I need to think through this issue in
more detail. To that end I will be delaying my examination of Galatians 4 by
another week (sorry for those waiting for it) so I can interview Elijah Harris,
who is on the board of Abolish Abortion Australia. Harris is a young Christian
man, a Presbyterian, who is passionate about seeing abortion criminalized. You
can watch the livestream of this interview tonight at 8pm AEST on my YouTube
channel Based
Christian History. Hopefully this interview will help inform you about this
debate, but also how you can get more involved in brining abortion to an end in
Australia.
I used to be
pro-abortion, when I was younger, before I had really thought about it. Not
because of an ideological commitment, but simply because I just assumed it wasn’t
wrong. I saw it as a medical issue. I grew up in Australia, going to church and
Christian schools, but I was not a committed believer at that point, and no one
had ever really explained abortion to me.
My first
encounter with strong anti-abortion opinions happened a few years before I
became a believer myself. Both encounters happened at work and they were with
unbelievers. One was a guy who grew up in Catholic school, who explained to me
his perspective was that if you were going to have sex, you should commit to
having any children that come about. Abortion should not be an option. He was
not a believer himself, as I noted. The other was a young woman who told me she
had supported abortion until she saw what they actually did to the baby. She
described to me the process. I went and investigated, and saw that she was right.
I was convinced from that point on that it was wrong but did not give it much
more thought. I don’t know why no one had ever explained it to me before then.
I became a Christian a few years after this.
From the moment
that I realized what abortion was and became committed to Christ, I became a
strong supporter of the abolition of abortion. It is murder, not two ways about
it. It is just that simple. It is taking a life. It is child sacrifice as well.
How? Well, abortion is the taking of one life to improve the life of another.
This was the exact motivation and reason behind child sacrifice in ancient
cultures. The exchange of an innocent’s child life for perceived or received
blessings for the one who gave that life. That is child sacrifice.
Some Australians
might find this language excessive. They might ask why you need to put it so
strongly. But if we cannot name an evil, then we cannot truly address it
appropriately. This is why we calls slavery what it is, slavery. We do not call
it discount labour, or free labour, because this would obscure what is really
taking place, naming an evil is necessary for engaging with it effectively.
I have long opposed
abortion, and have preached about it, written about it, and supported efforts
to limit abortions. I have mourned with other Australian Christians about the
licentious and libertine abortion policies that have grown excessively worse in
our nation over recent years. I have warned people that God will not shine his
favour on nations that engage in such open bloodshed, and proud bloodshed. I have
argued that the Church helps perpetuate this problem by using ineffective
rhetoric and by completely
misunderstanding that this issue is an issue of women’s empowerment, not
victimhood. But despite all of this, it was only recently that I found out
that there is a significant divide in the Christian anti-abortion movement
between the pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement.
In the
Australian abortion debate, the pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement
both oppose abortion on the grounds that it ends a human life, but they differ
significantly in strategy, goals, tactics, and underlying philosophy. The
distinction mirrors broader international patterns but plays out in Australia's
unique context, where abortion laws are regulated at the state/territory level
(not federally) and have been largely decriminalised in most jurisdictions,
allowing access on request up to varying gestational limits (often 22–24 weeks,
with broader exceptions thereafter).
The
Pro-Life Movement in Australia
This is the
broader, more established anti-abortion movement. It includes organisations
such as Right to Life Australia, Pro-Life Health Professionals Australia, the
Australian Christian Lobby, Cherish Life, and prominent activists who use
social media and other means to try and educate people about what abortion is
and why it is bad.
The Pro-Life Movement seeks legal protections for the unborn through incremental restrictions—for example, reducing gestational limits, banning late-term abortions, prohibiting sex-selective abortions, requiring informed consent or counselling, or ensuring equal care for newborns who survive abortions. Politically, it often supports bills that roll back "extreme" laws (e.g., abortion up to birth in some states) while acknowledging political realities. I know some people who are active in the movement, and they would like to see abortion abolished, but they also believe it is best to do what you can if you cannot achieve that.
Many pro-life
groups run or promote crisis pregnancy centres, adoption services, and
practical help for women facing unplanned pregnancies. They generally view
women seeking abortions as victims of coercion, pressure, or circumstances
rather than primary perpetrators.
- Tactics: Lobbying politicians, public
marches (e.g., Marches for Life), education campaigns, and working within
parliaments and churches. It is often non-denominational or multi-faith
but draws heavily from Christian communities.
- Goal: Reduce abortions as much as
possible through law, culture, and support services, with the ultimate aim
of making abortion "unthinkable" or heavily restricted (though
full nationwide abolition is rarely pursued as an immediate demand due to
the state-based legal system).
The
Abolitionist Movement in Australia
This is a
smaller, more recent, and explicitly radical subset. It is primarily
represented by Abolish Abortion Australia (AAA) and affiliated state groups
(e.g., Abolish Abortion Victoria). They describe themselves as
"gospel-centered, uncompromising, [and] church-driven."
- Core approach: They demand the total and
immediate abolition of all abortion in Australia from fertilisation
onward, with no exceptions (not even for rape, incest, fetal abnormality,
or maternal health in the broad sense used by pro-life bills). They reject
any incremental legislation outright.
- "Equal justice"
principle: A
defining feature is their call for equal protection under the law for the
unborn and equal justice for everyone involved—meaning abortion providers,
mothers, fathers, and medical staff should all face criminal penalties
(treating abortion as murder). They argue that mainstream pro-life laws
that only target providers while treating the mother as a victim
perpetuate injustice. They critique this on the basis of the principle of
partiality, laws that save some, not others are committing, in their view,
the sin of partiality. Choosing between different victims is seen as unjust.
