Pro-Life Payments - Christian Merchant Services

Thesis: There is an incredible gap in love between those who will die for their children and those who want their children to die for their comfort.

Abortion: The Love Gap in a Burning Building

Picture a burning building with your child trapped inside. No parent hesitates in that moment to ask whether running in will be convenient, cost-effective, or compatible with personal goals. Love answers before calculation: “I will go.” The instinct to lay down one’s life for a son or daughter is so universally understood that stories of parents and even strangers rushing into flames move the world precisely because they are a visible snapshot of what parental love is meant to be.

Now contrast that with the calculated decision to end a child’s life in the secrecy of a clinic. Here, the cost is reversed: instead of a parent offering to die so the child may live, the child is required to die so the parent’s life may proceed undisturbed. The same human being who would rightly be horrified at a parent abandoning a toddler in a burning house is told that ending a younger, more vulnerable child’s life in the womb is “healthcare,” “freedom,” or “self-care.” The fire is simply moved from the building to the operating room, and the victim is redefined until compassion goes silent.

In that moral inversion lies abortion: the love gap—a chasm between sacrificial love that runs into danger to protect a child and self-protective love that demands the child be removed to protect adult comfort, image, or plans. Pro-Life Payments (PLP) has repeatedly called Christians to see that once this gap is visible, it cannot be ignored; financial systems, ministries, and businesses must respond in ways that protect children rather than quietly accept their destruction.

Abortion: The Love Gap Between Protecting Life and Redefining It

For the burning-building image to sting, we must first admit the obvious: the unborn child is a child. Parents rush into flames because there is a someone inside, not an expendable “clump of cells.” Abortion culture tries to close the love gap not by deepening love, but by downgrading the child—calling the baby a parasite, tissue, or potential life so that what would be unthinkable at the nursery door suddenly feels negotiable in the exam room.

Yet this rhetoric collapses under both science and honesty. Human pregnancy is a species-typical, largely cooperative symbiosis between two humans, a mother and her child, not biological parasitism. The baby has a distinct DNA code from conception, follows a predictable developmental path, and, if not killed, will be the same person you would sprint into traffic to save a few years later. What changes is not the essence of the child, but the labels adults apply.

PLP has directly challenged dehumanizing language, exposing how the “parasite” analogy fails scientifically and morally. When defenders of abortion argue that a child may be killed because he or she is “dependent,” they are not merely attacking a stage of development; they are attacking the very ground on which parental love stands, since every infant, toddler, special-needs teenager, and elderly parent in a nursing home is likewise dependent. The logic that justifies killing because of dependence ultimately dissolves the very meaning of love, which is defined by commitment to the dependent.

Abortion: The Love Gap in Reasons and Rationalizations

When people are asked why they choose abortion, the answers expose a striking shift from child-centered love to self-centered calculation. A major study of U.S. women seeking abortions found that the most frequently cited reasons were that having a child would interfere with education, work, or caring for other dependents (74%), that they could not afford a baby now (73%), and that they were having relationship problems or did not want to be single mothers (48%). Only a tiny fraction—around 1%—reported rape as the primary reason for abortion, and health crises affecting mother or baby were similarly rare.

Would you Abort your baby

In other words, most abortions do not occur in burning-building extremes where both lives appear to be at immediate risk; they occur because a child is perceived as an obstacle to lifestyle, finances, timing, or relational stability. Brookings Institute analysis notes that about 95% of abortions result from unintended pregnancies, and the key reasons for not wanting a child “now” are finances, partner issues, focus on other children, or interference with education and work. Even in hardship, the underlying moral trade is often the same: the child must die so that an adult’s present or future comfort may live.

This does not mean that women are heartless or that circumstances are easy. It means a culture has catechized them to believe that when love and comfort collide, comfort wins. Policy discussions often pretend these decisions are driven primarily by dire medical emergencies; the data shows that, overwhelmingly, they are driven by conflicts between a child’s right to live and an adult’s desire for control, stability, and success. PLP’s proposal to tax abortion as a destructive social practice even at the policy level assumes what love should: that when a society structurally rewards choosing convenience over children, law and economics ought to push back and defend the smallest neighbors rather than subsidize their elimination.

Abortion: The Love Gap in Culture, Money, and Complicity

The burning building is not only an image of private crisis; it is an image of public responsibility. Imagine a city where banks and firefighters run advertising campaigns bragging that they will never run into burning buildings—but will gladly sell gasoline to keep the fires going. That is the financial reality PLP has documented in the payments world: many of the largest processors and platforms use their customers’ fees to strengthen abortion providers and lobby for expanded abortion access, effectively turning every swipe into a tiny offering on the altar of a culture that sacrifices children.

