The Moral, Biblical, and Legal Incoherence of Abortion: A Theological Case for the Consistent Protection of Human Life

By The Danbury Institute Team

January 23, 2026

TL;DR

Abortion constitutes the intentional killing of an innocent human being and therefore meets the biblical, moral, and legal definition of murder. Scripture consistently affirms the sanctity of human life from conception, condemns the shedding of innocent blood, and assigns civil government the responsibility of punishing wrongdoing through due process. The modern abortion regime represents a profound inconsistency in law and ethics, granting legal immunity for acts that would otherwise be prosecuted as homicide if committed outside the womb. This exception undermines justice, distorts moral formation, and harms both unborn children and women. A coherent pro-life ethic must reject abortion, oppose euthanasia and other assaults on vulnerable life, distinguish between willful wrongdoing and genuine victimization, and call for equal application of the law to all persons.

Biblical and Theological Foundations for the Sanctity of Life

1. Human Life as God’s Creation and Possession

The biblical doctrine of life begins with God as Creator. Genesis 2:7 presents human life as a direct act of divine formation, while Psalm 139:13–16 affirms God’s intimate involvement in human development within the womb. Scripture does not treat prenatal life as morally ambiguous or sub-human; rather, it presents unborn life as personal, known, and purposed by God.

This theological anthropology grounds human dignity not in autonomy, capability, or social recognition, but in divine authorship. Human beings possess value because they bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), a status that does not emerge gradually nor depend on external validation.

2. The Biblical Prohibition of Murder

The prohibition against murder is explicit and foundational (Exodus 20:13). Throughout Scripture, God repeatedly condemns the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16–17; Isaiah 1:15). Importantly, Scripture does not restrict this prohibition to postnatal life.

Exodus 21:22–23 demonstrates that harm resulting in the death of an unborn child is treated as a serious offense warranting proportional punishment, indicating moral parity between life inside and outside the womb. The biblical witness therefore rejects the notion that location or dependency alters moral worth.

3. Justice, Government, and Due Process

Romans 13:1–4 teaches that civil government is instituted by God to promote good and restrain evil, bearing the sword as an instrument of justice. Genesis 9:5–6 establishes a foundational principle of proportional justice for homicide, grounded in the imago Dei.

Biblical justice is neither arbitrary nor sentimental. It is impartial, consistent, and rooted in truth. The state’s obligation is not merely to express compassion, but to uphold justice through due process. When governments selectively exempt certain forms of killing from prosecution, they undermine their God-given mandate.

Legal and Moral Inconsistencies in Contemporary Abortion Policy

1. Abortion as a Legal Exception to Homicide

In modern American jurisprudence, the killing of an unborn child can be prosecuted as homicide if committed by a third party against a pregnant woman, yet the same act is legally protected when performed as an abortion. This contradiction reveals that the law already recognizes unborn children as victims—except when abortion is involved.

Such carve-outs are incompatible with equal protection principles and with the biblical requirement that justice be applied without partiality (Leviticus 19:15). A just legal system cannot coherently affirm that unborn children are persons in one context and non-persons in another.

2. Equal Justice Under the Law

A consistent moral framework requires that identical acts be treated identically under the law. If intentionally killing a newborn constitutes murder, then intentionally killing that same child moments earlier cannot be morally or logically distinguished based on location.

The exclusion of mothers from criminal liability in abortion cases is often defended as compassionate. However, this exemption creates a category of homicide without accountability, thereby eroding the moral clarity that law is intended to provide. Justice does not single out women; it applies equally to all individuals involved in the intentional killing of another human being, while still allowing courts to consider coercion, diminished capacity, and mitigating circumstances.

Current Cultural Trends and Structural Incentives

1. Economic and Institutional Pressures

Abortion exists within a complex network of financial and institutional incentives. Pharmaceutical manufacturers profit from abortion-inducing drugs, medical facilities profit from procedures and complications, and advocacy organizations depend on abortion’s legal status for funding and influence.

While financial incentive alone does not establish moral culpability, it does help explain the persistence and normalization of abortion despite its human cost. Scripture repeatedly warns against systems that profit from injustice (Micah 3:10–11).

2. Political Pragmatism and Moral Relativism

Political calculations have increasingly replaced moral reasoning in public discourse on abortion. Candidates and institutions frequently prioritize electability, polling data, and donor expectations over ethical consistency.

This trend reflects a broader cultural shift away from objective moral standards toward utilitarian and expressive individualism. When moral truth becomes negotiable, the most vulnerable inevitably suffer.

Distinguishing Willful Disregard from Genuine Victimization

1. Intentional Killing and Moral Agency

Scripture affirms moral responsibility while also recognizing degrees of culpability. Individuals who knowingly and willingly participate in the intentional killing of unborn children are morally accountable for their actions (James 4:17). Justice requires that intentional wrongdoing be addressed through lawful means.

The failure to name abortion as murder has contributed to moral confusion, allowing individuals to believe that an act of lethal violence is ethically neutral or even virtuous.

2. Women Who Are Coerced, Deceived, or Exploited

At the same time, some women pursue abortions under conditions of coercion, misinformation, fear, or abandonment. Some are victims of abuse, trafficking, or intense familial pressure. Biblical justice recognizes victimization and demands protection for the oppressed (Psalm 82:3–4).

A consistent pro-life ethic therefore affirms both accountability and compassion: accountability for those who intentionally kill, and protection, care, and restoration for those genuinely victimized by deception and coercive relationships.

A Broader Pro-Life Ethic: Beyond Abortion

A biblical commitment to the sanctity of life does not end at birth nor focus exclusively on abortion. Scripture affirms the value of human life from conception to natural death.

Accordingly, a coherent pro-life position must also oppose euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide, and any policy that treats human lives as disposable based on age, disability, or perceived quality of life. The same theological principles that condemn abortion equally reject the intentional ending of life at its final stages.

This consistency reinforces moral credibility and reflects the biblical vision of justice that defends the weak at every point of vulnerability.

Conclusion: Toward Consistency, Justice, and Moral Clarity

Abortion represents one of the most significant moral and legal contradictions in modern society. Scripture affirms that unborn children are human beings created by God, that murder is a grave evil, and that civil authorities are responsible for punishing wrongdoing impartially through due process.

The continued legal exceptionalism surrounding abortion undermines justice, distorts moral formation, and perpetuates harm to both children and women. True compassion does not deny reality or excuse injustice; it confronts evil while offering truth, mercy, and restoration.

Ending abortion requires neither novel legal theories nor theological innovation. It requires the courage to apply existing moral and legal principles consistently. A society committed to justice must affirm that no human being—born or unborn—may be intentionally killed without consequence.

To fear God rather than public opinion is not extremism; it is fidelity. A renewed commitment to the sanctity of life, grounded in Scripture and reflected in law, remains essential for any society that seeks to call itself just.