It started, as these things often do, with a simple question. A seemingly nice lady on Twitter—yet a representative of the typical emotionally charged illogical reasoning of the mainstream pro-life movement—wanted to know how I think my church should handle a woman in our congregation who had an abortion.

Honestly, the question was framed with all the subtlety of a courtroom drama where the goal isn’t truth, but a cheap gotcha moment. She wanted to know, in no uncertain terms, whether I, in my dark, unfeeling soul, would be comfortable looking at a woman who had an abortion, a repentant sister in Christ, and telling her, point-blank, that she “should be dead.”

And there it was—the emotional grenade lobbed into what should be a rational discussion about justice.

This is the playbook of the so-called “pro-life” moderates, the ones who wring their hands at the idea of actual justice, the ones who want to pretend abortion is tragic but not quite a crime, the ones who refuse to call murder what it is.

And so, true to form, the conversation shifted into sentimentality. Would I dare say that a woman who repents should still face the death penalty under the law? To which I explained as plainly as possible that civil law and church discipline serve two different purposes.

Justice is not determined by the tearful confessions of the guilty but by the gravity of the crime committed. As I also argued during the conversation, it is widely believed that the serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, truly repented and came to Christ before facing punishment. He was born again, saved by the infinite blood of Christ, and became part of the Church. If you can’t stand the thought of seeing Jeffrey Dahmer in Heaven some day, I would seriously question your salvation and understanding of grace.

And yet, I still supported the death penalty for his crimes. Why? Because true justice demands it. Strong justice for such heinous acts is a deterrent for such acts and a failure to follow through with it renders the deterrent worthless.

This, of course, was too much for her to accept. She recoiled at the comparison—as though Dahmer’s depraved cannibalism and a mother’s premeditated decision to pay a hit man to dismember her child were fundamentally different species of sin.

But murder is murder. The means of execution don’t determine the moral weight of the crime. Yet, in the eyes of the modern, feminized pro-life movement, a mother is always the victim, even when she is the perpetrator.

She pressed on. Did I, in my supposed bloodlust, truly want the women in my church “carted off and executed”? Again, the predictable emotional theatrics. My answer remained consistent. I do not support retroactive justice where the death penalty was not a statutory punishment at the time of the crime. But I absolutely support changing the law to ensure that abortion is punished as murder going forward. That is justice. That is consistency. That is biblical.

And before the sentimentalists clutch their pearls, let me make something clear. I know women who have had abortions. Women who I am close to. Women that I’ve sat in the pews with over the years. Women who have repented and come to Christ. Women in my own family.

And here’s the hard truth—if abortion were treated as murder under the law, would I celebrate their execution? Absolutely not. Would I grieve? Of course. But would I support the law that demands it in order to stop these same women from doing it again?

Without hesitation!

Because the purpose of the civil law is not to cater to my emotions—it is to restrain evil. And to be completely honest, if these women knew they would face the death penalty for hiring a hit man to take out their “inconvenient” child, do you think they would be so quick to make that appointment? The answer is self-evident.

Yet this kind of reasoning is rejected by the majority of the pro-life movement. Their reasoning is the same as those who cling to similar emotional arguments that have led so many professing Christians to fold on homosexuality. It’s always the same excuse. “But I know someone…”

Just like Jen Hatmaker softened on sodomy the moment her daughter came out as a lesbian. Just like Andy Stanley’s church leadership all caved—they all have “gay” children. Just like the pro-life moderates, who suddenly have no stomach for justice the moment their sister or their niece walks into a clinic and walks out with blood on her hands.

This is what happens when emotion replaces principle. It leads to the endless rationalizations.

“She was pressured into it.”

“She didn’t know better.”

“She’s the real victim here.”

And suddenly, murder is just a tragedy instead of a crime. Suddenly, justice is optional. Suddenly, the entire concept of accountability is thrown to the wind because someone, somewhere, had their feelings hurt.

No one denies that abortion is often done under duress. No one denies that women face pressure. But pressure does not negate responsibility. Women are moral agents, capable of knowing right from wrong, capable of making choices, and therefore capable of facing the consequences.

If we believe abortion is murder, then the only logical, biblical, and consistent position is that those who commit it should be treated accordingly. Anything less is a cowardly compromise.

She may not have meant to, but she ultimately defended an inconsistent, weak position. And it’s not just her—it’s the vast majority of the so-called pro-life movement. It’s the Russell Moores and the Brent Leatherwoods. The Southern Baptist megachurch pastors. It’s the Right to Life organizations and Students for Life groups.

They all want abortion to be seen as evil but not punishable. They want to “fight for the unborn” without holding their murderers accountable.

They want to be taken seriously while arguing for a position that is unserious at best and morally bankrupt at worst. But here’s the reality. A movement that refuses to punish the crime it claims to oppose is not a movement against that crime at all. It is an enabler of it. And that was the question that started this entire thread:

So, let the moderates continue their empty rhetoric. Let them continue to wince at the very idea of justice. But as for me, I will stand on the truth. Biblical, logical, and unwavering. Because murder is murder. And justice is justice.

And if we are not willing to enforce the one, we have no right to claim we believe in the other.