In this ecosystem, churches can preach against abortion on Sunday and then route tens of thousands of dollars in tithes and tuition through systems that send a slice of every transaction to organizations like Planned Parenthood and its allies. Christian business owners may sincerely love Christ and cherish life while their payment choices quietly funnel funding to the very industry that destroys the children they would otherwise claim to defend. The contradiction is stark: in the sanctuary, parents pledge to protect children; in the back office, the financial tools they use help underwrite a culture in which children are discarded.

PLP names this for what it is: complicity. There is no such thing as a morally neutral transaction when the companies behind it openly celebrate abortion and bankroll those who promote it. Abortion: the love gap is not only visible at the clinic door; it is traced in every habitual partnership that treats the killing of children as a normal cost of doing business. Repentance, then, is not only individual; it is institutional. It means choosing tools that refuse to fund abortion and instead convert ordinary financial flows into a quiet, steady rescue line for mothers and babies.

Abortion: The Love Gap and Wounds That Will Not Heal

Defenders of abortion often promise that ending a pregnancy will bring relief: no more fear, no more crisis, life “back to normal.” Yet many women and families discover, sometimes years later, that what felt like an escape from the burning building was actually a decision to live with an unseen fire inside—a grief that surfaces in depression, anxiety, substance abuse, or quiet, unspoken regret.

A large meta-analysis pooling data from more than 800,000 participants found that women with a history of abortion had an 81% increased risk for various mental health problems compared to women who had not aborted, including higher rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior. A more recent cohort study on mental health services utilization found that, compared with women who gave birth, women whose first pregnancy ended in abortion had significantly higher rates of outpatient visits, emergency visits, and inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations afterward. These studies do not claim that every woman who aborts will suffer emotionally, but they clearly contradict the narrative that abortion is a benign, healing act that restores wholeness.

Even research produced within a more abortion-supportive framework acknowledges that abortion does not improve mental health outcomes compared with birth; at best, both groups tend to see some reduction of depression over time, while anxiety and stress may remain elevated for those denied abortions in the immediate short term. The deeper issue for many women is not statistics but the moral reality that they consented to the death of a child they once carried. Love was designed to run into danger for that child; being persuaded to do the reverse often leaves a wound that “therapy” alone cannot close.

PLP ties its pro-life fintech model directly to the long-term health of women, emphasizing funding for pregnancy resource centers, counseling, and other supports that protect both mother and child rather than pitting them against each other. True love refuses the lie that a woman’s flourishing requires her child’s death; instead, it calls communities to surround both with practical help and sustained care.

Closing Abortion: The Love Gap With Courageous, Costly Love

When parents rush into a burning building, they know they may not come back. That is the kind of love children are meant to receive—a love that says, “Your life is worth my comfort, my plans, even my safety.” Abortion inverts this, asking children to pay the ultimate price so adults can step out of the smoke untouched. The gulf between these two loves is not a minor difference of opinion; it is a moral canyon that separates a culture of life from a culture of death.

Closing this canyon begins with telling the truth about who the unborn are, what abortion does, and how ordinary habits—including financial partnerships—either protect or endanger children. It means rejecting any worldview that labels a son or daughter as a “problem” to solve rather than a person to protect. It also means refusing to hide behind euphemisms while quietly participating in systems that treat the destruction of children as routine overhead.

This is where PLP’s model becomes more than a niche financial product; it is a practical repentance strategy for churches, ministries, and Christian businesses. PLP redirects 15% of its gross revenue—not leftover profits—to pro-life ministries, turning everyday transactions into sustained support for pregnancy centers, adoption efforts, and advocacy that defends both mother and child. Instead of financing a burning building that consumes children, believers can help fund fire brigades: counselors, nurses, pastors, and volunteers who rush toward mothers in crisis with courage and compassion.

Abortion: the love gap is, at its core, a question of who must suffer so that someone else may live well. The gospel-shaped answer has always been that the strong should sacrifice for the weak, not the other way around. In a world that normalizes asking children to die for adult comfort, the church is called to model something radically different: running into the fire, bearing each other’s burdens, and arranging every part of life—including money, technology, and policy—around the unshakable conviction that no child should ever be treated as expendable.

Must See Also: Preach With Your Money