Abortion & The Politics Of It. Part 1.

March 5, 2026.

This is a subject that continues to divide people, even those who profess to follow Jesus Christ. I find that surprising. How about you? How is it that Christians can be divided over this issue, which seems so clear? This short article will examine the issue more closely, along with the politics surrounding it, given its continued relevance.

My scriptural assessment is this. The Word of God clearly says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in them, yet many professing Christians support the killing of babies. They may support it financially through personal donations and politically by voting for candidates who promise to keep it legal. And some even support it by having their own abortion. Is any of this consistent with being a genuine Christian? Many think it is, but I do not agree.

The passage we will need to consider is the First Epistle of John 3:15: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (KJV)

That statement is part of a larger argument in chapter 3 about love as evidence of the new birth (3:10-18). John moves from Cain (3:12) to hatred, from there to murder, with the result being a lack of eternal life abiding. Let’s work through this carefully, especially given our concern about modern political support for abortion by professing Christians.

In other articles, I have mentioned a biblical and legal principle we all recognize as true, at least to a degree. That principle is, “What you do through others, you do yourself.” We all recognize that Hitler did not personally kill millions of Jews. He used proxies to do it for him. King David did not personally kill Bathsheba’s husband. In both cases, they were responsible for these evil acts, even though they did not commit them personally. And they are rightfully credited with these murders, making them murderers.

What about the legal practice of baby killing? It is not just the Medical Doctors who are responsible. It includes the Supreme Court, lawmakers, and many others, not just the mother and father. But does the culpability extend even further than that? Does it extend to those who help keep it legal?

What does John mean by “murderer”?

John is not redefining civil homicide law; he is interpreting murder theologically. He follows Jesus’ logic in Matthew 5:21-22, where anger and contempt are treated as heart-level violations of the commandment against murder. In 1 John, hatred is the inner moral equivalent of murder because it wills the other’s harm or exclusion. Could the killing of babies be looked at any other way than hatred?

So, for John:

• Hatred equals a heart posture opposed to love
• Love is evidence of abiding life in God
• Hatred, especially if it is persistent, is evidence that eternal life is not abiding

Notice the keyword in 1 John: “abiding.” John consistently speaks in present, relational terms:

• life “abiding,”
• love “abiding,”
• God “abiding” (cf. 3:14, 3:15, 3:17, 4:12-16).

According to ChatGPT, John is describing an ongoing state, not a single act.

Notice that ChatGPT doesn’t say that a single act, not repented of, assures us of abiding in God. But only that if it is repented of, it doesn’t result in the loss of eternal life. I agree. But it is conditioned on repentance.

Is John saying a believer can never commit murder?

According to ChatGPT, if taken literally, the verse would mean:

• Anyone who ever commits murder proves they never had eternal life.
• Anyone who ever hates proves the same.

But ChatGPT doesn’t mention another option that captures the essence of this passage. And this is the option:

• Or does it mean that anyone who is currently an unrepentant murderer and hater does not have eternal life abiding in them?

The last bullet point is the focus of the verse, contrary to ChatGPT’s explanation. Why does ChatGPT do this? ChatGPT adds that, if it were understood literally (the first two bullet points), that would immediately conflict with:

• The possibility of repentance (1 John 1:9).
• The distinction between “sin” and a settled pattern of sin (3:6-10)

But no one is denying the possibility of repentance or the distinction between one sin, quickly repented of, and a settled pattern of sin not repented of. You would think ChatGPT could be much clearer.

According to ChatGPT, John’s concern throughout the epistle is habitual, unrepentant patterns that define identity — not isolated falls. But if those isolated falls become grave sin and go unrepented, then John is also referring to them, and the warning applies.  In other words, the person characterized by unrepentant hatred and murder demonstrates that eternal life is not presently governing him or that he is abiding in eternal life.

But let us also make it clear that one murder makes a person a murderer. And if that sin of murder is not repented of, then there is no eternal life abiding in the person from the moment of the act of murder. ChatGPT makes this unnecessarily confusing. Why is that?

