A piece on The Gospel Coalition's blog titled Why We Should Legalize Murder for Hire has been getting a lot of attention this week.

"Many women find themselves trapped in unwanted marriages," Betsy Childs writes. "Matrimony severely curtails a woman's freedom, and husbands can be unreasonably demanding. A woman in such a situation is vulnerable. She sees only one way out, and so she makes the difficult decision to kill her husband."

Childs goes on: "But the inconvenient truth is that a woman hiring a hit on her husband will likely have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, with no guarantee that the kill will actually take place. Legalizing the transaction would remove uncertainty. Hired guns could be vetted, trained, and held to professional standards of safety. ... While divorce may be an attractive alternative to murder for hire in most cases, some women do not have the emotional and financial resources to go through a divorce. ... Additionally, a discreet and well-timed hit protects a husband from the pain of discovering that he is no longer wanted. A truly skilled assassin can take his target painlessly in an instant, without any suffering. The end of a marriage can potentially ruin a woman's life, but if her husband can be taken out quickly and cleanly, it can be a new beginning for her. ... Murder for hire is an uncomfortable subject, and I personally could never order a hit. The better course is to avoid unwanted marriage in the first place. Yet this is not a decision that anyone else can make for a woman. It is her marriage; only she can decide when it must end."

By now, you may have caught on to Childs' point. She concludes: "I realize readers may be hesitant to endorse this proposal, but stop to consider the profound way that the legalization of abortion has taken away the stigma against a woman who wants to kill her child. Abortion was once considered murder and thus could only be obtained secretly and at great risk to women. Now, our country celebrates women who exercise their choice to kill their family members. Why shouldn't we extend this right, and give women the choice to kill their partners?"

What do you think of the way Childs makes her case against abortion? Do you think it is an effective strategy? Have you found a specific approach or argument especially effective in debating this issue?

In a blog post for Crosswalk.com titled 5 Reflections on the Pro-Life Movement, Dan Darling writes: "Many feel that the pro-life position has gained in the popular culture. Polls seem to indicate that younger generations may be even more pro-life than their parents. And yet, abortion still remains the law of the land and millions of babies are sent to their premature deaths every year. So what is next for the pro-life movement?"

Darling lists five reflections for a 21st-century pro-life movement: 1) it should model William Wilberforce's endurance and courage; 2) it should primarily invest in crisis pregnancy centers; 3) it should reframe the issue as a justice issue; 4) it should not make women the enemy; and 5) it should continue to shape the culture.

In a commentary for ReligionToday.com titled Drowning Out the Truth About Abortion, Eric Metaxas argues that a refusal to tell women the truth about abortion goes back to the very beginning of legalized abortion.

"It all comes down to worldview," Metaxas writes. "Those who run abortion mills believe that inconvenient babies are disposable, and that it's perfectly acceptable to deceive vulnerable women in the interest of making money. But Christianity teaches that all women should be treated with respect and dignity, and that all babies, born and unborn, have great value because they are made in the image of God."

What do you think of the points made by Darling and Metaxas?

For further reading about making the case for life, check out these articles from Crosswalk.com, ReligionToday.com and Christianity.com:

Anna Kuta is the editor of ReligionToday.com.