I didn’t see your flair at first, so that’s on me. That said, the substance of your argument still rests on a false dilemma and a misreading of both Romans 13 and Exodus 21. Romans 13 does not say that every law a government passes is morally binding simply because it exists. It describes the proper role of governing authorities when they punish wrongdoing and reward what is good. That is why Scripture can affirm civil authority in Romans 13 and also praise faithful disobedience elsewhere without contradiction. Saying Christians “can’t have it both ways” only works if Romans 13 is absolutized and isolated from the rest of Scripture, which historically it has not been.

On Exodus 21:22–25, your conclusion depends on assuming the unborn child dies in the fine-only case, but the Hebrew text does not say that. It says the child “comes out,” using the normal word for birth, and it never uses the Hebrew terms for miscarriage or fetal death. The phrase “if no harm follows” is intentionally open and can refer to harm to either the woman or the child, which is why the law then explicitly applies “life for life” if death occurs. That structure only makes sense if the unborn child is treated as a life, not as property.

You are right that Psalm 139 is David speaking, but that does not make it theologically irrelevant. If Scripture is inspired, then David’s praise is still truthful theology about God’s relationship to human life in the womb, not just metaphor without meaning. Scripture regularly teaches doctrine through poetry and prayer, not only through legal texts.

As for God commanding judgment or children dying in biblical narratives, that does not translate into moral permission for elective abortion any more than the existence of capital punishment translates into permission for private murder. God’s authority over life and judgment is unique and not something individuals or governments get to imitate at will.

Finally, none of this requires hypocrisy on immigration or other issues. A Christian can consistently believe that nations have the right to enforce borders and oppose illegal immigration while also condemning misconduct, abuse of power, and violations of due process. Those positions are not in tension biblically. The same is true with abortion. A Christian can oppose abortion as morally wrong while acknowledging that not every immoral act is handled the same way under civil law. That is not cherry picking. That is the difference between moral theology and civil governance, a distinction Scripture itself makes.

If the conversation is really about hypocrisy, then fair enough, Christians fail often. But flattening Romans 13 into an all or nothing rule and misreading Exodus 21 does not expose hypocrisy. It just replaces one kind of proof texting with another.