Abortion Q&A

Morally significant differences exist between refusing to donate an organ and actively aborting a preborn child. For instance, my refusal to donate an organ to a person in need may fail to save him from death, but it does not cause his death. However, abortion is not merely the refusal to save another, it is the intentional killing of the preborn child. My kidneys do not have a natural purpose of keeping someone else alive, but the natural purpose of the uterus is to sustain the life of a preborn child. Regardless of the circumstances by which conception occurred, the child is precisely where she belongs, in her mother’s uterus. Therefore, just as a newborn’s right to life includes the right to her mother’s breast milk (assuming that is the only way to feed her), so too, her right to life must include the use of her mother’s uterus. 

It should be noted that to dismiss nearly half the population from speaking to a major moral issue simply because of their sex is itself a sexist argument. But if men have no right to an opinion on abortion, then it follows that they should not be allowed to argue for abortion either. Yet this argument is never used to silence men who support abortion. The merit of one’s arguments for or against abortion has nothing to do one’s gender. As pro-life author and speaker Francis Beckwith points out, “Arguments don’t have genders; people do.” [1] Therefore, intellectual honesty requires abortion supporters to interact with our arguments and not merely try to silence us with sexist arguments. 

[1] Francis J. Beckwith, “Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights,” Christian Research Journal, 1990

Chemical or “pill” abortions involve a two-drug regimen. The first drug, mifepristone (also called RU486), blocks the hormone progesterone, which is needed to stabilize the uterine lining. When this occurs, the baby’s flow of nourishment and oxygen is cut off, and she is starved and suffocated. After the baby has been killed, a second drug, misoprostol (also called Cytotec), is taken to induce contractions and bleeding and to thereby expel the dead child from the mother’s uterus. In addition to the lethal effect of chemical abortion on the baby, this method of abortion often results in intense pain for the mother as the contractions and bleeding can last a few hours to several days. Chemical abortions essentially transform a woman’s bathroom into an abortion clinic, where she eventually delivers her baby into the toilet. 

Furthermore, because the Food & Drug Administration has removed the in-person dispensing requirement, making these drugs available on-line without first getting an ultrasound to confirm the health of the pregnancy and to determine whether the baby is in the uterus, leaves women vulnerable to serious, life-threatening complications from undetected ectopic pregnancy. In addition, because the abortion pill is available  without an in-person visit to a doctor, the potential for boyfriends, pimps, and sex-traffickers to coerce women and young girls into abortions has been amplified.

Important note: Progesterone can be taken up to 72 hours after mifepristone to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. Thousands of women have successfully saved their children from abortion when they change their mind after taking the first drug. For more information, go to AbortionPillReversal.com

Suppose someone used the same line of reasoning with respect to slavery; “I personally would never own a slave, but I think others should be allowed to do so.” Such a claim would expose the fact that the person making it was indeed, “pro-slavery,” meaning they oppose legal protection for certain classes of human beings. Both the person who openly states that he is “pro-abortion” and the person who claims only to be “pro-choice about abortion” deny legal protection for the preborn; therefore, regardless of what words they choose to express their position, both are responsible for the unjust deaths of innocent children. The only logical reason to oppose abortion is because it unjustly kills an innocent human being. And if does this, why would anyone think it is OK for others to do so? As pro-life author, Randy Alcorn writes, “The only good reason for being personally against abortion is a reason that demands we be against other people choosing to have abortions.”  [1]

[1] https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/3/answering-argument-personally-against-abortion/

This is simply a disingenuous attempt to change the subject. One doesn’t have to “adopt all these unwanted babies” to say that killing them is wrong. In other words, how could one's unwillingness to adopt a child justify someone else killing her? If I save a child from drowning, am I morally obligated to raise her and pay for her college education? If not, am I justified in letting her drown? Are vegans morally responsible to adopt all the cows they rescue from the meat industry? In the end, the unspoken, but inescapable message here is that killing innocent human beings is preferable to rescuing them. To abortion supporters who ask, “Why don’t you adopt all these unwanted babies?” one could rightly respond with, “Why don’t you stop having sex if you can’t support a baby?”

