The Semantic Divide – Is “Pro-Choice” Truly Neutral?
One of the most persistently slippery terms in modern political discourse is “pro-choice.” To the casual ear, it sounds almost harmless—who could be against choice? Americans value liberty, autonomy, and self-determination. But when applied to the abortion debate, “pro-choice” becomes a euphemism that disguises the underlying reality: the termination of a human life developing in the womb.
Some Democrats, particularly those who identify with religious or moderate constituencies, attempt to soften their position by claiming they are “pro-choice but not pro-abortion.” This allows them to maintain support among voters with moral concerns about abortion while continuing to align with a political platform that aggressively defends—and increasingly promotes—abortion access. This rhetorical maneuver raises a serious question: Can one truly oppose abortion while voting to preserve, expand, or fund it?
This article examines that claim, scrutinizing the language, the legislative records, the theology, and the worldview assumptions behind the “pro-choice but not pro-abortion” stance. Along the way, we will highlight specific politicians who claim this distinction, the churches they affiliate with, and the concrete results of their votes. Finally, we’ll turn to Scripture, natural law, and church history to articulate a consistent Christian and pro-life understanding of moral responsibility in the face of legalized abortion.
The Political Game – Enabling Evil with a Smile
Let us be candid: if you consistently vote for laws that allow abortion, fund abortion, protect abortionists, and punish pro-life activists, then you are pro-abortion by effect—even if not by declared intent.
Claiming to be personally opposed to abortion while voting to ensure its legal and financial protection is like claiming to be personally opposed to theft while voting to legalize burglary. It is moral schizophrenia at best and public deception at worst. The truth is that laws shape not only behavior but also conscience. To make room for abortion in law is to normalize it in culture.
Consider the late Mario Cuomo, a devout Catholic and former Democratic governor of New York. In a now-famous 1984 speech at Notre Dame, Cuomo articulated the “personally opposed but politically neutral” position. He claimed that as a Catholic, he found abortion morally troubling, but as a public servant, he had no right to “impose” his beliefs on others.
The flaw in this reasoning is simple: every law reflects someone’s morality. Laws against theft reflect a moral belief that stealing is wrong. Laws protecting infants reflect the belief that the young deserve care. Cuomo’s position—imitated ever since by countless Catholic and mainline Protestant Democrats—substitutes moral relativism for moral truth. It suggests that truth is private and preference-based, which is exactly how abortion has been defended for decades.
Politicians Who Claim the Middle Ground
Many prominent Democrats have made the claim to be “pro-choice but not pro-abortion.” Yet their records paint a different picture—one of enthusiastic support for abortion access, federal funding, and even late-term procedures. Let’s examine a few notable figures.
Joe Biden (Roman Catholic)
President Joe Biden is arguably the most prominent Catholic in American politics today—and also one of the most committed defenders of abortion access in the history of the presidency. Biden has described himself in the past as someone who is personally pro-life due to his faith, but he opposes any law that would restrict a woman’s “right to choose.”
Yet his record tells a different story:
- He reversed the Mexico City Policy, which blocked U.S. funding for foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion.
- He supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law through the Women’s Health Protection Act.
- His administration has pursued lawsuits against pro-life protections in states such as Texas and Idaho.
- His HHS department sought to block states from defunding Planned Parenthood.
Can a man who uses the full power of the federal government to enshrine abortion still credibly claim to be “not pro-abortion”?
Tim Kaine (Roman Catholic)
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate, also claims to be personally opposed to abortion due to his Catholic beliefs. But Kaine has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and has voted consistently for abortion access, including federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Kaine’s defense of this inconsistency is familiar: “As a Catholic, I’m personally opposed. But I trust women to make their own decisions.”
What Kaine ignores is that enabling those decisions through legislation makes him complicit in their outcome. Moral responsibility doesn’t vanish because you offload the final decision to someone else. Providing a means to an evil end does not absolve the one who lays the path.
