A Christian Reflection on Abortion

Life, Choice, and Compassion. Can they all fit together?

I honestly don’t know, but I’m trying to work it out.

Abortion is one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time. As a Christian, I believe human life begins at conception. To me, every zygote, embryo, and fetus is not “potential life,” but life with potential. For that reason, I would never choose abortion for myself, and if a friend came to me considering it, I would offer love, prayer, and alternatives that affirm life. But I would not condemn them if they chose differently — at the end of the day, that choice is between them and God.

Still, this topic deserves clarity. Many arguments swirl around in our culture — some scientific, some moral, some deeply personal. Here I want to gently and lovingly respond to some of the most common claims I hear.

“A zygote is not a human.”

Science disagrees. From the moment of conception, a zygote contains a unique human genetic code different from both mother and father. It is a living organism with the full blueprint to direct its own development through every stage of human life.

Just as an infant is as fully human as a teenager, a zygote is as fully human as a newborn — just at an earlier stage of development. Growth and maturity do not change what we are, only how developed we are.

This is why the irony so many point out rings true: when a woman experiences an early miscarriage, the world calls it “losing a baby.” But if that same child at the same gestational age is intentionally aborted, it’s called “the removal of a clump of cells.” The only difference is whether that life was wanted. In one scenario, the baby was loved and mourned; in the other, it is reduced to tissue. That inconsistency exposes how society’s view of life has become subjective — defined by desire rather than by truth.

As one commenter put it perfectly, this logic “comes down to placing value on life based solely on whether that life is wanted — and that is not an acceptable standard for the value of human life.” A life’s worth cannot depend on convenience, circumstance, or emotion; it either has value or it doesn’t. And deep down, we all know it does.

“Christians only use science when it suits them.”

This argument misunderstands both science and faith. Science can tell us what is — that a zygote is alive, human, and genetically unique. Faith tells us what that means — that every human being has value, dignity, and purpose given by God.

The two are not at odds. Christians don’t abandon science; we see science as confirming what Scripture has long affirmed: life is precious and begins in the womb (Psalm 139:13–16).

“A zygote is like a caterpillar that will become a butterfly — it’s not yet one.”

A caterpillar is a butterfly — just in an earlier stage of life. Its DNA, from the egg onward, has always been butterfly DNA. In the same way, a zygote is a human being in its earliest stage. Saying it is “not yet human” because it hasn’t reached maturity is like saying a toddler isn’t human because they cannot yet speak in full sentences.

“Just because it has both parents’ DNA doesn’t make it a unique being.”

Actually, that is exactly what makes it unique. Every zygote has a one-of-a-kind genetic identity that has never existed before and will never exist again. From conception, sex, eye color, blood type, and countless other traits are already determined. This is not “just DNA” — it is a complete human blueprint.

“It’s her body, her choice.”

A woman’s body is absolutely hers. But the zygote inside her has its own DNA, its own blood type, sometimes even its own sex — different from hers. It is biologically distinct. While dependent on her for nourishment, it is not part of her body any more than a baby in a crib is part of its mother’s body.

Respecting women means acknowledging their dignity — and also the dignity of the life within them. Both lives matter.

“A zygote is a parasite.”

Parasites are foreign organisms of a different species that harm their host. A fetus is not foreign, not another species, and not inherently harmful. Pregnancy is the natural design of human reproduction. Calling a baby a parasite strips away its humanity and rewrites biology.

“If it can’t survive outside the womb, it’s not viable.”

Viability is a moving target. A century ago, babies born before 32 weeks almost never survived. Today, babies as young as 21–22 weeks have survived with medical care. Does that mean a baby at 21 weeks in 1920 wasn’t human, but now it is?

Survival outside the womb depends on medical progress — not the baby’s humanity. A newborn is not “viable” alone either; without constant care, they would not survive. Dependency does not determine dignity or humanity.

“Until it has a heartbeat or can feel, it’s not the same as a human outside the womb.”

