Abortion Debate: A Complicated Reality
For years, the narrative has been that while completely eradicating abortion may not be feasible, we can still work to lessen its occurrence. The political landscape demands that we show patience—incremental legislation, wise compromises, and thoughtful coalition-building are supposed to lead us toward a gradual decrease in abortion rates over time.
This year, the number of abortions is reported to be lower than last year’s. And next year’s numbers, we’re told, will follow suit. Yet, the data doesn’t seem to reflect that optimistic trend.
The same movement that claims to recognize the humanity of unborn children also supports a system that doesn’t legally affirm that humanity.
In 2020, around 930,000 abortions were recorded in the United States. By 2024, projections indicate that the yearly total could surpass 1 million once more. The monthly figures appear to be on the rise—transitioning from about 88,000 in 2023 to nearly 100,000 by 2025—culminating in over 1.1 million abortions annually. This isn’t the path we expected.
Despite the effects of the Dobbs decision, which should have reshaped the landscape, abortion remains legally available in substantial portions of the nation. It’s becoming increasingly accessible, despite years of advocacy, funding, and political wins.
When evaluating our efforts against the rationale for compromises made, the outcomes don’t seem particularly impressive. If we justify compromises based on the expectation of reduced abortion numbers, what happens if those expectations aren’t met? If the entire basis rests on tangible results, then those results should be scrutinized honestly. A failure there undermines the rationale for such compromises.
The real question, however, isn’t solely about the effectiveness of these compromises. It’s more about whether or not compromise itself can be justified.
The Bible does speak to this dilemma: “To anyone who knows to do good and does not do it, it is sin.” (James 4:17). This assertion implies that the understanding of what is right exists, but action is being withheld.
And this is where we currently stand in the abortion discourse.
The pro-life movement has consistently asserted that fetuses are fully human. Not merely possibly human or human in some eventual sense, but complete with inherent value from conception, created in the image of God.
Yet, this understanding hasn’t translated into legal policy.
Justice remains uneven. Legal proceedings are intentionally prolonged. While discussions recognize certain groups as human, legislative measures like the Heartbeat Bill or the 20-week ban fail to encode that humanity effectively.
It’s troubling. To uphold a legal framework that permits the termination of life, all while recognizing that life as fully human, seems to deepen the moral failure.
The biblical perspective reinforces that with greater knowledge comes greater responsibility. Leaders are compelled to act on the truths they espouse, and failure to do so doesn’t equate to mere error—it invites scrutiny.
We’re often instructed to appraise abortion policies only on the basis of their outcomes. However, faith traditions don’t draw a line between results and moral adherence; they intertwine them. Misalignment here leads to consequences.
Compromise does not reduce the incidence of abortion because it’s not a neutral or morally vacuous approach. It can lead society to accept the very evils it claims to reject, causing policymakers to excuse inaction as necessary posturing. This creates a community that professes the humanity of unborn children while writing laws that don’t reflect that belief.
Thus, the statistics don’t narrate the full story of our commitments. Not due to a lack of complexity in strategy, but because the entire approach was misaligned. The issue isn’t about insufficient compromise; it’s about the nature of what we chose to compromise on.
God isn’t weighing political viability. He seeks obedience.
True obedience doesn’t measure how much injustice can be endured along the path to progress; it inquires about what justice truly demands.
Until such a transformation takes root, we’ll likely continue down this same cycle. New laws, campaigns, assurances of progress—leading to the same or worsening outcomes. It’s not about lacking the power to create change. It’s about our collective refusal to act on what we inherently know is right. Expecting different numerical outcomes while we resist doing what’s right seems naive. Because divine blessings do not accompany disobedience; they come with accountability.
This underscores the necessity of striving for true equality under the law for our most vulnerable, advocating for the abolition of abortion rather than its regulation.
