About a year and a half ago, I wrote a series of articles about why abortion isn’t always a “choice” in the way the abortion industry wants you to believe. The system is marketed this way, but this catchphrase often masks hidden pressures in a woman’s life which make the choice far from free. 

For example, I wrote one article about how abortion’s acceptance in modern society disempowers women because they are more pressured to accept abortion to save their romantic relationships. 

I wrote another article explaining the surprisingly high percentages of women who, in hindsight after abortion, confess that those around them had pressured them to have it done. I also denounced the abortion industry for withholding information from women about the truth of abortion. 

Yet another article of mine denounced an academic writer for advocating that a father should be able to abandon his woman and child through a “financial abortion.”

I still stand by all those claims, to the extent that the research I drew from was accurate. All these things are indeed true and valid criticisms of a system based on the idea of “choice,” when there are so many glaring ways that abortion frequently isn’t what a woman would actually choose absent the pressures around her.

But that was only half the story. 

It’s taken me over a year to realize that I need to tell the other half as well. It’s the side of the story that even some pro-lifers don’t want to hear. But the last time I checked, there is no Eleventh Commandment proclaiming that “Thou Shalt Not Hurt Other People’s Feelings.”

When I claim that abortion is often not a completely free choice, I mean that abortion is not the paragon of personal autonomy that the industry markets it as. 

But in no way does my claim remove responsibility from the women who still ultimately choose it. 

My former articles are criticisms of the industry, without being excuses for the women. So, here’s the claim that even many pro-lifers wouldn’t want me to say: 

Women who choose abortions are accomplices to murder and are just as guilty for it as the abortionists are.

The reason why many pro-lifers don’t like this is that it contradicts the “Second-Victim Narrative.” 

Recall the Students for Life advertisement I recently wrote about? It criticized Planned Parenthood for committing “acts of violence against vulnerable women and innocent babies.” Do you see what this implies? Women are on the receiving end of abortion, not the giving end. Women who get abortions are vulnerable victims, too. 

Now, this narrative is a smart way to cater to those who aren’t convinced that preborn babies are people. At least everyone agrees that the mom is! So, if we can show that abortion harms women too, then we’ll posit two victims of abortion and hopefully persuade everyone. Plus, this narrative seems a lot more compassionate to women who abort, because what woman could stomach the fact that she’s killed her own child? 

Ultimately, if we followed that to its conclusion, we’d have to punish the mom, too. And no one wants to go there.   

That said, the narrative makes sense. The only problem is, it’s a lie. As compassionately but as firmly as I can, I want to present three key truths in response to the Second-Victim Narrative. This article explains the first one.

Key Truth #1: Pressure does not excuse the choice. 

The Bible is very clear on this point. If sinners entice you, it is still your responsibility to not give in (Proverbs 1:8-19). You are not to walk in the counsel of the wicked (Psalm 1:1). You are not to be conformed to this world, but instead transformed with a renewed mind (Romans 12:2). So when you face temptations to sin, your response must be, “I will obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). And sometimes, this will mean you will suffer for Christ’s sake (Acts 7:54–60). 

Admittedly, it’s emotionally very difficult to apply these Scriptures to a woman who has been told by her boyfriend that he’s going to abandon her if she doesn’t abort. Or a girl whose parents will kick her out of the house if she doesn’t come with them to the clinic to “get it taken care of.” But I think even our emotions will begin to tell us something different when we ask ourselves the pro-life Power Question: “Would you do this to a two-year-old?” 

If a husband told his wife, “Kill our two-year-old son, or I’m divorcing and abandoning you,” would she be justified in doing it?

Or if parents told their daughter, “Kill your little brother, or you won’t have a place to live,” would that make it okay? 

You see, if we truly believe that the preborn are people, then we must conclude that not even severe pressure on a woman can make her choice to murder justified. 

She is still guilty if she chooses it.

Now, there is one main caveat to this key truth. I’m talking about women who have actually made a choice. If a woman has been tricked into taking pills, or completely deceived about what abortion does, she can’t be blamed for that. 

God holds you accountable according to the knowledge you have. (However, I think you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find a woman who had no way of knowing that there was a little life inside of her when she was pregnant.)

Similarly, when a woman aborts because of flat-out coercion, it’s also a different story. If a woman were dragged into a clinic against her wishes and tied down during the operation, she wouldn’t be guilty. 

Similarly, a sidewalk counselor I know told me about a woman who was walking into an abortion clinic because her man had told her, “If you don’t get an abortion, I will kill you.” Even legally speaking, being forced to commit a crime is not the same thing as committing the crime.

Now—in light of the Power Question—we’d say that this woman still shouldn’t kill her two-year-old son even when faced with a threat like that. We would pray that the Lord would give that woman fortitude to resist the legal threats on her life and flee to a place of safety with her son or daughter. But there’s only so far the law can appropriately go when someone has legitimately been forced into committing a crime.

Not every woman is in this kind of situation, though. What about the other woman that my sidewalk counselor friend told me about, the one who walked by chanting,

“I’m going to kill my baby and you can’t do anything about it!” 

That woman knew what she was doing.

Ultimately, it is immoral to posit a blanket exception to any certain kind of crime. Yes, individual circumstances—like whether a particular woman has been lied to or coerced—will always have a role to play in determining guilt or innocence for that particular woman. That’s what the justice system is built for. But positing a blanket exception—”All women who get abortion are victims of abortion”—is untrue and immoral. 

Women who choose abortion are just as guilty as the abortionists are.

This is Key Truth #1 for why the Second Victim Narrative must be discarded. I know it’s not pleasant to hear. But I honestly believe it needs to be said to today’s pro-life movement. 

Bear with me: after two more key truths, we’ll see where hope can be found in all of this—even for women who get abortions.

Stay tuned for Key Truth #2.