Having said this, when it comes to loving the oppressed, the marginalized, and those unjustly targeted for death no one does it better than the pro-life community. A 2013 study conducted by the Barna Group revealed that Christians were engaged in foster care and adoption at higher levels then the general population. Of Christians surveyed, 5% had adopted, which is double the rate of the general population (2%). Catholics were three times as likely, and evangelicals for five times as likely to adopt as the average adult.[1]

[1] What the Latest Data Shows About Christian Involvement in Foster Care and Adoption, Christian Alliance for Orphans, January 31, 2025, (cafo.org).

Even if true this would do nothing to defeat our argument that abortion unjustly kills innocent human beings. For instance, suppose we grant the premise that pro-lifers don’t care about babies after they’re born. Where does this leave us? How could our not caring about babies after they’re born justify someone else killing them before they’re born? Our alleged hypocrisy could never render the vile practice of abortion a moral good. Moreover, while pro-lifers work tirelessly to protect nascent human life, our love doesn’t end with the birth of the child. In fact, the same love that compels us to care for babies in utero also compels us to love and care for babies after they have been born, as well as to provide tangible help for their mothers and fathers. This fact is easily proven thanks to the remarkable efforts of nearly 3,000 pregnancy care centers (PRCs) throughout the United States. 

Unlike the abortionist, the limited paid employees of PRC’s make modest salaries, and their countless volunteers aren’t paid at all. And unlike abortion clinics, many of which are owned and operated by men for financial profit off women in crisis and off the blood of their children, PRC’s are led almost exclusively by women, for women, at no cost to women. These vital ministries offer free ultra-sounds, clothing, diapers, parenting classes, post-abortion counseling, and a host of other services. 

Much more could be said in defense of the pro-life movement, but just follow the money: if the abortionist is the champion of women, why doesn’t he offer his services for free? Thousands of pro-life advocates are working hard to rescue the preborn and to meet the physical, spiritual, and emotional needs of mothers and their little ones. These facts are not difficult to substantiate, which leaves one wondering why abortion enthusiasts insist on saying otherwise.

This is an absurd claim. When pro-lifers protest or share our opinion about abortion, we are not forcing anything on anyone. We are simply doing what everyone in this debate is doing: using our influence in the hope of persuading others. As Americans, we have as much right to use our best efforts to influence the public square as anyone else. This is the democratic process and at the end of the day no one is obligated–or forced–to agree with us. This noteworthy difference between persuasion and coercion is conveniently lost on many abortion supporters. When they protest or share their opinions, it is celebrated as freedom of speech; when we do it, we are accused of “forcing our morality on others.” But we aren't forcing our wills on anyone; we simply want to ensure that the small and vulnerable are protected from the crushing, lethal force of abortion by the big and powerful. 

To suggest that a preborn child is “using” a mother’s body is itself a disturbing way to describe pregnancy. Since it is always wrong to use another person’s body without consent, by this flawed description every unplanned pregnancy is an attack on a woman’s body. This view led pro-abortion philosopher Eileen McDonagh to liken the innocent preborn child to a rapist and to argue that abortion is self-defense. Pro-life author Stephen Schwartz responds to such a low view of prenatal human life; “That a woman looks upon her child as a burglar or an intruder is already an evil, even if she refrains from killing her.” [1]

This challenge suggests that a couple can consent to sex without consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. This is absurd. When a couple engages in sexual intercourse, they engage in an activity that naturally and frequently results in creating a needy new human being. As a result, they are responsible for the needy human they have created. The preborn child is not a burglar, an intruder, or a rapist. And in fact, she is right where she is supposed to be, in the womb. Her mother’s body is purposely equipped to grow and nurture this little one until birth.  

Again, this challenge suppresses what we intuitively know to be true; parents have moral responsibilities for their children, and the younger and more vulnerable a child is, the greater level of care and protection is owed that child. A mother who refuses to nurse her child causing her starvation commits a grave moral injustice. Likewise, a father who refuses to provide for or to protect his child commits a grave moral injustice as well. 

