Mike Cernovich, a former leading figure of the alt right and one of the most influential voices in the conservative social media space with over 1.5 million followers online, has long been a critic of abortion. He’s said it’s “anti-human” and that it’s a “made-up constitutional right.” Yet in recent months, he has led an enthusiastic charge against pro-lifers and the pro-life movement, accusing both of many things — the most significant being that they are going to cost Republicans the 2024 election.
The good news about the refusal of certain pro-life activists to compromise on abortion is that when you cost us 2024, none of us will have to worry about it. We won’t have any leverage or power. Democrats will decide that issue and others totally on their own.
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 13, 2023
Cernovich is not alone in these opinions, and many Republican officers as well as hopefuls have been rushing to clarify their “moderate” stances on abortion, for fear of jeopardizing their electability.
Is this the case? Should Christians seek some kind of “middle ground” on abortion? Do we need to come to terms with reality and just do damage control, content to save whatever babies we can?
Is the pro-life view even an electable position anymore?
As I view it, there are only 3 positions that one can hold in the “pro-life” category. And only one of those positions is acceptable for a Christian to hold.
The Pro-Life Frauds
The pro-life position is generally well-known and straightforward. Babies in utero are human beings, and since all human life has inherent value, ending this human life is murder.
This being the accepted moral foundation for the entire pro-life worldview, let’s test it against the behavior and beliefs of modern pro-lifers. Does their orthopraxy match their orthodoxy?
It’s ironic that individuals like Cernovich accuse pro-lifers of hypocrisy.
He has also said that holding a pro-Israel geopolitical view is simultaneously dismissive of the plights of Gazan children, and thus a hypocritical stance for someone who claims to be protective of the life of children.
This manufactured moral dilemma is a very common narrative (although not usually from people who claim to oppose abortion, as Cernovich does), and we often hear similar arguments surrounding capital punishment: “You can’t be pro-life and support the death penalty!”
It’s laughably feeble-minded logic — but we’ll get to that later.
The irony in Cernovich’s childlike “gotcha” take comes from his own disapproval of abortion. You see, there is not a single “middle ground” pro-life argument that holds weight or logical consistency outside of the moral one. Only the moral one is required. If you don’t believe babies in utero are human, then you should rethink calling yourself a pro-lifer. It’s that straightforward and simple.
So, if individuals like Cernovich and other Republican politicians hold middle-ground pro-life stances while also claiming to share the moral foundation in opposition to abortion, then they’re frauds.
They’ve claimed to believe something they actually don’t believe, because no one with a shred of virtue could utter things like, “We need to find common ground and come up with a moderate solution to the murder issue.” That’s true for Democrats or Republicans.
Now there are many pro-abortion folks who do believe babies in utero are human, and they are evil incarnate.
But the rest simply disbelieve in the humanity of the pre-born baby; the only distinction is that the pro-aborts have the guts to admit it. The middle-ground pro-life Republicans are simply frauds.
Cowards, One and All
Then again, perhaps “pro-life” Cernovich and his cohorts aren’t frauds, but cowards. This category of middle ground pro-lifer I believe to be the most common.
These are the individuals who do indeed accept the moral premise of the pro-life argument (again, that the pre-born are humans), but are too cowardly or weak-minded to follow the logic to its necessary conclusion, for fear of the corner that it would back them into.
Is abortion morally equivalent to the murder of an adult human being? If the answer is yes, that sets us up for some pretty uncomfortable confrontations with our friends, coworkers and relatives who might enthusiastically disagree.
See, we can disagree about foreign policy or border security without moralizing the debate; we can disagree civilly and remain on friendly terms.
But murder? Well, I don’t know too many people who appreciate being accused of genocide. Furthermore, I don’t know too many people who want to maintain close relationships with genocidal maniacs.
Or, perhaps most likely, these middle-ground pro-life cowards are just self-centered psychopaths who view the political expediency of a middle-of-the-road position to be more valuable than the inconvenient truth of human life.
It’s as if they’re saying, “Yeah, it’s murder, but murder is pretty ‘in’ right now, and I don’t want to be that fuddy-duddy to ruin everyone’s day. I’ll lose my donors, my constituency, and my job.”
And of course, it’s not just the politicians and candidates themselves who are reduced to cowardice when asked to make a logically consistent argument.
Neo-con legend Sean Hannity suggested last year that an already wildly pro-abortion policy wasn’t pro-abortion enough, and that abortion bans before 15 weeks would “chase away many suburban voters.”