Some argue that without a heartbeat, an embryo isn’t really alive, or that without the ability to feel, it isn’t truly human. But both of these standards are flawed.

The human heart begins to beat around 5–6 weeks after conception — often before many women even realize they are pregnant. But life does not begin with a heartbeat; the heartbeat is simply one of the first signs of life already present. A zygote without a heartbeat is no less alive than a seed before it sprouts leaves.

As for feeling, it’s true that pain perception develops gradually. Reflexes appear by about 8–12 weeks, pain pathways begin forming by 20 weeks, and conscious pain perception may be possible around 24 weeks. But again, the ability to feel pain is not what makes us human.

A newborn in a coma, or an adult under anesthesia, cannot feel pain either — yet their humanity is never in question. Our dignity is not rooted in our capacity to feel or our stage of development, but in the fact that we are human beings. From conception onward, the zygote is a member of our species, and therefore worthy of protection.

And even our laws seem to recognize this truth, whether society wants to admit it or not. If a pregnant woman is murdered — even if she is only a few weeks along — the offender is often charged with double homicide. That means both the mother and her unborn child are recognized as victims. The same tiny being dismissed as a “clump of cells” in abortion rhetoric is suddenly a “baby” when tragedy strikes. The inconsistency is staggering. Either that developing life is a person or it isn’t — we can’t redefine it based on convenience or circumstance.

“Christians don’t stand on science but beliefs they force on others.”

Christians believe science and morality together speak truth. Science shows that life begins at conception; morality tells us life should be protected. This is not forcing religion — it is applying the same reasoning society already uses in other contexts.

For example, under U.S. law it is a federal crime to disturb a bald-eagle egg, with fines and even jail time. Why? Because the law recognizes that destroying an egg destroys the eagle life within. Yet somehow, we hesitate to extend similar protections to human life at its earliest stages.

Or consider the way scientists talk about life on Mars. Recently, NASA’s Perseverance rover found chemical signatures in Martian rock that could be evidence of ancient microbial life. While unconfirmed, even the possibility of bacteria on another planet is heralded as a monumental discovery of “life.” And yet, a human zygote — unquestionably alive, genetically complete, and human — is dismissed as “potential life.”

Finally, think about patients who are brain-dead or in comas. They may not feel pain or show awareness, yet we still recognize their humanity and dignity. We don’t measure their worth by sensation or independence, but by their identity as human beings.

When we call microbes on Mars “life,” eagle eggs worthy of legal protection, and unconscious adults fully human — yet deny that same truth to unborn children — this is not consistent science. It is shifting definitions to suit cultural preference, not biological reality.

Exodus 21:22-25 — the “different punishments” passage

What the argument is:

Some say Exodus 21:22 proves the Bible doesn’t treat the unborn as equal to the mother because it prescribes a fine if a pregnant woman is injured and miscarries, while it demands life for life if the woman dies.

The passage (ESV):

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined… But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” (Exodus 21:22–25)

Why the confusion exists:

The key Hebrew phrase “so that her children come out” (וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, v’yatzu yeladeha) literally means “so that her offspring come out.”

Some older English versions (like certain readings of the RSV) translated it as “she has a miscarriage.” That translation leads people to think the passage distinguishes between harm to the fetus and harm to the mother.

But conservative scholars note:

• The Hebrew word yeled (“child”) always refers to a living child, not a miscarried one.

• The phrase “come out” simply means premature birth — not necessarily death.

• The phrase “if there is no harm” (ʾāsôn) is unspecified; it could mean harm to either the mother or the baby.

• So the passage is saying:

  • If the baby is born prematurely but unharmed, the offender pays a fine for causing the trauma.

  • If either the mother or the child is harmed or killed, the punishment escalates: life for life.

In short:

Far from downgrading the unborn child’s value, the original Hebrew text places equal protection on the life of both mother and child. The distinction is about outcomes — not worth.

“Abortion bans devalue women’s lives.”