Applying this to abortion and political support

Now to the question. If:

• Abortion is the unjust killing of the unborn (which historic Christian moral reasoning has overwhelmingly affirmed),
• And if one knowingly and willfully supports that killing,

Then we must ask: Is that support flowing from:

1. Ignorance?
2. Moral confusion?
3. Compromise?
4. Or a heart-level indifference or hostility toward vulnerable life?

I can understand, to a degree, that some may be ignorant or confused. However remote that possibility is, it may be true in a few instances. Given what is common knowledge today about life, it seems very unlikely. It is more likely that many are deliberately ignorant, and there is no excuse for that.

John’s category is not merely “voting incorrectly.” His category is hatred — a settled disposition opposed to love. The theological issue becomes:

• Does supporting abortion policy necessarily equal hatred and complicity in murder?
• Or can someone be tragically inconsistent, affirming Christ verbally while morally blind in this area?

Scripture gives examples of morally inconsistent believers (Peter in Galatians 2; the Corinthian believers’ tolerance of serious sin). John does not treat every moral failure as proof of reprobation; he treats loveless identity as proof. Even so, I find it hard to believe that most of this is not willful ignorance covering moral inconsistency, which is a loveless identity.

The deeper Johannine principle

John’s logic is:

• Love of brethren is evidence of life (3:14)
• Indifference to a brother in need is love of God not abiding (3:17)
• Hatred is murder and no eternal life abiding (3:15)

The text does not explicitly discuss the unborn, but the principle of love for the vulnerable is consistent with the broader biblical witness (Psalm 139, Luke 1, and Exodus 21).

Here is the sober application. If someone:

• Knows the unborn are human life. (And today, who doesn’t?)
• Knows abortion is the unjust killing of innocent life,
• And yet supports it, which means they are without repentance or moral struggle, according to ChatGPT.

Why would ChatGPT add the statement that one is ‘without moral struggle’? What does moral struggle have to do with it? It seems ChatGPT wants us to believe that if a Christian has a ‘moral struggle’ but still kills their unborn child, that can be justified. Don’t believe it. Only a moral struggle that ends in complete repentance matters and is forgivable. But moral struggle without repentance is delusion and death.

According to ChatGPT, that posture would be extremely difficult to reconcile with John’s test of abiding love. I think it is more accurate to say it is impossible to reconcile that with love or the truth of Scripture.

ChatGPT continues, but if someone:

• Is morally confused (not likely, but I guess it is possible)
• Misled by cultural narratives (possible but doubtful)
• Or inconsistent while genuinely seeking Christ (That is a big stretch, which I can’t accept. No one genuinely seeking the truth and Christ will abort their child or support anyone who promotes abortion.)

Then 1 John would call them to repentance and clarity, rather than automatically declaring them devoid of eternal life, per ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT is right that John and God call them to repentance, because the need for repentance extends only to those who are not abiding in love, truth, and God.

However, I disagree with ChatGPT’s claim that it would be inconsistent for John to declare that such a person is devoid of eternal life until they actually repent. Everyone who remains an unrepentant hater and murderer does not abide in eternal life. Could the Word of God be any clearer about that?

A caution about weaponizing the text

John writes to assure believers, not to arm factions. 1 John is pastoral, not partisan. Its function is:

• To call believers out of darkness,
• To test claims of spiritual superiority (or spiritual life),
• To ground assurance in love.

According to ChatGPT, it is dangerous to use this verse as a litmus test for political alignment. I do not agree. I believe it is dangerous not to use it as a litmus test for political alignment. What is the message if this is not done? Wouldn’t the message be that there is nothing inconsistent with professing faith in Christ and directly or indirectly supporting the murder of innocent babies in the womb? That itself, I believe, is sinful.

