Normally, we’d continue with the next passage in our series—right now that’s 2 Corinthians. But we’re delaying a week to observe Sanctity of Life Sunday. So, today I’ll be talking about abortion and our role as Christians to protect preborn image bearers. If this is your first time visiting and you support abortion, I hope you’ll stay and listen. I’m not speaking as a politician. I’m speaking first as a Christian, someone attempting to take what’s true from God’s revelation in Scripture and in nature and applying it to the subject of abortion. In the process, you’ll also hear about the wonder of your own humanity and the good news of Jesus Christ to save our humanity; and that’s well worth your stay.
If you’ve been with us for several years, some of these things will be review. I’ve taught them before. Some parts are new, and others I’ve updated or clarified. But I hope it equips you as questions about abortion continue to rise…and they will.
A few weeks ago on The Briefing, Al Mohler pointed to research that shows how abortions have increased since the Dobbs decision in 2022. Largely that’s due to the chemical abortions now prescribed through telehealth medicine. Also, there’s a State Representative in Texas. His name is James Talarico. He’s running for Senate. He professes to be a Christian. But he’s also a strong advocate for abortion rights and attempts to defend his stance from the Bible. We’ll look at a few of his arguments later— but given the cultural currents, you will encounter questions and so will your children.
So, how should we think about abortion and life in the womb from a Christian worldview? There’s no question anymore over what an abortion is. Biologists, medical professionals, and advocates who support abortion, now do so with full knowledge that abortion terminates human life. They just question the baby’s personhood and rights. In 2008 Camille Paglia wrote, “I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.”[i] Yet she then justifies abortion on grounds that it protects women’s rights to abortion.
What are we to make of this? Does God’s revelation in Scripture have any guidance? Some have said that since the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn abortion, then we shouldn’t take a stand. But we’re not restricted to taking a stand only on what’s explicitly commanded or prohibited. The better question is, “Do these divine words help us understand the personhood and value of a preborn human being?” If they do, and they indicate that a preborn human is a person with intrinsic value, then all other commands apply like “you shall not murder” and “love your neighbor as yourself.”
Seeing the Dignity of Preborn Image Bearers
So, how does God’s revelation in Scripture help us think and act when it comes to preborn human beings? First, Scripture helps us see that all people bear God’s image and have special dignity, including preborn children. Humans are not the result of a cosmic coincidence but the result of a careful Creator. Genesis 1:28, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In the ancient world, kings were seen to represent the presence of a god on earth. A king would conquer lands and then leave behind an image that stood for the god’s presence. The image was a visual representation of the god ruling through the king.
It comes as no surprise, then, that when God has Moses write the creation account, he does so with imagery familiar to the readers of that day.[ii] “Image” stood for visual representation. But the creation account is far better. God isn’t like a local deity. He rules everything—he made it all. Then God creates humans in his image. Only these image bearers aren’t like those of the ancient Near East that cannot see, hear, speak, or act. No, according to 2:7, God breathes life into his image bearers. Also, the image doesn’t belong to just one, the king, but to all. All humans are visual representatives.
Your life is like a mirror that sits at an angle to reflect God to others. This image sets you apart from all other creatures. Now, it’s also true that sin greatly marred the image of God. But that doesn’t mean the image is lost. That can be seen in Genesis 5:3. After the fall of man into sin, we find the image passed to Adam’s children. In Genesis 9:6, we find the special dignity of man reasserted. God puts severe consequences in place for those who take human life. So even after sin enters the world, God’s image persists in man. Humans shouldn’t be treated lightly; they bear God’s image.
But how does the Bible treat preborn humans? Does it treat them as image bearers? Do they deserve the same protections as persons outside the womb? You tell me. In Psalm 139:13, David describes his preborn state in ways that are fully personal. Even when David didn’t know himself, God knew David. He says, “you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” God didn’t knit together tissue that wasn’t yet David or would later become David. God knitted David together in the womb. He was wonderfully made.[iii]
Also consider Jesus’ birth narrative—Luke 1:41. Elizabeth is twenty-four weeks pregnant with John. Mary visits Elizabeth and it says, “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.” The baby—Luke uses the same word of Jesus laying in the manger later in Luke 2:16. Passing through the birth canal doesn’t change something that wasn’t a baby into a baby. Both John in the womb and Jesus in the manger get called “the baby.” It’s a baby with personal feelings, who kicks for joy at Mary’s voice. Medical research on what babies can sense in the womb only confirms what the Bible assumes. At sixteen weeks a baby can discern sounds. At eight weeks, the child can suck his thumb and feel pain.
