Christians have no Choice on Pro-Choice

This below article was originally written for the High Point Enterprise and was slated to be printed on Saturday, 9/27/25. For some reason, however, it did not print. Nonetheless, here it is. As will be obvious, I am tired of those who name the name of Christ and still defend the right to abortion, also dubbed, “pro-choice,” as if Scripture has nothing to say about the issue. This short column gives a very brief biblical case for intrinsic human worth at conception onward.

While I usually write with the anticipation that many of my readers may be unbelievers, this one actually appeals to those who claim the name of Christ but somehow find it possible to be “pro-choice” on the abortion issue. As Christians, the Bible should be our final authority and if not, then that is an issue for another day.

First and foremost the Bible tells us forthrightly that after God spoke the rest of creation into existence he set out to make man in his image (Genesis 1:27). From the dust of the ground, says the text, he formed him, breathed into him the breath of life, and set him in the Garden as the divine image bearing crown of His creation, hence, our intrinsic worth.

The second reason for the unborn’s intrinsic value emerges in the divine directive at creation that every creature would bring forth after its own kind. Simply put, and consistent with the observable world, dogs beget dogs, cats have cats, and well, human beings produce human beings. It is called “essentialism” and while often denied by abortion advocates, no believer in Christ and His Word can deny it and claim to believe the Bible.

Often overlooked, the third testimony to the unborn’s intrinsic value comes from the events and timeline of the Christmas story (Luke 1). We are first told that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit (v. 36) and then a seemingly insignificant announcement tells us that she probably did so during her angelic encounter. “Thy cousin Elisabeth...hath also conceived” said the angel, which strongly indicates that if Elisabeth had “also conceived” then Mary was actually pregnant at that time (v. 38) and from there we move to the critical timeline.

(1) Elisabeth was 6-months pregnant when Mary met the angel (v. 26).

(2) Mary, “with haste,” traveled to meet Elizabeth (v. 39).

(3) Distance traveled was 80-100 miles from Nazareth to Judah.

(4) Approximate travel time 3-5 days.

(5) Elisabeth was still in her 6^th month when Mary arrived.

(6) Mary stayed “about” 3-months and left before John was delivered (v. 56).

This timeline tells us that Mary came to Elizabeth within 3-6 days after conceiving and if so, the fertilized egg hadn’t even had time to connect to her uterine wall yet, a process that “usually takes about six to 12 days…” from conception (“Parents,” https://www.parents.com/first-72-hours-of-pregnancy-can-you-feel-symptoms-8417719). It is significant, then, that both Elisabeth and her unborn baby, John, rejoiced in Mary’s presence when the incarnate God was but a fertilized egg awaiting connection to Mary’s uterus. It was at this point, and don’t miss this, that Elisabeth referred to Mary as “the mother” of her “Lord” rather than the “mother to be.”

The biblical position, then, is that from conception onward the unborn's nature and worth are scripturally affirmed. Human beings are of inestimable value by our initial creation as divine image bearers and then its perpetuation by our parents. In other words, our whole person, our bodies, souls, and spirits begin at conception and if Mary had terminated her pregnancy at any stage after that, even with something like the “morning after” pill, she would have disposed of something much more than a mere clump of cells. She would have discarded the Savior himself.

Essentially, the Bible forthrightly affirms the intrinsic worth of every human being beginning at conception and to deny it is to deny Scripture. There is no middle ground. You might even give heavier weight to some value undermining ideology but you cannot call yourself biblical and do so.

Tony