ChatGPT says that the real test is: Does this person who supports abortion on demand demonstrate Christlike love in actual, sacrificial ways? Are we to believe that supporting abortion (directly or indirectly) demonstrates Christlike love in actual and sacrificial ways? I wonder how ChatGPT or anyone else could possibly believe that a Christ-like love would ever, in a million years, allow a follower of Christ to support baby killing in any way? I do not believe it. It is just the opposite. A person with Christ-like love would never endorse abortion but would speak out boldly against it.

Christ-like love would also compel them to support mothers faced with that horrible decision.

According to ChatGPT, John defines love not by slogans but by this (3:15): “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”

That is a great passage, but it has nothing to do with supporting the murder of babies.

Where this leaves us

According to ChatGPT, if we take John seriously:

• Christians should (or is the correct word, “must”?) oppose the unjust killing of the innocent.
• Christians must examine whether their political participation flows from love or tribal allegiance. (I agree.)
• Christians must guard against hatred even toward those who support abortion. (I agree.)

Per ChatGPT, the hardest edge of 1 John 3:15 may not fall first on “them,” but on us: Do we love sacrificially, even toward those we believe are gravely wrong? I agree; that’s a good point.

Let us consider the following:

• Look at how the early church handled complicity in state violence.
• Examine how Augustine and Chrysostom would likely have read 1 John 3.
• Or explore the distinction between moral culpability and spiritual regeneration more carefully.

According to ChatGPT, that’s a weighty set of questions that deserves careful treatment. We will consider them in order and try to stay historically grounded and theologically precise.

How the Early Church Viewed Complicity in State Violence

The earliest Christians lived under the Roman Empire, a state that practiced:

• Infanticide (especially exposure of unwanted infants)
• Abortion (known and discussed medically)
• Capital punishment
• Military conquest

A. Abortion and Infanticide

The Didache (1st–2nd century) states plainly: “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill what is begotten.” Similarly, the Epistle of Barnabas condemns abortion and infanticide in the same breath as murder.

For early Christians, according to ChatGPT:

• Abortion was not a political issue. (But why? Because they did not live in a democratic nation. They had no voting rights unlike us.)
• It marked a moral boundary in pagan culture.
• Refusal to participate was part of Christian identity and duty.

B. Complicity

The early church was especially sensitive to participation in bloodshed.

• Some refused military service (though this developed over time).
• Participation in gladiatorial games was condemned.
• Catechumens were sometimes required to leave professions involving killing.

They saw moral complicity not merely in personal action, but in active participation. However — and this is important — they did not treat living under an unjust empire as identical to endorsing everything the empire did. They distinguished:

• Living under authority (Romans 13)
• Personally, participating in injustice

The early church’s instinct was: Direct participation in killing is incompatible with baptismal identity and new life in Christ. Is that not ‘what you do through others, you do yourself’, thinking? Sounds like it.

But they did not yet have to address democratic voting — that’s a modern dilemma.

How Augustine Would Likely Frame It

Augustine of Hippo brings a more developed moral psychology. Augustine distinguishes between:

• Ordered love (ordo amoris)
• Disordered love
• Intentionality of the will
• Culpable ignorance vs. invincible ignorance

He would likely ask:

1. What does a person’s will love?
2. Is the support of abortion flowing from contempt for life? (But I ask, what else could it be?)
3. Or from disordered but sincere political reasoning? (What does sincerity have to do with it, I humbly ask? A sincere political reasoning has justified all manner of wickedness over the centuries.)

For Augustine:

• Hatred is a corruption of love.
• Murder is not just the external act, but the will turned against our neighbor.

But he also strongly emphasized the possibility of:

• Self-deception
• Cultural blindness
• Gradual moral illumination

He would not equate every moral error with the absence of regeneration. So what? Is killing the innocent a simple moral error? According to ChatGPT, Augustine would examine whether the person’s fundamental love is turned toward God.

This is an awful comment by ChatGPT. It suggests that a genuine Christian’s fundamental love can be immoral, but that doesn’t mean that this Christian is not truly born again from above. That is nothing but antinomianism. Let us also remember that in his later years, Augustine taught that Christians (those who are regenerate) sin daily. He is a blind guide, then and now. My recommendation is not to follow Augustine blindly.

