed sense of logic.
As
 I draw to a close, I want to reaffirm the fact that total abolition 
should absolutely be the end goal. If an abolition bill were to go up 
today, I'd be in full support of it. However, I wouldn't stop there, rest on my laurels, and consider my job complete. What if it fails? What if it fails repeatedly? Do we continue to play the same song on repeat or do we strategize and make a more effective plan? To 
be honest, I wish the pro-choice camp had the same mentality as AHA and 
other abolitionists back in 1973. If that were the case, they would've demanded 
legalizing medical professionals to leave babies to die on a table 
simply because they're unwanted. Unfortunately, the pro-choice movement 
was rooted in incrementalism. What began as a divide within the church 
over feminism then shifted into a right to privacy and doctor/patient 
confidentiality in cases of abortion. This then paved the way for late term 
and partial birth abortions. Today, babies are left to die if they 
survive a botched abortion. Don't be fooled. It was incrementalism that 
led us to the horrific place we're at today. They knew it would work and
 they stood united in the cause. I say it's about time we steal their 
playbook and use incrementalism against them until they no longer have 
any power to stand. Instead of fighting the pro-life crowd at the expense of human lives, instead, stand united and take down the oak tree known as abortion, one swing 
at a time!
~Travis W. Rogers 

 