Nancy Pelosi (Roman Catholic)
Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is another Catholic who has long claimed to follow her faith while defending abortion rights. Pelosi has called abortion a “sacred right” and has ridiculed Catholic bishops who have threatened to deny her communion.
Her voting record includes:
- Repeated votes to allow taxpayer funding of abortion.
- Consistent opposition to any restrictions on abortion, including late-term bans.
- Denouncement of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe as “monstrous.”
Her case is perhaps the clearest demonstration of what it looks like when “pro-choice but not pro-abortion” becomes a fig leaf for full abortion advocacy.
More Politicians Playing Both Sides
Kamala Harris (Baptist)
Vice President Kamala Harris has regularly invoked her Baptist upbringing in public remarks. She’s even claimed that her faith motivates her concern for the vulnerable. However, when it comes to the most vulnerable—the unborn—Harris is among the most radically pro-abortion politicians in American history.
As a U.S. Senator, Harris:
- Opposed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
- Voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which sought to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.
- Pushed for removing conscience protections from pro-life medical professionals.
- As California Attorney General, she prosecuted undercover journalist David Daleiden after he exposed Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal tissue.
Her professed faith appears to have no bearing on her abortion politics. In speeches, Harris has said the decision to abort “belongs to the woman, not the government.” But the issue here is not just who makes the decision—it’s whether the decision itself involves killing a child. Scripture, natural law, and Christian ethics make clear that some decisions are not ours to make.
Raphael Warnock (Baptist Pastor)
Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia is not just a professing Christian—he is the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, the former pulpit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock has claimed that he supports abortion rights because of his faith, not in spite of it.
He told reporters in 2020, “I’ve always been a pro-choice pastor.”
Let those words sink in: a pro-choice pastor. In effect, Warnock baptizes the death of unborn children in the language of Christian liberty and compassion. His voting record matches his rhetoric. He has opposed virtually all restrictions on abortion and supports federal efforts to protect and expand access.
But no faithful Christian pastor can justify the killing of innocent life. The early church, in writings like the Didache (first-century catechism), condemned abortion as murder. The idea that a shepherd of Christ’s flock would defend what God calls abominable is tragic—and a reflection of how deeply the progressive agenda has captured even church leadership.
Pete Buttigieg (Episcopalian)
Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation and former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, identifies as Episcopalian and has frequently discussed his religious faith as an influence in his political life. When asked about abortion during his 2020 presidential run, he suggested that life begins “with the woman who is making the decision.” In other words, personhood is subjective.
Buttigieg’s church, the Episcopal Church USA, has drifted far from its Anglican heritage and now publicly supports abortion access as part of its social justice mission. Buttigieg embraces this position entirely, despite calling himself a “devout Christian.”
His case shows how progressive theology often undergirds progressive politics. When the moral authority of Scripture is replaced with individual autonomy, the sanctity of life collapses.
The Illusion of Neutrality – Aiding the Culture of Death
Let us be clear: there is no neutral position on abortion. The notion of being “personally opposed” but “politically pro-choice” is a moral and logical contradiction. It amounts to saying, “I believe abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human being—but I think it should be legal.”
Imagine if someone said:
- “I’m personally opposed to racism, but I don’t think it should be illegal.”
- “I’m personally against domestic abuse, but I don’t want to impose my morality on others.”
Such statements would be rightly condemned as cowardly or complicit. Yet this kind of moral abdication is precisely what pro-choice but not pro-abortion politicians want to pass off as nuance. It’s not nuance—it’s enabling. The person who holds open the door to the abortion clinic, funds it through public dollars, defends its legality in court, and votes to ensure its continued existence is morally responsible for what happens behind those doors.
And, for the sake of clarity, I don’t believe any of the aforementioned politicians are biblical, regenerate Christians. Their deeds and the policies they support refute their faith.
A Christian Understanding of Responsibility
Biblically and historically, moral responsibility is not limited to direct perpetrators. God’s Word consistently teaches that those who approve of, enable, or fail to oppose evil are implicated in its guilt.