Finally, abortion is not merely the “withholding of support.” Rather, it is the direct act of killing the preborn through dismemberment, disembowelment, or poisoning. Those who are unwilling or unable to parent the child may place their child for adoption, but they should never kill their child, regardless of where that child is located.

[1] Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990) p. 122.

The tragic violence of rape is an unspeakable agony no one should have to suffer, and yet so many women and young girls do. Those victimized in this way deserve our compassion and tangible help and the rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law. This is precisely why pro-lifers believe compassion should be extended to both rape victims, the woman and her preborn child.

When a child has been conceived through the violence of rape the question that must be answered is not, “How was one conceived?” but “Was one conceived?” Whether a child is conceived by loving parents, selfish parents, unwed parents, or through the violent act of rape does nothing to alter or diminish his nature and has no bearing on his worth.

Another question that must be answered is, "How should a civilized society treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event?" Should we kill them? Those who defend aborting a child conceived through rape argue that the child will serve as a persistent and painful reminder of having been raped. This cannot be denied, and we should be quick to acknowledge this painful truth. However, as Lila Rose of Live Action states, “Killing a child conceived in rape does not un-rape a woman.”[1] In fact, not only does abortion not relieve the woman of the trauma of having been raped but it inflicts more trauma as she now must bear the burden of having perpetuated another act of violence against her own child. Laws that permit a mother to kill her preborn child conceived by rape perpetuate the idea that hardship justifies violence. But abortion is wrong for the same reason rape is wrong; both are unjust acts of brutality against innocent human beings. Both rape and abortion take something that is not theirs to take: the woman’s body and the child’s life. For this reason, the tragic violence of rape never justifies the tragic violence of abortion. It is barbaric to give the death penalty to an innocent child for the crimes of the guilty rapist.

Furthermore, it is the rapists, not pro-lifers, who force their wills on women causing them to become pregnant. By opposing abortion in this case, pro-lifers are not forcing pregnancy–or their morality–on women; we simply want to see vulnerable children protected from the illicit use of lethal force. 

[1] Lila Rose, Live Action Facebook page, November 10, 2019

There are many life-threatening, pregnancy related conditions such as (but not limited to) ectopic, pregnancy, uterine cancer, and placental abruption. Whenever the mother’s life is endangered by conditions such as these, doctors should do whatever possible to save both lives by inducing labor or performing an emergency C-section. In some cases, in order to save the mother’s life the baby will need to be delivered prior to viability (the point at which the baby could survive outside the womb with proper neonatal intensive care). But it should be noted that this is not an abortion since the intention is to save the mother, and not to kill the baby. 

Despite the narrative of many abortion supporters, pro-lifers do not want to prevent women from receiving surgeries or procedures needed to save their lives. Furthermore, a doctor who induces early labor or performs a C-section to save a mother’s life resulting in the unintended death of her child will not be prosecuted. In 2012, Irish doctors published the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare as a response to efforts to legalize abortions in their country. The declaration was signed by over 1000 medical professionals, and states: 

“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

First, this claim demeans women by assuming that they are either unwilling or incapable of obeying laws. Granted, there will always be lawbreakers among both sexes; however, when abortion is made illegal again it seems reasonable to assume that most women would remain law-abiding citizens just as they were prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973. As Greg Koukl, founder, and president of Stand to Reason, points out, “A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because the state won't put him on welfare. Both have other options.”[1]

Second, it is the rapists–not pro-lifers–who force their wills on women, causing some to become pregnant. In short, we do not believe the violent and forceful act of rape against women justifies the violent and forceful act of abortion against their unborn children. 

