I hate you! Racist! Bigot! (fill in the blank)phobe! Nazi! Crazy! Stupid! If you’ve been on the internet more than five minutes, you’ve undoubtedly encountered such terms being thrown around. The comments within any social media platform can be so toxic, you need a digital hazmat suit just to come out unscathed. Not only is it toxic, but it’s also as if everything is so absolute. Any thought of teamwork, compromise, or middle ground is an antiquated concept. Everything is so black and white. Everything is just so certain. Even the postmodernists are comfortable making absolute statements.
There is certainly a time and place for certainty. For instance, we can be certain this blog article exists. The fact you’re reading it is evidence for existence. We can also be certain of the Gospel through faith (Hebrews 11:1) and should contend earnestly for it (Jude 3). If I were to deny such certainties, I would not only be no better than the postmodernist, but I would also be in open defiance of biblical truth. The purpose of this article is not to talk one out of certainties but to read between the lines and see when there just might be shades of gray. Before I go any further, I do acknowledge this is a controversial topic where not all will agree with me. Even within The Particular Baptist, we have dissenting views on this topic. Regardless, it’s one I feel is worth writing about.
One of these areas is pro-life laws. Most on the pro-life side will tout the noble victories of such laws. On the other side, there are the Abolitionists who will be quick to discredit such laws by calling them wicked, unjust, and respecters of persons. Both sides have waged war on the other. As a full disclaimer, I consider myself to be pro-life, and I find the Abolitionist position to be on par with dangerous extremism, but that does not mean I find the pro-life position to be anything even remotely close to satisfactory. Allow me to explain myself for a moment.
For those not familiar with the Abolitionist position, the best summary I can think of would be to say the Abolitionist seeks the complete eradication of abortion (and any abortive medications) through a means that is meant to reflect pure justice and devout adherence to the Law of God in the rejection of wickedness. As I typed that, I really did strive to paint their intentions in a positive light, as I believe the typical Abolitionist really does have noble intentions as he seeks to honor God. But what does honoring God look like? To the Abolitionist, it looks like what I just typed. On the flip side, someone else might see that as false piety that leads to death.
Since I already painted Abolitionism in the best possible light, it’s time to paint it another way. After all, the theme of this article is absolute extremism, right? Is it just to withhold lifesaving measures from some just because you can’t provide it to all? Is it just to belittle and denigrate brothers and sisters in Christ who are working diligently to save lives just because it differs from your methods? Is it just to reject and stomp out a proven lifesaving technique because it gets in the way of your technique that has never saved anyone? Is it righteous to interrupt and protest church services because you feel they should be doing more for your cause? All of these are the unfortunate marks of the Abolitionist movement. While I understand the intent behind the movement and the desire for justice, it ends up being radical extremism that leads to death. Yes, that statement is in itself a bit extreme, but at least I can say I’m being consistent with the theme of the article.
In reality, I believe the best position is somewhere in between. The typical pro-lifer will often resort to tactics that end up veering on the side of apathy and ignorance. Just as many pro-choicers have never truly thought out their position, so is the case for many pro-lifers. It ends up being a very elementary approach to something as critical as life itself. That said, the typical Abolitionist will often resort to tactics that produce zero results and hide behind a mask of self-righteous indignation. So long as the goal is to save lives, neither position is helpful. NOTE: There are many Abolitionists who will openly admit their goal is not to save lives but to be righteous. While we should all seek righteousness, both sides will define it quite differently. For my own person position, I describe myself as being an Abolitionist at heart while recognizing pro-life means are oftentimes the most effective. By this, I mean we should all be seeking the eradication of abortion, even if it means getting there little by little.
We need to acknowledge the fact that abortion is a multi-billion-dollar industry built on the corpses of the most innocent class of humans to ever exist. This isn’t merely a matter of a slight disagreement. This is a war. Just as with most wars, there will be a long series of battles that must be fought both strategically and tactically. This is the nature of war. But the Abolitionist ignores such reality and opts to believe this is a matter of David vs Goliath. They want to sling one stone and call it a victory. This is seen in their Abolitionist bills that are craftily written to obliterate any trace of abortion. While I would rejoice to see one of these bills pass, it’s like shooting a single 9mm round at an armored tank and expecting to see it explode. It’s like shooting a silver bullet at a werewolf and making it home in time for dinner. While it may work in the movies, it just isn’t reality.
This is where incremental bills enter the picture. These have taken many forms over the years to include bans on abortion past a certain week, exceptions in various cases, requiring an ultrasound prior to an abortion being performed, etc. In and of themselves, none of these are acceptable or sufficient. They all end up falling short in many ways. So why would I promote them? Is the Abolitionist right? The reason is because they all serve as roadblocks. Have you ever tried to go somewhere and saw there was a ton of traffic? If you were intent on going, you might decide to just sit in traffic or find an alternate route. But if you were on the fence about even going to begin with, the excess traffic may just be enough to make you stay home. Nothing will stop the determined, but the ambivalent can often be convinced one way or the other.
