Practical Love in the Pro-Life Fight

In the wake of the recent Gosnell trial, other stories have come to light that demonstrate that Gosnell is not merely an isolated incident. The shock and horror of the initial unveiling of Gosnell’s atrocities is slowly hardening into resolve among pro-life advocates. It is a time of great mourning and reflection for those who are pro-life, even while we have hope of seeing the tidal wave of blood staunched one day in the future.

However, it is also a time for those who are pro-life to stop and examine their commitments to the pro-life cause. Reassessment is necessary because the church isn’t presently prepared to deal with the potential outworking of operating under an explicitly pro-life system. We especially need to consider what it means to love well in the midst of the pro-life fight. One of my fellow bloggers wrote in February about remembering to love in the midst of the pro-life Fight. I agree with him, and want to further that discussion with three commitments that Christians need to examine if they hope to be robustly pro-life.

1. Pro-lifers need to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in adoption. While adoptions are on the rise, and this is largely due to influence from Christian communities, the reality is that the present rate of adoption in the US will only handle approximately a tenth of the babies that would otherwise be aborted (120,000 adoptions a year vs. 1,370,000 abortions each year in the US). When you break those adoption numbers down further, close to half are adopting someone they know, such as grandparents or step-parents adopting children for the sake of guardianship. Another sixth of those adoptions are international children. Finally, a little over 50,000 children are adopted out of the foster-care system each year, or a little less than four percent of yearly abortions. The stark reality is that even if those babies lived, their quality of life will be abysmal if people do not adopt them. What does love look like in this instance? Love looks like not only mourning the 53 million lives that have been lost, but also being willing to open our pocket books and homes to those who might be saved from such a fate. If Christians are not willing to open their homes to these children, then who will?

2. This first point reminds us that while we can increase the number of families who adopt babies, we also need to significantly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Thus, we must reconsider our methods of sex-education. While it is common knowledge that abstinence a great way to guarantee no pregnancy, the reality is that nearly everyone also believes they are entitled to uninhibited sexual expression. Unfortunately the values of the world after the sexual revolution and Roe V. Wade means that a large portion of people, even Christians, are having extramarital sex. Even within the bounds of marriage, people consider aborting children because their fertility methods worked too well, or because they are over-burdened financially. The result has been an explosion of unwanted pregnancies.

Studies have suggested that comprehensive sex-education would significantly reduce the number of un-wanted pregnancies each year, and yet Christians oppose it on many levels. Some of the reasons are sound, some birth control methods are potentially abortifacient and thus are a compromise of a pro-life position. Other reasons are less valid, such as the belief that allowing their children to have a comprehensive sex-education will give them license to sin. Both potential problems have thorough arguments for why there are mitigating factors to these concerns. But at bottom, there is a huge gap in how Christians deal with sex education, both in religious and secular educational settings. It is worth considering, with the number of lives at stake, that supporting comprehensive sex education in all schools could reduce the number of abortions by 60%. And if Christian parents are worried that their children knowing about safe sex will increase the likelihood that their child will be promiscuous, then this underscores that we are not teaching our youth comprehensive views of the integration of sex, their souls, and God. Instead, we are merely scaring them into following the rules, and that is never good motivation for virtue.

3. Now, lest we fall prey to the temptation to only love the apparent victims well, we need to learn to love the women who are considering or who have had abortions, and not only because they are frequently victims themselves. While Christians claim that they love the sinner while rejecting the sin, the Christian community’s language towards those who fall into sexual sin, who get pregnant, and who consider abortion is anything but loving. While I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of organizations like, their language is so inflammatory that there is no room for the human struggle that goes with that. There isn’t room for the hard cases, for girls and women who get pregnant through rape or incest, or the families that would be left bereft of a mother if she didn’t choose to end her pregnancy. While we need to be uncompromising in our stances about abortion, Jesus didn’t just simply condemn sin, he healed the hurting and loved well, even as he commanded them to turn from their sin. It’s time that Christians work toward getting down with people in the trenches, doing life with them, and loving them where they are at, instead of condemning them from the sidelines.