Third, every death by abortion, legal or illegal, is a tragedy, which is precisely why pro-lifers oppose abortion. However, the emotionally charged claim that prior to Roe “five to ten thousand” women died each year from self-induced abortions is an outrageous falsehood. Former abortionist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the leading architects of legalized abortion in America, fed this wildly inflated statistic to the sympathetic media in the late 1960’s. After becoming pro-life, Nathanson admitted he had intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died because of illegal abortions. He stated, “I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”[2] Even Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood, countered this falsehood in a July 1960 article in the American Journal of Public Health when she wrote, “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind.”[3] In fact, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.[4]

These are hardly insignificant numbers, but they are a far cry from the 5,000 to 10,000 we so often hear about. Again, those who argue that abortion should remain legal since women will get them anyway are in effect arguing that the role of government is to protect the strong as they forcefully attack and kill the weak. This is obscene.

[1] Greg Koukl, “I’m Pro-Choice”, Stand to Reason, April 2, 2013, https://www.str.org/w/i-m-pro-choice

[2] Bernard Nathanson and Richard Ostling, Aborting America, (New York: Pinnacle Books, 1979), 197

[3] Mary Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem”, American Journal of Public Health, Volume 50, no. 7, (July 1960): 949

[4] Lisa M. Koonin, et al, “Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 1992”, Center for Disease Control and Prevention,https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre-view/mmwrhtml/00041486.htm

The thought experiment goes like this: “You are in a burning fertility clinic, and you must choose between saving a toddler from the smoke & flames or saving ten frozen embryos; who will you choose???” 

If you pick the toddler over the ten frozen embryos, your pro-abortion friend will accuse you of being inconsistent, of not really believing the preborn are valuable human beings. 

But how does choosing to save one person over ten others prove that the ten are not valuable human beings? Forced to choose between saving my own child or ten strangers, I would choose to save my own child. But making this choice would do nothing to prove that the ten I left behind are not valuable persons. Moreover, while I may be justified in choosing my own child over ten strangers, I am not justified in slitting each of their throats as I usher my child to safety. And this is more analogous to abortion because abortion is not about choosing whom we’re going to save, but rather, whom we’re going to deliberately kill to benefit us. 

For this reason, the only thing this thought experiment accomplishes is to reveal the bizarre lengths to which some will go to justify abortion. 

Abortion supporters frequently dismiss the pro-life position on the grounds that it is a mere religious belief that should not be “imposed” on a pluralistic society. This is nothing but an attempt to silence pro-lifers, which is proven by the fact that this line of reasoning is never used to silence pro-abortion supporters. For instance, where is the outcry from abortion enthusiasts when Planned Parenthood’s Clergy Advocacy Board (a board comprised of pro-abortion pastors and rabbis) appeals to religion to defend abortion or when U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi repeatedly defends child-killing by appealing to her Catholic faith.

Pro-lifers present a moral argument that must be answered; first, that it is wrong to intentionally murder innocent human beings, and second, that abortion does just that. Just because the pro-life position is informed by, or consistent with, a particular religious view does not mean it cannot be defended without religious arguments. In fact, even many atheists oppose abortion. As the pro-life organization, “Secular Pro-Life” states on their website, “You don’t have to be religious to have a problem with killing humans.”[1]

Furthermore, it is no more a religious position to argue that the preborn are intrinsically valuable human beings then to argue that they are not. Are arguments against rape or racism invalid simply because Christianity condemns these acts? Of course not. If religion invalidates arguments against moral issues, then the religious argument against slavery put forth in Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address would be untenable. Such a thought is absurd.

The pro-life position argues that abortion takes the life of an intrinsically valuable human being and should therefore be prohibited by law. This position is supported by the facts of human embryology which show that the preborn at his or her earliest stage of development is a distinct, living, and whole human being, and by a commitment to human dignity and equality which demands that the most fundamental right to life of every human being should be legally protected.

[1] Secular Pro-Life, https://secularprolife.org

It is a mistake to conclude that what the Bible does not explicitly condemn it therefore condones. For instance, there are many evils the Bible does not explicitly condemn such as joining the Ku Klux Klan and operating a child sex-trafficking ring. We don’t need a Bible verse explicitly denouncing these baneful activities to know that they are sinful. 

