The Biblical Case in Full
The scriptural argument that the child conceived is a human being whom God defends — worked through text by text.
DRAFT — awaiting editorial review.
God is the author and giver of life
The Bible begins its account of every human being not with achievements or capacities but with God: He “formed my inward parts” and “knitted me together in my mother’s womb”; His eyes “saw my unformed substance” (Psalm 139:13, 16). Before the child is anything to us, he is already known, formed and counted by God.
This is why the taking of innocent life is never merely a wrong against a man. It is an offence against the God whose image the man bears: the shedding of innocent blood is among the things the LORD hates (Proverbs 6:16–17), it cries out to Him from the ground (Genesis 4:10), it pollutes the land (Numbers 35:33). And children in particular are His gift, not nature’s product: He opens and closes the womb (Genesis 29:31; 1 Samuel 1:5), and “children are a heritage from the LORD” (Psalm 127:3).
A someone, never a something
What, or who, is present in the womb? Scripture answers with pronouns, names and moral standing. David traces his very self, and his guilt, to conception: “in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5) — and guilt belongs to persons, not tissue. Job reaches back to “the night that said, ‘A man is conceived’” (Job 3:3). God knew Jeremiah before He formed him (Jeremiah 1:5). Paul’s doctrine in Romans 9:11 turns on two individuals, with an election between them, before either was born.
Luke — a physician who investigated everything carefully — records that John was “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb,” and that “the baby leaped in her womb for joy” (Luke 1:15, 41, 44). His word for that baby, brephos, is the word he uses for the newborn Jesus in the manger and for the children brought to Jesus for blessing. To the objection that this is poetry, the treatise answers: the narrative, the doctrine and the law are not poetry, and the poetry is not asked to carry the case alone.
Humanity, not personhood
The modern debate asks when “personhood” begins, and offers a shifting list of qualifications — rationality, self-awareness, viability, being wanted. Every one excludes somebody, and that is the function of the word: philosophical and legal, defined by whoever holds the power to define it. History’s great crimes repeatedly conceded the victims’ humanity and then withdrew their standing — citizenship denied, equality before the law refused, human beings reduced to property.
Scripture refuses the whole device. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6). The Hebrew is ha’adam — the human being, with no further test. The right question — is the child conceived a living human being? — has an answer, and even the biologists give it: in a survey of more than five thousand, the great majority affirmed life begins at fertilisation, from a sample overwhelmingly pro-choice and non-religious. Personhood flows from humanity; it does not sit in judgment over it.
The image of God is a nature we are
Wherever Scripture speaks of the image of God in man, it ties the image to our nature and to nothing else — never to intelligence, consciousness, development or any capacity. The qualification is simply man. Capacities may flow from the image; they do not ground it. And what was never grounded in a characteristic can never be lost with one: the child with Down’s syndrome, the man broken in mind, the child newly conceived — each bears the image whole.
The image passes in the act of begetting: as God made Adam in His likeness, so “Adam fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:1, 3) — inherited, not achieved. Nor did the fall strip it away: after sin corrupted every faculty, God still grounded the guard on human blood in that same image (Genesis 9:6), and James forbids cursing men because they are made in God’s likeness (James 3:9).
Where Scripture draws the line
Let those who would begin our humanity at some later mark — implantation, heartbeat, viability, first breath — show that line from Scripture. It is not there. Two texts are raised against this more than any others, and both repay a straight look at the Hebrew.
In Exodus 21:22–25 the verb is yatsa, “to come out” — the ordinary word for live birth; Hebrew’s words for miscarriage (shakol, nephel) are not used. The law describes a premature delivery: if both survive, a fine; “if there is harm” — with no limit to the mother — life for life. In Numbers 5 there is no word for child, foetus, pregnancy or miscarriage anywhere in the passage; the blessing set against the curse is the power to conceive (Numbers 5:28), so the curse is barrenness, not abortion. And the medieval “delayed ensoulment” speculation entered from Greek philosophy, not Hebrew Scripture — while it ran, the church’s verdict never moved (Basil: “no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed”).
God defends the weak — and came by way of conception
“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor… for the LORD will plead their cause” (Proverbs 22:22–23). The weakness that tempts us to take is the very thing that rouses God to defend — and no one is poorer than the child in the womb. So we are commanded to intervene: “Rescue those who are being taken away to death” (Proverbs 24:11); “Open your mouth for the mute” (Proverbs 31:8–9).
The last word is not an argument but a Person. At conception the eternal Son was already a living human embryo, and Scripture calls that embryo the Lord: days after the conception, Elizabeth greeted Mary as “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). Since Christ “had to be made like his brothers in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17) and was one of us from conception, so are we from ours. To deny the humanity of the unborn is, in the end, an error about the Incarnation — and abortion is the gospel turned backward: the strong taking the life of the weak, where Christ the strong laid down His life for the weak.