But another text supporting a preborn child’s personhood is Exodus 21:22-25. It says, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there’s no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there’s harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” and so on.
Now, some have used this same text to support abortion. They translate the verb in verse 22 to describe a miscarriage. Then they limit the verb “no harm” to the mother. Their reasoning then goes something like this: if there’s only a fine in the case of a miscarriage but a life-for-life sentence in the case of harming the mother, then Exodus 22 clearly prioritizes the mother and reduces the preborn to mere property.
However, even if we granted that a lesser punishment is in view, it doesn’t automatically follow that the child is less valuable. The Law often prescribes varying degrees of punishment depending on the offender’s intent. Having said that, this view isn’t the best reading. There is a Hebrew word for miscarriage, but it’s not used here. And there’s also nothing in the text that limits “no harm” to the mother. If anything, the masculine verb “no harm” points to the masculine noun “children.”
What, then, is this verse saying? This law presents two cases where a pregnant woman is accidently hit during a scuffle. In the first, the woman gets hit and the injury causes premature labor, but there’s no harm to the child (or the mother). The father names a penalty and the man who caused the labor must pay the penalty with the judges’ approval. Both the mother and the child are legal persons under the law’s protection.
But the second case goes further. In the second case, there is harm done to the preborn child (or the mother). In that case, the severest penalties apply, the same penalty we hear for image bearers in Genesis 9:6—“life for life.” So, alongside the mother the preborn child has intrinsic value as God’s image-bearer; and the Law does what it can to protect them. Here’s what I conclude from all that: from the moment God begins knitting together human life in the womb, preborn children are legal persons who have intrinsic value as God’s image-bearers. That’s the first way God’s word helps us.
Caring for the Most Vulnerable
Here’s another way: God’s compassion for the vulnerable implies special care for the most vulnerable. When God gave Israel the Law, numerous commands relate to sojourners, widows, orphans, the poor. These folks lack security, protection. They didn’t have welfare or social security. Israel had to care for these vulnerable people; and the Lord gave several reasons why. In Exodus 22:21-27, Israel must care for the vulnerable, first off, because they were once vulnerable. Also, God fights for the vulnerable. But the final reason is that God is compassionate: “I will hear their cry, for I am compassionate.”
God’s compassion motivates his people’s compassion. When Israel was helpless, God intervened. So, they too were to reflect/image the same compassion to the helpless. That’s how it always works in Scripture. God’s compassion compels our compassion. That’s what we experience in the gospel of Jesus. We’re helpless and vulnerable. We can’t free ourselves from slavery to sin. We’re vulnerable to the devil’s oppressive schemes. We’re orphans in that we don’t have God as our Father. But in his compassion, God sends Jesus to pay the price for our sins, destroy the devil, and adopt us into his family. God’s compassion in the cross should move us to love the vulnerable.
That’s why James 1:27 says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” What does this have to do with the preborn? They are the most vulnerable. They can’t defend themselves. They can’t run from the doctor. They have no voice to argue or protest. Michael Spielman once put it this way: “By explicitly commanding us to care for those whose livelihood is in jeopardy…God is implicitly commanding us to care for those whose lives are in jeopardy.”[iv]
Acting Diligently to Protect Life
God’s word also informs us another way: neighbor love demands diligent action to protect life. Let’s call this “a doctrine of carefulness.” In the Law we get a group of commands that reveal this principle. Take Exodus 21:29. Let’s say you owned an ox, and that ox was accustomed to goring people. Others warn you about it. Still, you let it out anyway and the ox ends up killing someone. You’re responsible, God says, life for life. The command teaches God’s people to do everything you can to protect human life. The Law isn’t merely about avoiding things like murder. It’s true intent promotes diligent, thoughtful care for God’s image bearers.
That’s even truer under the new covenant in Christ. Consider the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. He came to bring the Law to its truest intent. The religious leaders of his day got it all wrong. The Law wasn’t just about avoiding badness, avoiding murder. If they understood the law’s truest intent, they would’ve also eliminated every cause that can lead to murder—like anger in the heart. They should’ve pursued reconciliation and peace as well.
In terms of the sanctity of life, Jesus ups the ante for kingdom citizens. We don’t just avoid taking life; we repent of any cause in the heart that could lead to the loss of life, and we actively seek ways to help life flourish. What does that mean for the preborn? It means we make every effort to help their life flourish.
An Appeal to Natural Law
Those are a few pointers from God’s revelation in Scripture. But Scripture itself also assumes God’s revelation in nature. God made the world to work a certain way. And by observing his world we can discern right from wrong. Example: a man goes with a woman to create a child; that can’t happen between a man with man or a woman with woman—that would be against nature.