Augustine might say:

According to ChatGPT, if one knowingly wills the destruction of innocent life, that reflects gravely disordered love. But if one is confused or morally clouded, the remedy is correction and repentance — not immediate judgment of reprobation.

No one is demanding or suggesting immediate judgment of reprobation, only repentance, which John would clearly command. ChatGPT goes out of its way to beg the question and make room for moral compromise, which I find disturbing.

Chrysostom’s Likely Reading of 1 John 3

John Chrysostom emphasized visible moral fruit.

For him:

• Hatred is active ill-will.
• Christian identity is demonstrated through mercy and almsgiving.
• Indifference to suffering exposes spiritual deadness.

He was uncompromising in his opposition to callousness toward the vulnerable. If he saw believers casually indifferent to the killing of the defenseless, he would likely thunder against that hardness of heart. But Chrysostom also preached constantly about repentance.

His sermons often:

• Exposed sin sharply,
• Then called listeners back to mercy.

He treated the Christian life as dynamic — not static, writes ChatGPT. So what? And I agree with this great Saint, who, in my estimation, would not lay it out as ChatGPT has. I envision him as rebuking ChatGPT.

Moral Culpability vs. Spiritual Regeneration

This is the theological crux. John says: “No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”

We must distinguish:

A. Regeneration (new birth)

A decisive act of God, according to ChatGPT. ChatGPT seems to suggest that this decisive act of God is not fully transformative. But Scripture says otherwise. It says, If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away, and all things have become new.

B. Abiding

Ongoing relational participation in that life. John often uses present-tense verbs to describe patterns:

• “He that hateth…” (ongoing posture)
• “He that loveth…” (ongoing posture)

According to ChatGPT, we ask: Is the person’s settled orientation one of love or one of hostility? And I ask, how can any Christian, aware that abortion is the killing of another human being born in the image and likeness of God, in any way support that which includes supporting a political party whose identity is formed by keeping abortion legal? I simply do not believe that person can be a genuine Christian and a supporter of baby killing at the same time. Real repentance will immediately bring eternal life.

According to ChatGPT, a regenerate person can:

• Sin gravely.
• Be morally inconsistent.
• Be culturally blind.

This is true, but ChatGPT neglects to say that a regenerate person will quickly repent of all of this, and without that repentance, no new life abides and no reconciliation with God occurs.

ChatGPT continues, ‘But what they cannot do indefinitely is:

• Justify lovelessness as good.
• Celebrate cruelty.
• Harden themselves without conviction.
• I add, they can’t sin repeatedly

ChatGPT says Christians can’t do these things indefinitely. But what does that mean? And does this statement by ChatGPT not leave the door wide open to habitual or regular ongoing sin of all kinds? It most assuredly does, and that is the problem with ChatGPT’s comments.

All grave sin is immediately life- and soul-threatening. Repentance is the only recourse. Delayed repentance is itself a grave sin. While the unrepentant remain so, they are lost and dead; repentance brings immediate cleansing and life.

According to ChatGPT, if they can do that, John would say eternal life is not abiding — whatever they claim. ChatGPT’s position is very weak and misleading. I do not recommend it.

Democratic Complicity Is a Modern Problem

The early church did not vote. According to ChatGPT, modern Christians must wrestle with:

• Indirect complicity through taxation (and anyone by voting for any Democrat because the party supports the murder of babies up to the moment of birth unashamedly. Voting for a pro-choice Republican is just as offensive and sinful.)
• Legislative support
• Party alignment
• Lesser-of-two-evils reasoning

According to ChatGPT, this requires a more nuanced moral analysis:

• Is the vote directly intended to advance killing?

But this is the platform of the Democratic Party, and whether the voter directly intended to advance the killing of babies is what will happen if they get enough votes. No hiding from moral culpability is possible.

• Or is it entangled in broader policy considerations?
• Is there active moral endorsement?
• Or tragic compromise?

ChatGPT declares that not all complicity is equal. Even if true, it is all sinful, isn’t it? Of course it is.