Questions to sit with
- The treatise claims no line later than conception can be found in Scripture. Test that: which passage would you examine first, and what would change your mind?
- The argument builds on humanity rather than personhood. Where have you seen the personhood framing used, and what does this chapter change about how you would answer it?
Go deeper
Further material on this subject from allied abolitionist ministries (these links open external sites):
- Abolitionists Rising — courses on the biblical case for abolition (Abolitionists Rising)
- Abolish Human Abortion — the case for immediatism from Scripture (Abolish Human Abortion)
Check yourself
9 questions on what you have just read. Answering is what makes it stick.
1How does Scripture treat the shedding of innocent blood?
- As a private wrong between individuals
- As an offence against God whose image the victim bears — it cries out to Him and pollutes the land — correct
- As a matter for civil law only
- As regrettable but not addressed directly
Innocent blood is named among the things the LORD hates (Proverbs 6:16–17), cries out to Him from the ground (Genesis 4:10), and pollutes the land (Numbers 35:33). These are the terms Scripture reserves for the killing of persons made by God.
2Luke uses the word brephos ("baby") for whom?
- Only the newborn Jesus
- Only children old enough to walk
- The unborn John, the newborn Jesus, and the little children brought to Jesus for blessing — correct
- Only the unborn John
Luke 1:41–44, Luke 2:12 and Luke 18:15 use the same word across the birth line. The physician among the evangelists draws no line at birth; his own vocabulary refuses one.
3How does the treatise answer the objection that this case rests on poetry?
- It concedes the case is poetic but asks readers to trust it
- It notes that the case also stands on narrative (Luke), doctrine (Romans 9:11) and law (Genesis 9:6) — the poetry confirms what these establish — correct
- It argues poetry is more authoritative than law
- It withdraws the Psalms from the argument
Where the Psalms and Job are cited the form is granted to be poetic — but Luke's record is investigated narrative, Paul's argument from the unborn twins is close doctrinal reasoning, and Genesis 9:6 is law. The poetry is not asked to carry the case alone.
4What is the common move beneath the historic crimes the treatise names (the slave trade, the Nuremberg Laws, Dred Scott)?
- Denying that the victims were human
- Conceding the victims' humanity, then making protection depend on some further qualification held in the hands of the powerful — correct
- Claiming divine authority for the crime
- Ignorance of what was being done
The perpetrators rarely denied their victims were human: they withdrew standing — citizenship, legal equality, the status of a person. Concede the humanity, then demand a further invisible qualification. It is the abortion argument's own logic in older clothes.
5To what does Scripture tie the image of God in man?
- The capacity to reason
- A stage of development
- Our nature — simply man, with no qualification — correct
- Being wanted by others
The qualification is never "man who can reason" or "man who can feel," but simply man (Genesis 1:27; 9:6; James 3:9). What was never grounded in a capacity can never be lost with one — the image is a nature we are, not a trait we possess.
6In Exodus 21:22, what does the Hebrew verb yatsa describe?
- A miscarriage
- A live birth — Hebrew has separate words for miscarriage (shakol, nephel) and Moses did not use them here — correct
- An injury to the mother only
- A payment of compensation
The text describes a premature delivery, then asks whether harm followed — without limiting the harm to the mother. If either mother or child dies: life for life. It is the one place in the law where the unborn are named explicitly, and the penalty for the child's death is capital.
7What is decisive about Numbers 5 (the water of bitterness) for this debate?
- It commands an abortion in cases of unfaithfulness
- The passage contains no word for child, foetus, pregnancy or miscarriage — every one must be supplied by the translator — correct
- It proves the unborn were valued less
- It describes a medical procedure
The curse in the Hebrew is bodily (the belly swells, the thigh falls away) and the blessing set against it is the ability to conceive (Numbers 5:28) — so the curse is barrenness, not the loss of a child. The abortifacient reading rests on translators' supplements.
8Why, according to Proverbs 22:22–23, must the poor not be robbed?
- Because the law of the land forbids it
- Because the poor may one day be strong
- Precisely because he is poor — the LORD Himself will plead their cause — correct
- Because robbery is bad for society
The very weakness that tempts us to take is what rouses God to defend. And who is poorer than the child in the womb, who cannot lift a hand or summon an advocate? "Precious is their blood in his sight" (Psalm 72:14).
9Days after the conception of Christ, what did Elizabeth call the child in Mary's womb?
- A blessing to come
- "My Lord" (Luke 1:43) — correct
- The promised prophet
- She said nothing about the child
Filled with the Spirit, Elizabeth cried "why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" — while the Lord was at the earliest embryonic stage. Since Christ was one of us from His conception (Hebrews 2:17), so are we from ours.