The Abolitionist says incremental bills are written in a way that grants permission to kill some over others, but that’s just dishonest. While it may be written into the bills, all they do is echo the existing reality of our broken justice system that denied the preborn their God-given human right to life. They aren’t granting to power to kill. They are merely acknowledging nothing will change in some instances, while restricting the power to kill in other ways. It’s a practical approach that has empirically proven itself to reduce the number of abortions per year. Sure, one can belittle it by calling it a pragmatic approach, but I’m sure the 500,000 lives per year that have been saved since 1990 (when numbers started dramatically reducing) won’t care what you call it. They’re alive because of the effort that have been implemented and the awareness that has been spread by the growing pro-life movement. Again, that’s upwards of 500,000 real lives per year that have been saved due to pro-life legislation, awareness, and activism. The Abolitionist can call it unrighteous respecters of persons, but the alternative is zero lives saved and upwards of 500,000 more deaths per year in the name of righteousness.
Another area where I feel extremism gets in the way is in the realm of vaccines. While not necessarily a unilateral statement, it is true that a majority of vaccines are created and tested with the use of human fetal cell lines. It’s a sad statement that I wish were untrue. For instance, both the WI-38 and MRC-5 fetal cell lines have been used for decades. While anti-vaxxer has become a political term, there are many who are opposed to vaccines solely because they were tested on fetal cells obtained through abortion. The Abolitionist (and many within the pro-life camp) will say it’s unrighteous and should be rejected as a show of resolve against such methods. My problem with such a position is that I feel it falls woefully short of understanding fetal cell lines. Many have come to believe abortion facilities are shipping off aborted fetuses to labs for the creation of vaccines, but this simply isn’t the case. For instance, both of the above-mentioned fetal cell lines were from elective abortions performed in the 1960’s in the UK. These cells have since been stabilized in a lab environment and have been replicated ever since. A common (and extremely weak) pro-choice argument is that the preborn are just clumps of cells. In this case, it’s actually the truth. The children were killed, and now it’s just certain cell lines that have been replicated and preserved for the purpose of lab testing.
Does this mean the ends justifies the means? Absolutely not! If I had a time travelling DeLorean and could prevent those children from being aborted in 1962 and 1966, I absolutely would, even if it meant we wouldn’t have the rabies, chickenpox, shingles, or polio vaccines today. Let me be abundantly clear: THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS! Sadly, the DeLorean was destroyed on the train tracks in 1985. The children have been killed, and there’s no bringing them back. If my child ever requires a kidney transplant, and a donor becomes available, should I reject it if I find out it’s from a child who was killed by a drunk driver? Does the organ now become wicked? Am I supporting drunk driving by allowing the transplant to take place? Am I supporting a medical industry that is profiteering off of drunk drivers? Or perhaps it’s an instance of good coming from evil. Perhaps it’s a silver lining amidst the dark clouds.
This is how I look at vaccines. If they were being created off of current abortions, I would immediately say no, but that’s just not the case. Because these children were killed roughly 60 years ago, and nothing can be done to reverse it, I can at least be thankful that something good has come from it and that they didn’t die in vain. While there are many reasons to be skeptical of vaccines, and everyone should do their research before coming to an informed personal medical decision, I don’t believe fetal cell lines is a valid argument. After all, Joseph was thrown into a pit, sold into slavery by his brothers, was falsely accused of rape, and was imprisoned. We all know the rest of the story. Through a series of events, he ended up being one of the highest authorities in all the land, second only to Pharaoh himself. Through this authority, he made provisions that ended up saving Egypt from a deadly famine that lasted for years. As God used Moses to record the story, He didn’t have him write about the wickedness of saving Egypt or how Joseph should have let them all die, since he was only in Egypt because of evil means. Saving Egypt was never condemned as a matter of the ends justifying wicked means. No, instead we see Joseph said, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive” (Genesis 50:20). At no point does it exalt the means. It outright calls the means evil, but it also calls the ends good. The ends did not justify the means, but the ends were still good that came from evil. Once again, this is a case where extremism would lead one to criticize Joseph, Moses, and God as being justifiers of wickedness. It’s just another example of why extremism often misses the bigger picture and only backs itself into a corner of inconsistency and actual unrighteousness.
After reading all of this, you may disagree with my conclusions, and that’s okay. We may look at things differently, but my encouragement to you is to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Something can be both insufficient and good at the same time. Similarly, in cases of evil, we can condemn the evil while still rejoicing when something good comes from it. The next time you feel compelled to take an extreme stance, stop and ask yourself whether it’s something that might actually have shades of gray. It’s worth the question.
~ Travis W. Rogers
The Particular Baptist 
Leave a Reply