It is important to remember that abortion is simply a method of murdering innocent human beings. Throughout the centuries evil men and women have invented innumerable methods of killing each other. Because the Bible clearly and repeatedly condemns the unjust shedding of human blood, we can know with certainty that God condemns murdering the preborn by abortion. As early as Genesis 9:6, we read, “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” The 6th commandment is unequivocal; “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13). During the Greco-Roman period the people of Israel and Judah were burning their sons and daughters in sacrifice to the false god, Molech. The Lord became angry over this and said that to do so was to “profane the name of your God.”[1] This demonic practice is also condemned in Deuteronomy 18:10-13, 2 Kings 16:3 and 21:6, and Ezekiel 20:26, 31 and 23:37. 

So too, just as the Bible does not condemn by name every imaginable method of murder, neither does it single out particular classes of human beings that should not be murdered. For instance, the Bible never explicitly condemns murdering toddlers or senior citizens. Instead, the sixth commandment, “Thou shall not murder” is intended to benefit every human being, at every stage of development, and wherever they happen to be located. 

And so, rather than being silent about abortion, the Bible repeatedly and unambiguously condemns murdering innocent children. In the end, those who claim that the Bible is silent about abortion are either ignorant of what the Bible teaches or are determined to blame God for their moral indifference.

Even though the bible writers consistently treat the preborn as persons, some quote Exodus 21:22-24, insisting this passage proves the preborn are not fully human since the penalty for accidentally killing a fetus is only a fine, whereas killing the mother is punishable by death. They appeal to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation, which reads: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot . . .”[1]

There are serious problems with this view. First, this argument rests on a less-than-convincing translation of the Hebrew word, “YATSA”, which means “to emerge” or “come forth.” This word appears in the Old Testament well over a hundred times and almost always refers to the emergence of a living thing. Whereas the RSV translates “YATSA” to read, “miscarriage,” the NIV, NKJV, and NASB translate the word, “gives birth prematurely.” In other words, the child was born alive and “no harm” followed. In this case, since the child was not injured the penalty was merely a fine. “But if there is serious injury,” presumably to either the mother or the child, the penalty is “life for life.” The above-mentioned translations convey that both the mother and the child are covered by lex talionis, the law of retribution, clearly indicating that the mother and her preborn child are equal in value and dignity. 

The second thing to note is that even if a lesser penalty is being ascribed for killing a preborn child than for harming the mother it doesn’t follow that the preborn are not fully human or that a mother may intentionally abort her preborn child. How could a passage that ostensibly addresses the accidental killing of a preborn child provide justification for intentionally killing a preborn child?

[1] Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952)

This difficult passage spells out a strange ritual for husbands in ancient Israel who suspected their wives of adultery but lacked proof. The passage instructs the suspicious husband to bring his wife to the priest who would mix a cocktail of holy water and dust from the tabernacle floor. She was to drink it and if innocent, no harm would come to her. However, if she had acted unfaithfully toward her husband the New International Version (2011) says that “her abdomen will swell” and “her womb will miscarry,” which has led some to claim that the Bible prescribes abortion. In response, it should be noted that the NIV (2011) is one of the few translations that renders verse 22, as “her womb will miscarry.” Neither the NIV (1984), the NASB, the KJV, nor the ESV make any mention of miscarriage.

Instead, each of these translates this verse similarly to the NIV (1984), which reads, “so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.” This passage says absolutely nothing about miscarriage, abortion, or even pregnancy. Furthermore, the blessing of future fertility for the innocent wife suggests that the curse may have been bareness, not miscarriage or abortion. Again, if the woman is guilty, her abdomen will swell, and her thigh will waste away. But if innocent, “she shall be free and shall conceive children.” That she would be free to conceive children suggests a child had not been conceived, which would mean an abortion had not occurred. 

