October 1, 2026
This short essay begins with what should be abundantly obvious: the issue of abortion is not an ethically complex issue for Christians. However, as it appears that the West is consistently shifting toward a post-Christian culture, followers of Christ should realize that a society devoid of the divine is a society devoid of moral absolutes. In the resulting moral vacuum, ethical atrocities are certain to become reality. To this point, the United Kingdom recently, as of March 18th, 2026, voted to retain Clause 208 in its Crime and Policing Bill: a devastating blow for the protection of the unborn. As such, I contend that it is past time for Christians to stand up and advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves. Therefore, this essay seeks to do three things: 1) define Clause 208, 2) analyze its destructive implications, and 3) conduct a brief survey of Scripture regarding abortion.
What is Clause 208?
Something catastrophic took place in the House of Lords (London) on March 18, The British Parliament has voted to retain Clause 208 in their Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 208 begins with the heading “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion,” and states: “For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy” (emphasis added).1
Simply put, Clause 208 decriminalizes abortion for women. This Clause explicitly disapplied earlier statutes such as sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act. Section 58 states:
Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Three Years,—or to be imprisoned for any Term.2
Likewise, section 59 states:
Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Three Years,—or to be imprisoned for any Term.3
Additionally, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act created the felony of “child destruction” for the willful killing of an unborn child, unless the act was performed “in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.”4
As can be seen, these earlier statutes protected the unborn child. Before March 18, 2026, a woman who self-induced abortion legally committed a criminal offense which could result in Life Imprisonment. However, Clause 208 effectively neutralizes these previous protections for unborn children in the UK. Conversely, Clause 208 claims that it is now the mother who needs protecting—a pregnant woman in England and Wales is now protected from criminal prosecution for any and all self-induced abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, up to the moment of birth. To state this plainly: it is now legal for a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child at any stage of pregnancy. While it may be tempting for Christians in the United States to ignore such news, it is my conviction that this is a tragic human rights issue relevant to all Christians.
The Destructive Implications of Clause 208
While there are a lot of conversations taking place regarding biological truth versus political and legal philosophy, Christians should be able to bypass the political rhetoric and see Clause 208 for what it is: the logical end of abortion’s inevitable trajectory. Further, Christians should unapologetically denounce abortion as murder. As such, it is worth emphasizing that Clause 208 is not really about protecting the mother. Rather, it prioritizes the perceived “rights” of one individual over those of another in a narrow pursuit of autonomy. In order to bolster the veracity of my previous claims, I submit an admittedly brutal, but very possible, scenario. With Clause 208 in force, if the father of an unborn child hits the mother of his unborn child in the stomach with a baseball bat, terminating the pregnancy, he would be charged with “Child Destruction.” This charge could result in Life Imprisonment for the father. On the other hand, if the mother of an unborn child, against the will of the father, hits herself in the stomach with a baseball bat, terminating the pregnancy, she has legally committed no criminal act and thus garners no legal penalty. Does this appall you? It should.
A foundational problem with abortion in the UK—and by extension, Clause 208—is that its lawmakers have come to the conclusion that biological humanity and legal personhood are not functionally linked. That is, lawmakers can (and do) choose to ignore biological evidence and define their own framework for personhood. Within the current framework, being born alive stands as the magic threshold of personhood in the UK.5 Simply put, an unborn baby is not a person until they have spatially changed locations from inside of the womb to outside of the womb. I hope we can all appreciate the absurdity of this reasoning. If not, please allow me to quickly reveal its absurdity: an unborn child 10 seconds before birth is not a person; yet that same child—having traveled through the birth canal—suddenly, magically, possesses personhood despite the absence of biological change. Furthermore, a child in an incubator who was born extremely prematurely at 25 weeks has full personhood, whereas a 39-week-old unborn child inside the womb is afforded no such status.
Sadly, this discussion requires further exploration. Because the UK has bifurcated biological life from legal protection, the floor for the protection of persons has effectively been removed. If the spatial location of an unborn child is enough to deny it the right of personhood, it is logically consistent to conclude that there may eventually be a time in which lawmakers decide that the condition of a person (degree of dependency or level of development) is what determines or denies personhood. That is, given the current trajectory in the UK, it is only logical to conclude that lawmakers may eventually deny those who are elderly or mentally handicapped (both of whom could be deemed “burdensome” to society) the right to life. Am I making too much of this? I certainly do not think so. In fact, history validates my concerns. The UK has unfortunately laid the foundation for an ideology that could mirror that of 1940s Germany. The only thing separating the UK from this reality is politics and words on a page.