Hannity said, “I consider myself pro-life, I believe in the sanctity of life, but I think, politically, … Republicans have gotta say [abortion should be] rare, legal and […] very early in a pregnancy.”
Former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump said in a Fox News town hall earlier this year, “You have to win elections. Otherwise, you’re going to be back where you were, and you can’t let that ever happen again. You got to win elections …. “We’re living in a time when there has to be a little bit of a concession, one way or the other” regarding abortion.
Jesus doesn’t have kind words for cowards, lumping them in with many other groups of degenerates in Revelation 21:8, “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Emphasis added.)
The Parallel of Abolition
Morality draws stark distinctions. We see this played out historically, especially over the question of chattel slavery.
In 1769, enslaved African James Somerset was purchased in Boston by Charles Stewart and taken back to England.
Somerset escaped in 1771, but when he was recaptured, his Christian godparents (for he had been baptized as a Christian in England) sued for his release and emancipation.
In a landmark decision, Judge Lord Mansfield declared that an institution as “odius” as chattel slavery is not upheld by common law (law given by God), and as there existed no law in England that endorsed slavery, Somerset was freed.
This decision set a precedent — chattel slavery was a moral evil that must be upheld by positive law or else abolished.
As this debate evolved within Parliament, it soon became clear that the slave trade must end in the British Isles — and end it did when the last king of America, George III, gave royal assent to abolition in 1807, followed by worldwide emancipation throughout the empire in 1833.
If one accepts the moral precedent that abortion is, in fact, murder, then the only position that is morally acceptable and logically consistent is that of total abolition. Anything less is utter nonsense or damnable cowardice.
The Question of Electability
One question remains unanswered here: Is abortion abolition an electable position?
The only reason we need to ask this question is that we’ve made such horrible pro-life arguments for so long.
Instead of solely educating the public on the ethical condition of the pre-born human and their inherent rights, we often depart this lane to argue in futility over “viability” or motives for the abortion.
We’ve put the cart far before the horse.
There is no need to discuss “viability” or debate theoretical scenarios of rape and incest if we’ve already accepted the premise in our hearts and minds that pre-born humans are humans.
The remaining questions answer themselves.
It’s also for this reason that pro-lifers get sucked into infantile parallel arguments over capital punishment or even the war in Israel: “pro-life” is a horrible title to bear.
Because the pro-life movement and message has become so hopelessly diluted with frauds and cowards who don’t belong, I no longer claim that title or identify as a “pro-lifer.” I am an abortion abolitionist.
That’s also because murder — in the moral law set forth by the God of the Christian Bible — allows for the taking of human life in instances of just war, self-defense and capital punishment.
A return to Christian ethics is the only course of action that can redeem the electability of this position. And it’s a course Mike Cernovich — the guy who thinks he met God and talked to him while high on ayahuasca — will likely never take.
The reason many struggle to understand the pro-life position is that pro-lifers aren’t behaving in any way that resembles a people who believe they’re witnessing a genocide — and a genocide it is.
As of 2017, abortion has removed over 63,459,781 human beings from this planet against their will. And despite the Dobbs decision, abortions seem to have actually increased in the last few years.
But most importantly, Christians need to be far less concerned with “electability” and far more concerned with their eternal condition.
As Pastor Mark Driscoll often says, “I would rather be on the right side of eternity than the right side of history.”
Nevertheless, many will continue to worry that if we can’t get conservatives elected and the Democrats take over, that will be bad news for all of us, not just unborn children!
Scripture speaks very often to this fear of men.
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” — Jesus (Matthew 10:28).
I want to win elections. I want conservatives in office. I dream of a day when abortion is looked back upon in the same way we look back upon chattel slavery — with utter disdain, regret and disgust.
I dream of a day when the entire moral condition of a nation or historical figure is measured merely by their relationship to abortion, in the same way we do now with chattel slavery.
However, if that never happens, if we never win another election ever again and this nation falls under the control of the most dystopian, deep-state nightmare, I will stand before my Creator and the Final Judgment in confidence, with a smile on my face.
My Lord Jesus will wipe away my tears from a persecuted life fought firmly on my unshakeable convictions. Such a day, my friend, is the day you need to be worried about, not the first Tuesday in November.
It’s with anticipation of this day that I will unashamedly state that I am not pro-life.
I’m an abortion abolitionist.