Church history has labeled what I’m talking about, “natural law.” In his book Divine Covenants and Moral Order, David VanDrunen describes natural law like this: “the normative moral order communicated through nature.”[v] Elsewhere he says, “[Natural law] refers to the idea that God makes known the basic substance of his moral law through the created order itself.”[vi] Natural law is the “basic recognition and honor of minimal norms for maintaining human society.”[vii] It is God’s common grace to all, the just and the unjust alike. Its goal is to preserve nature and pave the way for special grace.
Take, for example, Abraham’s social interactions with pagan neighbors. How does he form alliances for war, or engage foreigners in judicial matters, or pursue economic transactions—unless they also recognize some basic norms for maintaining society? This is why Paul can also say things like 1 Corinthians 5:1, “There is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans.” Or 1 Timothy 5:8, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
People know the basic obligations of justice through natural law. They might have a moral aversion to those basic obligations; they might suppress the truth—Romans 1 and 2—but in their conscience they still know them.
So, as it pertains to abortion, one natural law argument goes like this. We’ll put it in the form of a logical syllogism: “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent biological human beings; a fetus is an innocent biological human being; abortion intentionally kills a fetus; therefore, abortion is wrong.”[viii] You don’t need the Bible to make that argument. Most people know that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. If a fetus is a human being—and biologists are telling us undeniably that it is a human being. Science continues to prove that life begins at conception, when there’s formed a new living human organism that’s not part of the mother and has his/her own DNA. If that’s true, then it’s wrong to intentionally kill that human being.
Now, some may still protest “whether the fetus is developed enough to count as a person” or “whether they can reason like a person,” and so on. But I think Scott Klusendorf develops a helpful acronym for addressing many of these objections philosophically. In his book The Case for Life, he uses the acronym SLED.
“Philosophically,” he says, “there’s no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today.” Take your Size—that’s the S in SLED. “You were smaller as an embryo, but since when does your body size determine value? Large humans are not more valuable than small humans.” Next is “Level of Development: True, you were less developed as an embryo, but why is that decisive? Six-month olds are less developed than teenagers both physically and mentally, but we don’t think the former have less of a right to life.” Then he moves to “Environment: Where you are has no bearing on what you are. How does a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from a being we can kill to one we can’t?” Last is “Degree of Dependency: Sure, you depended on your mother for survival, but since when does dependence on another human mean we can kill you?”
“In short,” Klusendorf argues, “humans are equal by nature not function. Although they differ immensely in their respective degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature made in the image of God.”[ix] This is just one way to argue from God’s revelation in nature.
Now, additional questions enter the picture in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, when the embryo implants somewhere outside the uterus, is unable to survive, and, barring miraculous resolution, the mother’s life is in jeopardy. In that rare situation, two lives are at stake; and we must do all we can to save as many lives as possible. In procedures like this, the intent is not to kill the child, but to save the one life we can. Whereas in abortion the intent is to kill a child that would’ve lived.
What, then, have we learned from God’s revelation in Scripture and in nature? From the moment of conception, preborn children are moral, legal persons with intrinsic value as God’s image bearers. Therefore, we should do all we can to protect them, and any deliberate act to end the life of a preborn child amounts to murder. A second-century Christian named Clement of Alexandria once wrote, “Women who resort to some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo, but along with it, all human kindness.”[x]
How is it, then, that someone like James Talarico claims just the opposite? In an interview with Joe Rogan last July, Talarico made three arguments for abortion from the Bible. One, Adam didn’t become a living being until God breathed life into him; therefore, human life only begins at first breath. Two, Jesus elevated women—by which he seems to imply that this makes abortion morally permissible. And three, God asked for Mary’s consent before she conceived Jesus. But let’s test each of these…
He’s right that God’s breath gave Adam life. But he fails to see that Genesis 2:7 describes a unique moment in God’s creation, not a universal rule for all people. Sticking with Genesis 2, would he also argue that all must be fashioned from dust, or that all women must come from a man’s side? Moreover, what does he do with Ecclesiastes 11:5 which speaks of the same breath entering a child in the womb?
He’s also right in his second argument that Jesus elevated women. But it doesn’t logically follow that it’s then right for women to kill their babies. Besides that, if Jesus treated females with such dignity, we owe the same to females in the womb.