Why can I make this claim? Because when human life is only valuable because we choose to value it, not because human life has inherent value, then popular consensus can take that value away from whomever it deems less than in terms of value or utility. Going further, one need not stop at 1940s Germany to find an ideological framework of personhood similar to the UK’s model. In ancient Rome, it was determined that an unborn child was merely “a portion of the woman’s bowels” (mulieris portio est vel viscerum).6 Thus, abortion was “available on a broad scale” all the way up to the moment of birth.7 While the brutality of ancient Rome is widely acknowledged by Christians and secularists alike, it is a critical oversight that the UK (and the West in general) has not linked Rome’s legal framework as the precursor of the UK’s “born alive” rule.
It can be concluded that this is happening in the UK due to it being a culturally post-Christian society. As such, there is an evident shift away from an objective sanctity of life toward subjective individual autonomy. When one denies a divine, absolute authority (God), absolute morality soon disappears resulting in a vacuum which is subsequently filled with subjective morality defined by both the individual and the community. If, then, morality is not fixed but rather is fluid and dynamic—depending on the individual and community at a given point in time—then ancient Rome and 1940s Germany were both “moral” by their own standards.
Christianity and Abortion
Even in the early stages of the church, Christians uniformly opposed abortion.8 This historical consistency stems from the conviction that morality is objective and universal— imposed from without by the Creator rather than subjectively defined by culture. According to the Christian worldview, morality is received and acted upon because an omnipotent God has placed moral commands on our lives and on creation. Simply put, there is an inherent universal moral order created by God. Additionally, because God created this universal moral order, humanity does not have the right to claim autonomy and make moral judgments subjectively.
Therefore, if morality is absolute and objective rather than subjective and dynamic, what implications does God’s universal moral law have for the issues of abortion? To answer this question, this essay will conduct a brief survey of Scripture.
However, before examining Scripture, it seems necessary to define abortion properly and to underscore the importance of this issue with statistics. Abortion is the “intentional taking of an innocent human life. It is accomplished by a willful act of lethal violence directed toward the unborn child.”9 Since 1973 (Roe v. Wade) there have been more than sixty-three million legal abortions in the United States.10 If we broaden the scale to a worldwide statistic, the number easily spikes to the billions.11 Necessarily, then, it is only natural to contend that abortion is the worst human rights tragedy in the whole of human history. That being said, the church should stand as uniformly against abortion today as it did in ancient Rome. Abortion is a biblical issue and a matter of advocacy—we have the duty to stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Personhood and the Imago Dei
As can be inferred from the previous sections, the abortion issue is, at its core, a personhood issue. In the Christian worldview, all human beings are persons from the moment of fertilization. Therefore, human life ought to be protected from the moment of fertilization. This truth has its foundation in the doctrine of the Imago Dei, the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).
Humans are created in a special way in the image of God, and thus have a special relationship to him. Human life possesses God-given inherent value and dignity; consequently, it must be protected from the moment of conception. Abortion is, thus, always wrong because it “unjustly robs a human being of their inherent dignity and right to life.”12
Staying within the confines of the creation narrative, Scripture also shows us that a part of God’s design for humanity is to be fruitful and multiply. Genesis first speaks of God as the one who gives life (Gen. 1:27), and then immediately ties life to fruitfulness (Gen. 1:28). In this way, abortion stands in direct opposition to God, becoming a violation that gives the illusion that the right to life resides with the individual. Abortion is nothing less than an affront to God’s original design. Therefore, contrary to what secular culture claims, abortion does not further human flourishing; it instead actively subverts and undercuts human flourishing. I need only to recall the statistics from above to corroborate this claim.
Abortion is clearly a violation of the Sixth Commandment: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). Unsurprisingly, the Sixth Commandment finds its foundation within the framework of the Imago Dei. All humans, even after the Fall, retain the image of God, which means that all life is sacred. Scripture reaffirms this truth after the Flood in Genesis 9:6 when God informs Noah that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” All human life is a reflection of the Creator, implying that the act of murder is an attack on an image-bearer of the Almighty God.
Admittedly, some Christians have been hesitant to classify abortion as murder because of how it might make women feel. However, being loving and merciful “does not lessen the fact that a murder has occurred by the abortionist.”13 Additionally, the Sixth Commandment is not simply about the prohibition of murder, but also includes honoring God through the active protection of his image-bearers. Put differently, the Sixth Commandment includes within it a positive command to expressly protect and preserve life. Therefore, it is not sufficient to merely avoid participation in an abortion. Rather, it is incumbent on true followers of Christ to proactively promote welfare and protection for the unborn.
Personhood and the Rest of Scripture
Lest it be said that the claim of this essay relies solely on the Creation Narrative, it is abundantly clear throughout Scripture that unborn children are persons. Psalm 139:13-16 reveals that God possesses sovereignty and intentionality over the design of babies inside the womb.