But even if the Hebrew language did refer to a miscarriage, this passage would do nothing to justify abortion. A natural reading of the passage suggests that the curse was from God, and not from the priest. Therefore, the child would have died because God decreed it, not because the priest gave her an abortifacient. God has the right to take human life, we do not. God punished King David for killing Uriah and for committing adultery with his wife, Bathsheba, by striking his infant son dead after he had been born. But no one takes this to mean that parents have the right to take the life of their newborns.

Genesis 2:7, reads, “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Proponents of this view point out that Adam didn’t become a living soul or “person” until God breathed into him the “breath of life” through his nostrils. They argue that since the preborn don’t breathe air through their nostrils, they are not valuable human beings. But many newborns don’t breathe through their nostrils until a couple of minutes after birth. Are parents justified in killing their newborn children before they draw their first breath?

This passage is not offered as a biological lesson on human embryology. Rather, it is merely intended to provide an account of how God created Adam, the first man. It describes when and how Adam came to life, but it does not describe when and how we came to life. Clearly none of us were fashioned in the way Adam was.

Furthermore, the developing preborn child breathes through the umbilical cord long before birth. Therefore, with respect to the child’s breathing, the only thing that changes at birth is his or her mode of breathing.

From this verse, some have concluded that since the embryo doesn’t produce blood until about the third week, the embryo isn’t a person, rendering abortion morally permissible at this early stage of development. Although most women do not know they are pregnant until at least 5 weeks, this would still render chemical abortions such as RU-486 (Mifepristone) and so-called emergency contraceptives morally permissible since the embryo would be killed before he or she begins producing blood.

But the purpose of Leviticus 17:11 is not to make a biological point, but rather a theological one. God uses blood here as a metaphor for life as He speaks to the Israelites about the sacrificial system that He had established for them. As others have pointed out, having blood doesn’t necessarily make one alive and not having it doesn’t necessarily render one dead. A fresh human corpse still has blood in it for a time but is clearly not alive. Conversely, mollusks and jellyfish don’t produce blood, yet they are alive. 

As stated above under, “No One Knows When Life Begins”, the clear consensus of human embryologists is that life begins at conception and not when the developing embryo begins to produce blood.

Abortion supporters who appeal to this verse to defend abortion argue that those who have abortions will be “happy” or blessed. According to this interpretation, just as Jesus taught “blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” so too those who abort their children (“dashes infants…against the rocks”) will be “happy” or blessed. However, such an obscene interpretation of this verse is only made possible by ignoring the historical context. The preceding sentence (v. 8), which is conveniently ignored by abortion supporters states, “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us.”

The psalmist is suffering as a captive in Babylon and is simply predicting the eventual destruction of the Babylonians by the Medes and Persians for their brutal mistreatment of the Israelites. Psalm 137 is an imprecatory psalm, intended to call on God for justice and as such is intended to evoke strong emotions, much like the family of a murder victim today wanting vindication for their loved one. Verse 9 merely describes what will take place, not what should take place. But even if the psalmist finds vengeful pleasure in seeing the Babylonians treated in the same cruel way they treated the Israelites (which seems to be the case), this would only describe the psalmist’s feelings and could never serve as God’s endorsement of murdering children.

A fundamental principal of biblical interpretation is that the “clear” should interpret the “unclear.” In other words, no unclear passage or verse should be interpreted in such a way as to contradict the overall teaching of Scripture. God’s Word clearly and frequently condemns the unjust shedding of innocent human blood (Exodus 20:13, Proverbs 6:17) as well as the mistreatment of children (Leviticus 18:21, Matthew 18:6). Therefore, Psalm 137:9 should be interpreted in light of these commands. The fact that anyone would find sadistic pleasure in seizing infants and dashing their heads against rocks could never serve as God’s endorsement of such barbarity. Likewise, to interpret this verse to suggest that Christ, the Author of Life and defender of children, would sanction the willful destruction of precious preborn children by abortion is profane.

There is no denying that abortion has become a political issue. However, abortion is more accurately described as a moral issue that has been politicized. But nearly every moral issue is eventually politicized, including war, slavery, and in recent years, marriage. Are we to believe these moral issues are off-limits too?