In sum, the pro-life movement has traditionally advocated for the unborn. While this is necessary and good, the conversation also tends to further an “us vs. them” mentality, where it’s pro-life and babies on one side and pro-choice and women on the other. There needs to be a shift in perspective, wherein we acknowledge that the moral climate we live in is no longer that of older generations. We also need to find ways to love the vulnerable in the pro-life movement, and that includes the women – because society has lied to them and told them that what they do with their bodies doesn’t matter, and that abortion is no different than removing a benign tumor. We need to be firm about the rights of the unborn, but we need to love the broken hearts and bodies that abortion has left behind.

Published by

Stephanie Wilkerson

Stephanie holds a BA from Biola University in Biblical and Theological Studies and is a perpetual member of the Torrey Honors Institute. She presently works for a film production company in Irvine as Project Coordinator and is enjoying getting to apply her love of writing to an more practical arena than academia. Stephanie has the distinction of being one of the few Vegan, country-music-hating Wyomingites in the world and has a deep love for the beauty of the mountains, though she now lives among the sprawling urban masses of LA County. During her infrequent bouts of free time, Stephanie enjoys reading (particularly classics and theology), learning German and Adobe Suite, and tormenting her roommates and their boyfriends.

  • Josh Brahm

    There’s some good stuff worth considering here, Stephanie, and I appreciate your courage of addressing the comprehensive sex ed issue, which I agree we need to take a close look at and carefully evaluate our arguments about. I’m also glad to see you linking to my brother’s excellent piece on the need for pro-lifers to love people.

    I just have a quick thought about your first point. I absolutely agree that we should encourage Christians to adopt more, but I think there are more factors that would influence how many newborns would be available for adoption in a post-abortion America than you covered.

    I suspect in a post-abortion country, (or more likely, a state that makes abortion illegal after Roe is overturned,) many people will actively work harder to not get pregnant. Some people will take birth control use more seriously. Some may abstain from intercourse if they really feel like an unplanned pregnancy would be a major disruption to their lives. Right now abortion can be thought of as a very late form of birth control. I’m not saying lots of women USE abortion as a form of birth control, (although some demonstrably do,) but that one of the things that may factor into a persons sexual decisions is the availability of abortion if birth control fails. Obviously some single people will still engage in premarital sexual activity, but I suspect that activity would be reduced, because life without abortion would be different.

    I also suspect that most of the people that would get pregnant would choose to parent as opposed to gifting their child for adoption. We actually see this now, and I don’t know why it would drastically change. Many people feel like it’s morally wrong to choose adoption, often because they are confusing newborn adoption with the foster care system. Some simply don’t want to go through the emotional pain of carrying a child to term and then giving the child to somebody else, even if the adopting couple is clearly in a better position to care for this child.

    So, yes, we need to keep pushing adoption, and I’m grateful to see more mega-churches really taking this issue on and strongly encouraging their congregation to love the “widows and orphans” of our society in dramatic ways. But I don’t think there would be 1.3 million more children available for adoption every year in an abortion-free country because I think our unwanted pregnancy rate would go down considerably and because many would continue to choose parenting over adoption.

  • Stephanie Wilkerson

    Hi Josh,
    Upon reflection, I agree that the first point is overstatement, and that there is a considerable amount I didn’t consider. I think this is why I went in that direction:

    I recently read this article ( and others that made me realize that laws wouldn’t necessarily be a deterrent from the practice of abortion. Thus, I assumed that most people wouldn’t necessarily consider sex with more weight in response to abortions being illegal. Now, due to the Gosnell fiasco and other incidents that I mentioned in the article, I also figured that back alley abortions would be harder to obtain, so there would likely be an increase of people who were having babies who did not want the responsibility of caring for the children, and thus, put them up for adoption. Thus, my assumption that there would be a lot more babies in the system for adoption in a post-abortion world.

    Now that I’ve spelled out my latent logic, I see where there are a few holes in that theory. Namely: 1) people will probably still try to get abortions, which will still reduce the number of adoptions. 2) I ruled out optimism. My instinct is to assume that the worst will always be the case, and your comment reminded me that there is a lot of room for optimism in this debate. Thus, there is much reason to hope that adoptions would not increase 10 fold.

    All that to say: thanks for your thoughts, and I will have to see how I can incorporate optimism more into my position.

  • Pingback: Will There be a Needed Spike in Adoption Rates if Abortion Becomes Illegal? |

  • Pingback: Will There be a Needed Spike in Adoption Rates if Abortion Becomes Illegal? | Josh Brahm()