Lastly, he said that God asks for Mary’s consent. Not exactly. He told her what was going to happen. She asked how. He explained. And in a wonderful display of faith, she submits as a servant to her Master. But even if she was “giving consent,” he’s confusing categories. Consent to conceive a child is one thing; consent to preserve a child after conception is another. It would’ve been morally wrong for Mary to abort Jesus.
In the end, Talarico is leading many astray, calling evil good and good evil. To borrow the words of another second-century fourth-century Christian, Justin Martyr John Crysostom, Talarico is “making the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder.”[xi]
Our Role as a Church
So, what now? In view of these things, what’s our role as Christians? First, come to Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins. Perhaps you’ve had an abortion. Maybe you were just scared and didn’t know any better. Maybe a father or husband or boyfriend pressured you to have one. Maybe you’re the father or husband or boyfriend who did the pressuring. Maybe you learned of a woman wanting an abortion, and instead of speaking for life you stayed silent and did nothing.
When we realize the true nature of our sin, and how it dehumanizes others, it’s right for shame and guilt to consume our conscience. We’ve broken God’s law. But here’s the good news—God saves lawbreakers. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. The Bible tells stories of God’s grace toward murderers and the negligent. Paul breathed murder against the church. Yet this same man writes this in 1 Timothy 1:15-16: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.”
There’s hope for all of us in the gospel! God forgives sinners through the cross of Christ; and he transforms them into messengers of his grace and truth. Come to Jesus. Confess your sins. God holds out mercy for you this morning. And more than mercy, he gives the grace of a new heart, a new humanity, a new creation, a renewed mind.
Which leads me to another point for us to consider—preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sure, we should do our due diligence in voting for candidates who defend the lives of the preborn. As much as possible, we want to give moral agency to those candidates committed to life. It’s also right for the church to act as a social conscience by calling attention to grave injustices or by pioneering efforts for change in unjust laws.[xii]
But in the end, none of those things change the heart. It was a good thing for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. But we can’t deny the evidence that people will go to great lengths to get what they want. Church, you have the real answer for changing that. God has entrusted you with the gospel of Jesus Christ and it is the power of God for salvation. The abortion industry will fall when people stop wanting them; and they will stop wanting them when they have a new heart, when they are united to Christ by faith. So, don’t hesitate to bring them the good news of Jesus.
That’s where all our change began—with Christ. It doesn’t matter if it was abortion or sexual immorality or idolatry or lying or greed or a bazillion hateful words spewing from your poisonous mouth—true change started for us in Christ; and we can boast of nothing more than God’s grace in him. So, keep prioritizing the gospel.
Third, pray for justice, babies, and pregnant women. As Christians, we’re confident that justice will prevail. God displayed justice at the cross; and he raised Jesus from the dead to assure that his justice will prevail. Pray to that end. Pray like David in Psalm 10, “Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up your hand; forget not the afflicted…you note mischief…that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits himself; you have been the helper of the fatherless. Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer…”
Pray that God topples the abortion industry. Pray God will bring justice for the innocent. Pray that the preborn are spared and the wicked exposed. Pray also for pregnant women. Pray the Lord would intervene in cases where a woman is callous to the life in her womb. Pray for the Lord to protect other women who feel trapped with no way out. Pray that women would be protected from the fangs of wicked men who devour them. Pray also about ways you can enter their lives for good.
Fourth, renounce the abortion culture and the heart behind it. That means the obvious, like choosing not to end the life of a preborn child. But it also means not participating in the less obvious—like not using “birth-control” methods that are abortifacient, or not using artificial reproductive technologies that threaten the sanctity of life. Do your homework. Ask, “Will this provide the best environment for life to flourish at every stage of development?” If uncertainty remains, neighbor love will strive to provide the safest environment for life to flourish and not even potentially die.
But there’s also a deeper heart attitude driving the abortion culture. Really, it’s the same attitude that drives genocide and racism and road rage and abuse and a host of other sins. That heart attitude goes like this: dehumanize anybody who stands in the way of my plans, my wants, and my comforts. That disposition of the heart may be easier for us to discern when it comes to preborn children.
But is our discernment calibrated as well when it comes to the poor or the immigrant or civilian casualties in war? I understand that, in this fallen world, protecting life will include policies that don’t allow the poor to take advantage of others. It will include processes for maintaining a rule of law and screening immigrants to ensure there’s no threat to other image bearers. And, sadly, there are even occasions in war when a country is forced to weigh the loss of innocent civilians against stopping a greater threat—I hate that’s even a question to consider. [We’re in Ecclesiastes again.]