If so, pastors like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Charles Finney, and Vernon Johns who railed against the persecution of Jews, slavery, and Jim Crow laws were guilty of sticking their noses where they didn’t belong. In countries like Iran and North Korea the gospel itself has been politicized and pastors who declare it are imprisoned and executed. Do they sin when they refuse to be silenced? The apostles answered this question for us. When ordered by the Sanhedrin to stop preaching Christ, Peter and John responded, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”[1] To be clear, pastors should protect their churches from evolving into political machines. Placing our hope in sinful politicians and in temporary political solutions rather than in God is idolatry. To do so also ignores our deepest need which is internal, not external. Author Michael Horton wisely states, “Political solutions are not ultimate for the same reason medical solutions are not ultimate. In the end, we all die from something. That does not mean that we ignore the symptoms, nor that we refuse to follow the doctor's instructions and do what we can to remain alive, but it does mean that we do not treat them as the answer to life's greatest questions.”[2]

The psalmist said it even better, “No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save . . .”[3] Like horses, politicians are a vain hope for deliverance. This is so because our greatest enemy is within and only Christ can save us from ourselves.

However, it doesn’t follow from this that the political realm should be roped off from our influence. Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper, famously wrote, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”[4] As Christians, we accept that Christ has a rightful claim over every aspect of our lives. He is Lord of our marriages, our singleness, our parenting, our careers, and Lord of our politics no less. Pastors teach us how to love our spouses, raise our children, behave sexually, and manage our money. They should also teach us how to vote. Love for our unborn neighbors demands that we use our political influence to make their lives better, or at least possible. For this reason, the pastor has a duty to teach biblical principles to his flock, so they might discern how to best use their vote to honor God and to protect their neighbors from harm. On a related note, as pro-lifers, we are sometimes criticized for being single-issue voters simply because we refuse to vote for a politician or political party that denies the preborn their most fundamental right, their right to life. This criticism misses the point. Thoughtful Christians care deeply about many issues. But we view the legal destruction of preborn children as the single most important issue, and one that should be given greater moral weight when deciding which candidate or political party to support.

[1] Acts 4:19

[2] Michael Horton, Beyond Culture Wars, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 59

[3] Psalm 33:16-22

[4] Kuyper

This excuse may sound spiritual, but if thousands of toddlers were being killed legally every day–many from our own churches, would we think we should just pray about it? Would anyone judge this an adequate response? If one’s granddaughter was scheduled to die by abortion tomorrow morning, would you think he had done enough by merely praying for her? Would we esteem and celebrate the righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust if their only response to the persecution of their Jewish neighbors was to pray for them? Surely, God had called them and now calls us to do more. This is not evidence of a low view of prayer, rather, it is the acknowledgment that we are called to pray and to act on behalf of those being led away to slaughter.

Often pastors who argue we should just pray about abortion are the last ones willing to do so, at least not publicly. Sadly, the guidelines for creating a public prayer list are established in many churches by fear and a commitment to self-interest. Even in many churches that claim to be pro-life, those most in need of prayer–the preborn–are frequently deemed unworthy of being prayed for publicly, even though such blatant disregard for children is condemned by our Lord. What does it reveal about our understanding of the gospel when praying for the preborn and offering help to their young parents does not fit with our philosophy of ministry? So, if your church leadership argues, “We should just pray about abortion,” kindly respond, “Great, can we start this Sunday? Will you lead us in asking God to turn the hearts of parents to their children and to lead us to these abandoned ones, so we might love them?”

Some abortion supporters attempt to justify abortion by using Christian theology as a cudgel against the preborn and against those who defend them. They argue, “Aborted babies never have a chance to grow up and reject Christ. Therefore, since the aborted go to heaven, abortion is the best way to save souls. We do them a favor by sending them to a better place.” Embarrassingly, even some pastors and professing Christians attempting to justify their silence or outright support over abortion employ this argument as well. However, this rationalization for abortion is flawed for at least three reasons. 