Romans 1:32
“Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
The Apostle Paul condemns not only immoral acts, but also the approval of those acts. To give moral or legal cover to abortion—even while claiming private opposition—is to give approval.
Ezekiel 3:18
“When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning… his blood I will require at your hand.”
Ezekiel is told that silence in the face of evil makes the watchman guilty. Likewise, Christian citizens and politicians cannot claim innocence when they vote for, fund, or remain silent about abortion. Responsibility is not erased by detachment or abstraction.
Proverbs 24:11–12
“Rescue those who are being taken away to death… If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?”
No one can plead ignorance or neutrality in a culture where over 60 million babies have been aborted since 1973. Christian faith demands more than personal disapproval—it demands public opposition and rescue.
The Idol of Autonomy — Redefining Freedom to Justify Death
At the heart of the “pro-choice but not pro-abortion” claim lies a deeper philosophical commitment—autonomy. Autonomy, from the Greek autos (self) and nomos (law), means self-rule or self-law. To the modern mind, autonomy is the supreme good: the ability to determine one’s own identity, morality, and destiny without constraint.
This worldview has replaced the Christian understanding of freedom under God with freedom from God. And nowhere is this more evident than in the pro-choice argument.
To say that abortion is “a personal decision between a woman and her doctor” is to declare the womb a jurisdiction outside moral accountability to God, nature, or society. But the question is not merely who decides—it’s what is being decided. The moment the womb becomes a sanctuary for autonomy rather than a sanctuary for life, then killing a child becomes just another expression of freedom.
This idolatry of autonomy is not a neutral philosophy—it is the logical engine driving the pro-abortion movement, and the “pro-choice” position shares in its logic even if it tries to soften its conclusions.
Christians, however, do not define freedom as unbounded personal choice. Freedom, biblically, is the ability to do what is good and right—not the unchecked license to do as one pleases.
“Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.”
—1 Peter 2:16
Natural Law and the Moral Order
Apart from Scripture, the pro-life position also finds strong support in natural law—a moral order discernible through reason and nature. This concept has deep roots in Western civilization, from ancient Greece and Rome to Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Protestant Reformers.
Natural law affirms that certain truths are self-evident:
- Every human being is intrinsically valuable.
- The purpose of the womb is to protect and nurture life.
- Parents, especially mothers, have a natural duty to protect their offspring.
Even in societies without the Bible, these truths have been intuitively known. Abortion violates all three. It declares that some lives are expendable, that the womb may become a battlefield, and that motherhood is optional—even post-conception.
C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, warned of a coming age where man, under the pretense of mastering nature, would lose all moral grounding:
The Tao (natural law) is the concrete reality in which to participate is to be truly human.
When politicians and voters reject the natural law that protects unborn life, they are not being neutral. They are advancing a different moral order—one rooted in power, preference, and pragmatism rather than in truth, nature, and justice.
The Witness of Church History
Throughout the history of Christianity, abortion has been condemned as a grave moral evil. The idea that one could support its legality while opposing it privately would have been unthinkable to the early church, the Reformers, or the Puritans.
The Didache (c. AD 100)
One of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament, the Didache clearly declares:
You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.
This was written at a time when Roman culture widely accepted abortion and infanticide. Yet the church stood out as a moral counterculture, risking persecution to protect the vulnerable.
Tertullian (AD 160–225)
The African church father wrote:
It is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it makes no difference whether it is a life already born or a life that is coming to birth.
This clarity reflected the belief that all human life, born or unborn, bore the image of God.
The Reformers and Puritans
John Calvin declared in his Commentary on Exodus that:
The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being… It is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy.
This was not a fringe view. The Reformers consistently treated abortion as murder, not as a subject for political compromise or moral ambiguity.
The modern “pro-choice but not pro-abortion” position would have been unrecognizable to these men. In fact, it would have been denounced as moral cowardice or complicity with evil.