All I’m saying is that our bent must always be, “What’s best for the lives of these image bearers? What will reflect God’s compassion most clearly, given these terribly complex circumstances?” Even good politicians lack consistency here. But we, as the church, should seek consistency and support what’s right in God’s eyes, even if that means exposing where our fellow conservatives get it wrong.
They got it wrong when they moderated their pro-life stance last election cycle. They got it wrong when, recently, they quietly released Title X funding back to Planned Parenthood. They get it wrong when they use dehumanizing rhetoric about their political opponents. They’re getting it wrong if they’re detaining lawfully present refugees, according to a report by World Relief.[xiii] If we don’t treat people with dignity outside the womb, how do you think it’s teaching them to treat people inside the womb?
As Christians, we have an amazing opportunity before us. In Christ, we are the new humanity. We have the new heart of the new creation that reflects our Father’s compassionate heart. Our stand for life must be consistent across the board—we must value all who are created in God’s image and act for their good, starting with those the Lord places in our path. Who has the Lord placed in your path? How can you image God’s compassion? You don’t have to change the world. Just be faithful with the people God has entrusted to you in this world; and he will shine his truth about humanity through your kindness and care and concern.
Fifth, rescue others from peril. Proverbs 24:11 says, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” If you hear of someone wanting an abortion, speak up. Ask the mother to wait and take her to coffee. Invite her to your home. Talk it through and show her why life is precious.
Support crisis pregnancy centers that are pro-life. Support them with finances. Support them with services. As a church, we help the Pregnancy Health Center off Camp Bowie. We set aside funds to support them; and some of you give your time to assist with sonograms or counseling or cleaning or serving on the board.
Rescue mothers too. Love will also act to protect the women wrestling with whether to have an abortion. Some were raped; and raising a child alone is terrifying. Some made poor life choices. Some are just callous about life since mom or dad never treated them like a person either. Some have only known poverty and fear the costs. Whatever the story, they’re looking for hope and help. The church should be the first to offer them both. We should even be ready to adopt their children when they come for help. Some of you may not be able to adopt, and that’s okay. But others can, and they still need your help in doing so—money, resources, baby-sitting, ongoing encouragement. None of us can do it all. But all of us can do something.
Lastly, never forget your helpless condition when the Lord saved you. The Lord wouldn’t let Israel forget it. The apostles don’t let us forget it either. Regularly, we’re reminded of how desperate we were before God saved us. The point is both to humble us and to magnify God’s grace. This is the message we must remember and keep central. This is the message that saves. Pro-life is the right ethic, but it is not the gospel. Christ and him crucified and risen is the gospel; and therein lies our only hope that hardened sinners will become compassionate advocates for life.
________
[i]Camille Paglia, “Fresh Blood for the Vampire,” Salon (September 10, 2008); accessed January 19, 2019 at https://www.salon.com/2008/09/10/palin_10/.
[ii] Richard Lints, Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion, NSBT 36 (Downers Grove: IVP, 2015), 69-71.
[iii] Cf. also Job 31:15; Jer 1:5.
[iv] Michael Spielman, “A Biblical Mandate to Do Something about Abortion,” Abort73 (August 30, 2016), accessed at https://abort73.com/end_abortion/a_biblical_mandate_to_do_something_about_abortion/.
[v] David VanDrunen, Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 15.
[vi] VanDrunen, Politics After Christendom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 124-25.
[vii] VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 148.
[viii] Trent Horne, “Five Non-Religious Arguments against Abortion,” Catholic Answers (June 27, 2022), accessed at https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/five-non-religious-arguments-against-abortion.
[ix] Scott Klusendorf, “Clarity Not Gadgetry: Pro-Life Apologetics for the Next Generation,” The Gospel Coalition (January 21, 2011), accessed at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/clarity-not-gadgetry-pro-life-apologetics-for-the-next-generation/.
[x] Taken from Clement, Paedadogus, 2.10.96, as listed by Gavin Ortlund, “Abortion in the Early Church,” YouTube (June 12, 2026), accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT4avfuGUG8.
[xi] Taken from John Crysostom, Homilies on Romans 24, as listed by Gavin Ortlund, “Abortion in the Early Church.” In the sermon, I said “second-century…Justin Martyr,” but this was a mistake I made when transferring from some of my notes.
[xii] Examples come from the discussion in Robert Bene, Good and Bad Ways to Think about Religion and Politics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 82-112.
[xiii] Lauren Rasmussen, “World Relief Condemns Ice Detentions of Lawfully Present Refugees,” (January 13, 2026), accessed at https://worldrelief.org/wiblog-world-relief-condemns-ice-detentions-of-lawfully-present-refugees/.