David acknowledges that God “formed my inward parts” and “knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). David continues in verse fourteen by proclaiming that babies in the womb are “fearfully and wonderfully made,” and are wonderful works of God. David even goes so far as to reveal that God ordains the life of every person before they even begin to exist (v.16). Therefore, Psalm 139 is a powerful affirmation of life within the womb which deserves protection.
In Jeremiah 1:4-5, God sovereignly calls Jeremiah to ministry. In this call, God discloses to Jeremiah that he had consecrated Jeremiah for this task before he even physically existed.
Verse five says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” Much like Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5 undeniably shows that God knows each person before their existence. Since this is true, then abortion is nothing less than a terrifying repudiation of God as the author of life.
In Luke 1:39-45, Scripture allows the reader to eavesdrop on a very special interaction between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Elizabeth. Scripture tells us that “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). That is, the unborn John the Baptist has leapt in the womb of Elizabeth. Additionally, Elizabeth recognizes the unborn Jesus—whom she calls “the fruit of your womb”—as “Lord” (Luke 1:42-43). Not only does this show the high value of life that God places on those inside the womb, it also reveals the distinct realities separating the mother and baby. In this vein, the recurrent scriptural phrase “she conceived and gave birth” articulates a reality of two distinct persons in pregnancy: the pregnant woman is one person, while the unborn child in her womb is a separate, distinct person. That the unborn baby is inside the womb of the mother is simply a spatial location for him or her to gestate. The baby’s “dependence on the womb is no different from a born human’s dependence on oxygen or water.”14
On the negative side of scriptural argumentation, one finds a striking contradiction of the West’s cultural philosophy. While the murderous action of Herod—the slaughter of male infants recorded in Matthew 2:16-18—would be universally viewed with disdain as a heinous crime against humanity, abortion, though ontologically identical, is celebrated by society as a mark of autonomous freedom. In the end, Scripture leaves no room for nuance on the subject of abortion.
True followers of Christ see abortion for what it is, and should recoil in abject horror at what has happened in the UK with Clause 208. This horror should be focused into action, for it is the duty of all followers of Christ to resolutely advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Conclusion: A Bruised Reed He Will Not Break
Because the topic of abortion is fundamentally emotionally charged, it remains paramount that Christians not forget to approach this situation with humility, acknowledging our own fallen state. As such, it seems appropriate to conclude this article with one last scriptural reference, Matthew 12:20. Quoting Isaiah 42:3, Matthew writes that Jesus, as God’s chosen servant, will not break a bruised reed. The bruised reed is a symbol which represents those who are spiritually weak and broken. Rather than discarding these bruised reeds, Jesus acts as a kind, compassionate caretaker—a true servant. In light of this, though the act of abortion is abhorrent, we must also remember that just as Christ did not discard us in our broken past, neither are we to discard others with broken pasts. While proactively standing up for the justice and protection of the unborn, we must simultaneously point bruised reeds to the Savior, the one who bled and died for our salvation. In humility, realizing that our sins also nailed Jesus to the cross, we must reach out, take hold of the grasping hands of those bruised reeds, and lead them to the one who can redeem them. As Richard Sibbes writes, “The best men are severe to themselves, tender over others.”15
___
Jesse Moore (M.Div., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is the Director of Communication and Media at West Acres Baptist Church in Evans, Georgia.
Notes:
1 UK Parliament. “Crime and Policing Bill.” Accessed March 20, 2026. (bills.parliament.uk/publications/64840/documents/7819)
2 ILGA World Database. “Offences Against the Person Act 1861.” Accessed March 20, 2026. (database.ilga.org/api/downloader/download/1/GB%20-%20LEG%20-%20Offences%20Against%20the%20Person%20Act%20(1861)%20-%20OR-OFF(en).pdf)
3 ILGA World Database, “Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”
4 Wikisource. “Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.” Accessed March 20, 2026.
5 Birthrights. “Human Right in Maternity Care: The Key Facts.” Accessed March 20, 2026.
6 The Latin Library. “Justinian Digest: Book Twenty-Five.” Accessed March 20, 2026.
7 Christopher A. Hall, Living Wisely with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 180.
8 Hall, Living Wisely, 180.
9 Walker, Andrew T, Faithful Reason: Natural Law Ethics for God’s Glory and Our Good (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 258.
10 National Right to Life. “Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends.” Accessed March 20, 2026
11 World Health Organization. “Abortion.” Accessed March 20, 2026.
12 Walker, Faithful Reason, 258.
13 Walker, Faithful Reason, 263.
14 Walker, Faithful Reason, 260.
15 Sibbes, Richard, The Bruised Reed (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2024), 26.
Share with others