- Tactics: Abolitionists use grassroots
methods of activism. Things like street evangelism, campus activism
(sometimes with graphic imagery), public proclamations of the gospel, and
direct criticism of pro-life organisations. They actively urge politicians
to vote against incremental pro-life bills (e.g., late-term bans or newborn
care protections), labelling such measures "iniquitous decrees"
or moral compromises.
- Philosophy: They frame abortion as a
national sin equivalent to slavery and reject "pro-life"
incrementalism as compromising with evil (analogous to regulating slavery
rather than abolishing it). They promote the "Five Tenets of
Abolitionism" and emphasise church-led repentance and justice.
As you will
have gathered from my opening, I broadly align more closely with the
abolitionist movement myself, though I am not sure it is always the best
approach in every situation. However, it is useful to understand these
distinctions, so that you can learn where to engage your focus on this issue.
Here are some key differences summarized:
- Strategy: Pro-life groups pursue incrementalism (step-by-step legal restrictions and support services) as a practical way to save lives now. Abolitionists reject this as compromise; they insist on immediate, total abolition or nothing.
- Exceptions and scope: Pro-life efforts often include targeted bans or limits with some exceptions. Abolitionists allow none and demand nationwide criminalisation with equal accountability for mothers.
- View of women: Pro-life typically emphasises support and sees women as victims needing alternatives. Abolitionists insist on moral and legal accountability for mothers as well.
- Tone and framing: Pro-life is often framed in terms of human rights, science (life begins at conception), and compassion. Abolitionism is explicitly theological ("to the glory of God"), uncompromising, and critical of the broader pro-life movement itself. To be fair, the pro-life movement would also say that they are seeking to pursue the glory of God, they are simply seeking to do it through the given mechanisms in the political process, like many other lobby groups do.
- Size and influence: The pro-life movement is larger and more established in lobbying and public life. The abolitionist movement is smaller, fringe in mainstream politics, but vocal (e.g., campus protests and public debates with pro-life figures).
US influence
on the Australian abolitionist movement is also directly relevant and
significant. While Australia's broader anti-abortion movement has received
strategic guidance from the US since the 1970s, the specific
"abolitionist" framework—terminology, rejection of incrementalism,
emphasis on prosecuting mothers, and gospel-centred activism—is heavily shaped
by US abolitionist groups. Abolish Abortion Australia partners with US-based
Abolitionists Rising (which has sent activists to Australia), hosts joint
conferences, and draws on the same "Five Tenets of Abolitionism" that
emerged in the US post-Roe v. Wade context.
In short, in
Australia the pro-life movement works to restrict and reduce abortion through
pragmatic, incremental means, while the abolitionist movement (via groups like
AAA) demands immediate, total criminal abolition with no compromises—and
explicitly distances itself from pro-life incrementalism. The two overlap in
opposing abortion but often clash over tactics and principles.
From my
initial critiques of both sides of this movement, I see some weaknesses in both
approaches. Firstly, it should be noted that in Australia both movements have
failed to have any significant success overall, though both movements will have
saved lives through convincing individual women not to have abortions. At the
end of the day individual Christians can only do so much. This leads me to a
critique of the abolitionist movement. Arguing that supporting policies that
limit abortion is the same as the committing the sin of partiality does not sit
well with me.
James 2 shows
very clearly that partiality is a sin that includes playing favourites with the
intention to gain favour or benefits,
“1
My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory,
with partiality. 2 For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold
rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy
clothes, 3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to
him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand
there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” 4 have you not shown partiality among
yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
5
Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be
rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag
you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are
called?” (Jam. 2:1-6, NKJV).
Why do people
show favourtism to the rich? So that they may gain the attention of those with privilege,
or the support of those with wealth. The poor man can offer nothing, whereas
the rich man can offer much, or so people think at least. The reason I would
not apply this to abortion is very simple: no class of unborn child can show
you favourtism, hence supporting policies that might make one class of children
safer, while not doing the same for another is not really favourtism, it is
simply seeking to save some. Every fireman or police officer is faced with this
same dilemma at some point in their career. Choosing to save who you can, is
not the sin of partiality.
This then
leads me to critique some on the pro-life side who accuse the abolitionist of
refusing to save any to stay morally pure. Romans 14 is clear that some people's
consciences see sin in what others do not,
“1
Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only
vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not
him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are
you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed,
he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:1-4).
The Bible
does not give direct advice on how to handle every bit of legislation brought
forth in a pagan land. It gives principles of justice and forces us at times to
use discernment and wisdom. Hence, I will admit that I myself would struggle to
support legislation that opened up a class of unborn children to abortion but
not others. The reason I would struggle with this is because I am not a
magistrate and so by not getting involved I have not, in my mind, aided the
process. Whereas, another person’s conscience may say that by advocating for
such laws they are limiting the process. Is this not then a matter for
conscience, rather than condemnation, because at the end of day, people in both
positions are sitting outside the actual process of the application of abortion,
and are seeking to do their best to oppose it?
I need to
think through this issue in more detail. To that end I will be delaying my examination
of Galatians 4 by another week (sorry for those waiting for it) so I can
interview Elijah Harris, who is on the board of Abolish Abortion Australia.
Harris is a young Christian man, a Presbyterian, who is passionate about seeing
abortion criminalized. You can watch the livestream of this interview tonight
at 8pm AEST on my YouTube channel Based
Christian History. Hopefully this interview will help inform you about
this debate, but also how you can get more involved in brining abortion to an
end in Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment