As we move further into the post-Roe era, a small, but vocal, minority of the pro-life movement has shifted away from pro-life incrementalism into a form of pseudo-abolitionism. This small faction is urging both the whole of the pro-life movement and, in particular, pro-life legislators to enact legislation that not only prohibits abortion but also declares abortion as murder. In fact, it seems to go as far as to abandon the idea of incrementalism altogether in favor of charging the mother with an abortion if she has received one.

 

 

There have been several articles detailing the dangers of abolitionism and its inclination to prosecute women.[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v] Many of these objections tend to center on the idea of justice, the idea of how to implement justice, why women are truly considered victims of abortion, and the justification for not labeling them as criminals. This particular essay will discuss one area that has not been thoroughly discussed, one that is ignored by Abolitionists,  and that is the reality that the Dobbs-Era encompasses.

 

 

Abolitionism fails to recognize that not every state is the same when it comes to establishing a Culture of Life. California is certainly not in the same predicament as Texas. Texas is not in the same situation as Nebraska. Even among very blue states, one can find differences. Each state is very different when it comes to pro-life laws. As such, when pushing for pro-life laws, one must take into account several different factors such as the political landscape within the legislature, the political landscape of the voters, and what, if any, pro-life laws have been passed and enacted into law. To properly understand what is the best political/legislative move does take a level of prudence in order to ensure that a Culture of Life can be enshrined within the law.

 

 

But what is meant by prudence? St. Thomas Aquinas, the preeminent Christian philosopher, defines prudence in this manner,

 

 

Now it belongs to prudence, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3 to apply right reason to action, and this is not done without a right appetite. Hence prudence has the nature of virtue not only as the other intellectual virtues have it, but also as the moral virtues have it, among which virtues it is enumerated.[vi]

 

 

Prudence can be summed up as “right reason in action.” Scripture is clear on the idea of prudence as well, “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.”[vii]. It is clear in political situations, since man is a fallen creature, his fallen inclination is to reject anything that is truly good and truly reasonable. Hence the analogy of society being “wolves”. Nonetheless, Christians are certainly called to be “simple as doves”. Two things of note here: 1) the dove is usually associated with the Holy Spirit, and 2) this harkens to mankind’s likeness with God since mankind has been made in the Imago Dei. So, the dove is good, since God is good. Mankind, too, should be good. Lastly, the verse tells us to be as shrewd as serpents. This is a reference to our intellect. Furthermore, the reference to the serpent is a call-back to the Fall when Scripture where the serpent is called the most cunning of God’s creatures. This is an interesting juxtaposition. For the Dove (the Holy Spirit) is also a giver of knowledge. So, the passage in Matthew is telling the disciples to be good (like God) yet use our intellect shrewdly when doing the good. In essence, the passage is asking the disciple to use right reason in action.

 

 

How is the virtue applied in this situation? Basically, the idea is simply asking the person to use his/her intellect and assess the situation. This may mean asking the hard questions, such as will this type of bill pass given the political climate? Does this bill take into account all necessary circumstances? Is this bill lessening the evil of abortion? One particular cogent criticism of the abolitionist position is that it treats abortion as a capital crime against the mother. This position of the abolitionists continually dismisses the reality that roughly two-thirds of women are pressured to abort.[viii] As such, the position fails to take into account the many impediments that women are dealing with when pressured to abort. In addition, the abolitionists utterly dismiss the norms surrounding an abortion decision, namely, the coercion that takes place. This is why the pro-life position has consistently held that women tend to be the victims in these situations, and the law should reflect the norm. This author used suicide, another form of homicide, as an example in a previous article,

 

 

The aim of the law and justice is best served by prosecuting the true offender who has not suffered from severe impediments that impair the ability to reason. Clearly, abortionists do not suffer the impediments women face. Post-abortive women need help precisely because they believe their situation is so dire that they are not able to reason correctly for the time being. Just as we recognize that a suicidal person is calling for and in need of help, so too is the woman considering an abortion. A person can be so burdened with impediments that they become a victim of those impediments. Just like the suicidal person is a victim of his impediments, so is the woman. Justice demands that these people receive the treatment they desperately need. Ignoring, or downplaying the impediments women face is to commit an injustice against these women and their unborn children. Justice as understood through Natural Law, and reflected in our legal system, is best served by recognizing the moral impediments that post-abortive women face and provide them with the care they need.[ix]

 

 

Furthermore, the pro-life movement also must look at the legislative and political landscape when pushing for a bill as well. It certainly has become quite clear to this author that when disputes arise on social media surrounding legislation, Abolitionists simply do not grasp that successes in pro-life states that have outlawed abortion have come through incremental efforts. Each of these states graduated from passing simple pro-life legislation to more pro-life legislation, which slowed the evil of abortion, to eventually outright bans.

 

 

Also, it is clear to see that even with outright bans, there are areas of the law that need to be tightened up. What does this mean? It means that incrementalism is not done. Blue cities in red states certainly try to get around these bans by trying to pass local ordinances that will pay for abortion travel. Abortion pills are still sent into these states with no repercussions. Sexual predators still try to cross state lines to get secret abortions on their minor victims. It is more than obvious that incremental tweaks must take place even within pro-life states.

 

 

Ultimately, the Abolitionist position simply would not gain traction in a state like New York. But furthermore, it is not gaining much traction even in a pro-life state like Texas, either. People tend to recognize when a law has gone too far. There is a reason why pro-life incremental legislation enjoys such wide support; it is primarily because the vast majority of people recognize that there is no absolute right to abortion. Even many people who consider themselves “pro-choice” favor pro-life laws such as parental consent, informed consent, or even clinic regulations. However, when it comes to charging a mother with a crime, Abolitionists are simply in the overwhelming minority. One Marist poll showed that 84% of Americans did not support laws that would impose legal consequences against a mother who obtained an abortion.[x] No doubt, there are several reasons for this, but the main reason why pro-life intellectual advocates do not favor such laws is that it is contrary to the virtue of justice and, as such, would be contrary to the virtue of prudence as well.

 

 

In conclusion, pro-life advocates understand that abortion is a form of murder. And these advocates are doing much to ensure that abortion becomes something that is not only illegal, but unthinkable. While in a state like Louisiana, abortion is becoming more unthinkable, the case is different than in Oregon. In both situations, both the legislators and pro-life advocates lobbying for the pro-life laws have to prudentially consider what type of pro-life legislation can be reasonably passed to limit the evil of abortion. The goal is to stop abortion in both a prudential and just way. The ends never justify the means.

 

__________________________

[i] Brennan, Ana, “Love them Both,” Sebastian’s Point, December 6, 2018, retrieved on May 27, 2025, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/copy-of-sebastian-s-point-20.

[ii] Forsythe, Clarke, “When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed For Having Abortions. Here’s Why,” LifeNews.com, March 21, 2016, retrieved on May 27, 2025, https://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/31/when-abortion-was-illegal-women-were-not-jailed-for-having-abortions-heres-why/.

[iii] Kral, Joe, “Love Them Both Part  II: A Natural Law Perspective,” Sebastian’s Point, December 20, 2018, retrieved on May 27, 2025, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/copy-of-sebastian-s-point-22.

[iv] Wright, Kyleen, “A Time for Choosing: Colorado or Texas,” Sebastian’s Point, May 1, 2025, retrieved on May 27, 2025, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/tx-abort-abolish-wright.

[v] Maska, Chris, “The Abolitionists Are Wrong: Equal Protection Does Not Mean a Mother Who Gets an Abortion Has Committed a Capital Crime,” Journal of Bioethics in Law & Culture, Spring Edition, Volume 8, Issue 1, retrieved on May 27, 2025, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/_files/ugd/f49069_88e55c6617bf4772a1a6687c6cc58bb9.pdf.

[vi] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II, 47, 4.

[vii] NAB Matthew 10:16.

[viii] Reardon, David, et al, “Hidden Epidemic: Nearly 70% of Abortions are Coerced, Unwanted, or Inconsistent with Women’s Preferences,” published by Charlotte Lozier Institute, May 15, 2023, retrieved on May 29, 2025, https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/.

[ix] Kral, Joe, “Love Them Both Part  II: A Natural Law Perspective,” Sebastian’s Point, December 20, 2018, retrieved on May 27, 2025, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/copy-of-sebastian-s-point-22.

[x] Marist Poll, April 3, 2024. See https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/april-2024-presidential-election/.

​

​