Modern Christians and the Myth of Compartmentalization
Today’s cultural landscape has been shaped by a deep compartmentalization—a belief that one’s personal faith can be separated from public duty. Many politicians who defend abortion in law claim to oppose it in conscience, often citing religious beliefs.
But biblical Christianity does not permit such a split. Jesus demands lordship over every area of life—personal, political, and public. To vote for policies that protect the killing of the unborn while claiming personal opposition is like washing your hands while handing out the nails for the crucifixion.
“Faith without works is dead.” —James 2:17
To vote for pro-abortion laws while claiming pro-life beliefs is a dead faith—morally incoherent, spiritually hollow, and politically deadly.
Can Christians in Good Conscience Vote for Pro-Choice Politicians?
A question that inevitably arises in this debate is whether a Christian can, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who supports abortion—even if the voter personally opposes it. This dilemma often appears during election seasons, especially when such candidates align with the voter on other policy issues (e.g., immigration, the economy, or health care).
But the moral clarity of Scripture and natural law prohibits complicity in grave moral evil, even indirectly. Voting is not merely a pragmatic act—it is a moral declaration. It is an extension of one’s values into the public square.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”
—Galatians 6:7
When we cast a vote for a pro-abortion candidate, especially one who has made support for abortion a central part of their platform, we are enabling the destruction of human life—even if we protest otherwise. We are contributing to laws and judicial appointments that will expand and protect abortion. We are complicit.
This does not mean that pro-life voters must be single-issue voters in every case. But it does mean that some issues carry moral weight so heavy—so foundational—that they must disqualify a candidate, no matter their stance on lesser matters. The shedding of innocent blood is one such issue.
A Call to the Church—Recovering Prophetic Courage
Too many churches, particularly mainline Protestant denominations, have capitulated to the culture of death. Some now openly affirm abortion as a moral good. Others remain silent, offering vague calls for “compassion” and “dialogue” rather than repentance and justice.
Silence is not neutrality. Silence is betrayal.
The church must recover its prophetic voice. The early church rescued abandoned babies from Roman trash heaps. Modern churches must rescue children from chemical abortion and the lies of Planned Parenthood.
We need pulpits to thunder with truth—not partisanship, but prophetic clarity. We need pastors to name names, to confront politicians in their congregations who vote for the killing of the unborn while receiving communion and accolades. We need Christians to disciple their children in a worldview that cherishes life from conception to natural death.
And we need to stop treating abortion as just another issue. It is a defining moral line—like slavery in the 19th century or the Holocaust in the 20th. To stand by quietly is to stand with the oppressor.
Conclusion — Truth Has No Middle Ground
Can you be pro-choice but not pro-abortion?
Only in the world of rhetorical games. In the real world—where laws are passed, children die, and clinics profit—this distinction collapses. If you defend the legality of abortion, fund it, vote for it, or protect those who commit it, then you are pro-abortion in effect. Your intentions do not override your impact.
The Christian worldview demands something higher. It calls us to speak for the voiceless (Proverbs 31:8), to expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11), and to rescue those being led away to death (Proverbs 24:11).
God does not grade on a curve. He will not accept, “I was personally opposed, but I didn’t want to impose.” You are either for life or against it. You either enable righteousness or enable bloodshed. There is no neutral ground.
In the end, truth is not a matter of balance. It is a matter of courage. And in a world that kills its unborn and rewards politicians who defend that killing, we need more Christians who are not merely privately pro-life, but publicly and prophetically so.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
I use words that reflect the “woke” culture and their re-definitions sometimes. It is hard to communicate effectively without using their twisted vocabulary. Rest assured that I do not believe gender ideology or “Progressivism”. Words and phrases like “trans man”, “trans women” , “transgender”, “transition” or similar words and phrases are nonsensical and reflect a distorted, imaginary worldview where men can become women and vice-versa. The word “Progressive” itself is a propagandistic word that implies the Progressives are the positive force in society, whereas in reality their cultic belief system is very corrosive to mankind.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.