This is a valid concern, but it often misrepresents medical realities. In cases such as ectopic pregnancy, treatment is allowed even in states with strict abortion laws, because the embryo cannot survive and the mother’s life is at risk. In other medical emergencies, doctors can deliver a baby early — whether by induction or C-section — to save the mother’s life. The intent is not to kill the baby but to save both whenever possible.

Protecting unborn life should never mean neglecting the mother’s life. Both lives matter deeply.

Where I Struggle With the Law

This is where I wrestle. On a legal level, I don’t quite know where I stand yet. Do we allow abortion only up to a certain point? Maybe within the first six to eight weeks — long enough for a woman to discover she’s pregnant, but not so long that the baby has developed more advanced features like pain perception, reflexes, or other neurological milestones — and not after that? Does that mean I think abortion is good or that I would ever choose it? No, absolutely not. I always hope life would be chosen.

But does it mean I think a woman should be legally allowed to make that choice early on if she decides to? Unfortunately, yes. That choice is ultimately between her and God — not between her and me, or even her and the government.

At the same time, I believe if our government truly wants to reduce abortion, it must also fix the broken adoption and foster-care system. Right now, there are about 400,000 children in U.S. foster care, with roughly 117,000 waiting to be adopted — yet thousands age out every year without ever finding a permanent family. Private infant adoption, meanwhile, often costs $30,000 to $60,000, putting it completely out of reach for many loving families who would otherwise open their homes. Raising a child is expensive enough — expecting families to take on tens of thousands in fees just to adopt feels outrageous.

I fully understand and support the need for very thorough background checks. Safety for children is non-negotiable. But beyond that, the red tape, delays, and astronomical costs are excessive. Families wait years, birth mothers doubt whether their child will ever find a stable home, and too many kids slip through the cracks. If adoption were more affordable, accessible, and trustworthy, I believe many women might feel more confident choosing life, knowing their child would be welcomed into a safe, loving home.

I also believe there must be limits. Abortion should never be allowed to become a form of birth control. Every life matters, and every decision carries weight. My hope is always to encourage life and provide support so that women don’t feel abortion is their only option.

Why Speak Up?

Christians are often told to “stay out of it.” But Scripture calls us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” (Proverbs 31:8). If we would intervene for an infant or child being harmed, why not also for the unborn child who has no voice at all?

Yet the way we speak matters. We are not called to condemn, but to advocate with compassion. We can present moral reasoning even outside of religion: human rights belong to all human beings, regardless of size, age, or dependence. To deny that is to create categories of “lesser humans” — something history has shown to be dangerous and unjust.

What the Bible Says About Life

While the Bible never uses the word “abortion,” it is clear about God’s heart for life.

• “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

• “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

• In Luke 1:41–44, John the Baptist leaps in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, enters the room — showing the unborn are already treated as persons in God’s story.

• Exodus 21:22–25 treats harm to an unborn child as a serious matter, not something trivial.

The heart of Scripture is that life is sacred because it is God’s creation, made in His image (Genesis 1:27). He values the unborn, He calls us to protect the vulnerable, and He offers grace for all who have fallen short (Romans 3:23; John 8:11).

As a Christian, I believe abortion ends a human life, and I could never choose it for myself. Of course, I wish that other women wouldn't choose it either, but I also believe every woman wrestling with this decision is loved by God. If someone I knew chose abortion, I would not cut them off or heap shame on them. Again, that choice is between them and God. My role is to love them as a person, to walk with them in their pain, and to point them toward hope — not to affirm every choice they make.

Jesus shows us the way: He spoke truth, but always with love. He welcomed the broken, lifted up the ashamed, and offered grace to all who came to Him. My prayer is that in conversations about abortion, we would do the same — hold to truth without wavering, but extend love without limit.

The cross reveals both God’s seriousness about sin and His unfathomable love for sinners. All of us stand guilty apart from Christ. But because of Him, we can be washed, sanctified, and justified. Our mission is not to condemn but to point people to the Savior who transforms lives.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic in the comments.