First, it is presumptuous. While a good argument can be made that aborted babies (as well as babies that are miscarried and the severely developmentally disabled) go to heaven, the Bible does not expressly state this. 

Second, if we are to view abortion as “mercy killing,” as this view suggests, wouldn’t this also serve as an argument for killing children who have been born? Such a view would turn the villainous King Herod into an angel of mercy for having ordered the slaughter of all boys two-years-old and younger in Bethlehem. 

Finally, God commands us to “rescue those being led away to death,” not stand by as they are being killed. Nowhere does the Bible allow, and much less prescribe, killing precious human beings to prevent them from sinning and thereby sealing their fates in hell. God’s only plan for redeeming sinful humans is through the atoning sacrifice of Christ’s death on the cross, and not through a reprehensible “salvation-by-dismemberment” evangelism strategy. 

No, it won’t. In fact, preaching against abortion, or any sin for that matter, is precisely what turns people to the gospel. As Paul wrote, “I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.”[1] The truthfulness of this passage has been proven by the countless heartwarming testimonies of men and women who after being confronted with the sin of abortion have found salvation and freedom in Christ as a result. Pro-life speaker author, Stephanie Gray Connors states, “Our culture as a whole, and each of us individually, are desperately in need of being healed from the sin of abortion. But we will not be healed until we are forgiven, and we will not be forgiven until we repent, and we will not repent until we acknowledge there’s a need to repent.”[2]

She is right, and this happens when Christians and pastors speak truthfully about the sin of abortion. To believe that preaching against abortion turns people away from the gospel reveals a lack of confidence in the power of the gospel and of the Holy Spirit to convict and draw sinners to the One who “hath shed his own blood for our souls.”[3] In reality, it is the refusal to speak against the sin of abortion that keeps people separated from the gospel. Those who do not acknowledge their sinful, helpless condition will never acknowledge their need for Christ’s saving grace. Suppose we applied this same mentality to other sins. Does preaching against the sin of adultery turn adulterers away from the gospel? Was John the Baptist responsible for turning Herod away from the gospel when he confronted him over his adulterous affair with Herodias? With the likely exceptions of Herod and Herodias, does anyone really believe John should have remained silent? The pastor that refuses to stand against the sin of abortion has already abandoned the gospel he claims to be protecting. The gospel demands that we love our neighbor as ourselves, but we cannot love our neighbor if we refuse to act when someone has a knife to his throat. The great heroes of the Christian faith understood this. Randy Alcorn writes, “John Wesley actively opposed slavery. Charles Finney had a major role in the illegal Underground Railroad. D. L. Moody opened homes for underprivileged girls, rescuing them from exploitation. Charles Spurgeon built homes to help care for elderly women and to rescue orphans from the streets of London. Amy Carmichael intervened for sexually exploited girls in India, rescuing them from temple prostitution . . . There is no conflict between the gospel and social concern.”[4]

To abandon the preborn is to abandon the gospel itself. With respect to preaching against abortion, the pastor’s obligation is not to try to predict how someone might possibly respond so he can tailor his sermon in such a way as to guarantee no offense is taken. Instead, he is to “speak the truth in love”[5] and trust God’s Spirit to convict and draw people to Himself.

[1] Romans 3:20 

[2] Stephanie Gray Connors, “Love Unleashes Life”, Westside Church sermon, January 20, 2017, 07:04, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwIhCQC8qgs&t=442s

[3] Horatio Gates Spafford, It Is Well with My Soul, Gospel Hymns No. 2 by Ira Sankey and Bliss (1876), public domain.

[4] Randy Alcorn, “William Carey: The Father of Modern Missions was a Prolife Activist,” Eternal Perspectives Ministries, October 26, 2016, https://www.epm.org/blog/2016/Oct/26/william-carey-prolife-activist?fbclid=IwAR3R6oBO1cb_j-UZ9uwGFvoPVvYUAtrG5Mu_M_KBgUZ7wKVLHXFKCNOIA3Lo

[5] Ephesians 4:15