A Sobering Internal Question

If we apply 1 John consistently, the question is not only: “Are they murderers?” But also:

• Do we harbor hatred toward those who disagree? (Agreed. We are called to love our enemies.)
• Do we wish harm on political opponents? (Agreed, and Christians should work and pray for their repentance and salvation. And it means they must lovingly tell them the truth and settle for nothing less than full repentance.)
• Do we dehumanize? (Of course, we should not dehumanize them as they do the babies they murder.)

John’s standard cuts both ways. (Agreed, and a good point that is overlooked at times.)

Where This Leaves Us (Pastorally and Theologically)

ChatGPT told me the following. Given your theological bent — emphasizing reconciliation and interior transformation — here’s a balanced synthesis:

• The early church would strongly oppose abortion.
• Augustine would analyze the orientation of love and intent.
• Chrysostom would rebuke hardness but call for repentance.
• John’s epistle targets persistent, defining hatred — not every moral error.

Again, I must disagree with ChatGPT. John’s epistle targets every sin. A habit begins with just one willful sin, and if not checked and repented of, begets more sins unto final damnation. Repenting of one sin quickly stops this process, and fellowship with God resumes immediately.

According to ChatGPT, the decisive issue is not: “Did this person vote wrongly?” But:

“What does this person love? And what kind of life abides in them?”

Each of these questions may come from the same source and be directly related. A heart devoted to self-gratification will produce a sinful vote because it comes from excessive self-love, all of which is sinful and polluted.

Next, let us consider the following.

• Whether democratic voting constitutes formal cooperation with evil in classical moral theology.
• How Romans 13 interacts with 1 John 3.
• Or whether assurance of salvation should ever be publicly questioned over political moral issues.

These are not small questions. They cut into political theology, moral theology, and assurance of salvation — and they require careful distinctions if we’re going to be faithful both to Scripture and to historic Christian thought.

We will consider them one at a time.

Does Democratic Voting Constitute “Formal Cooperation with Evil”?

Classical moral theology — especially as developed by Thomas Aquinas and later Catholic moralists — distinguishes between:

A. Formal Cooperation

You share the intention of the evil act. You will it.

B. Material Cooperation

You do not share the intention, but your action contributes indirectly.

Material cooperation is then subdivided into:

• Immediate vs. mediate
• Proximate vs. remote

What you and I do through others, we do ourselves. This applies to business, education, politics, war, theology, and everything else. Applying that to Voting In a democratic system:

• A voter does not directly perform an abortion. (Hitler did not personally kill 6 million Jews; does that make him less culpable? Of course not. King David did not personally kill Huriah. But he was responsible for his death.)
• A voter contributes to electing a lawmaker.
• That lawmaker may and does support abortion legislation.

The moral question becomes: What is the voter intending? If someone votes because they desire abortion to continue, that would be close to formal cooperation, per ChatGPT. I must say that it is not close to it; it is formal cooperation.

If someone votes despite abortion policy — prioritizing other issues — that is remote material cooperation, morally complicated but not identical to willing the act itself, per ChatGPT. But I see it as only one degree of separation from formal cooperation. It is still immoral and sinful, not just morally complicated, as ChatGPT would have us believe.

Even in classical moral theology, remote material cooperation may be tolerated under conditions of:

• Proportionate reasons (like what?)
• Lack of viable alternatives (like adoption?)
• Avoidance of scandal (but it seems that there is no scandal at all when babies are murdered in the womb. Some deranged people even celebrate that barbaric evil.)

This does not make it morally neutral. But it does make it morally distinct from personally committing murder, per ChatGPT.

Why doesn’t ChatGPT come right out and say that there is very little difference between personally committing evil (which is clearly immoral) and remote material cooperation (which is distinct from personally committing murder)? Again, in my opinion, there is only a degree or two of separation between the two situations.

To vote for a candidate and a party that supports the legal murder of babies is evil. Tell me what other issue God prioritizes over protecting the innocent.

How Does Romans 13 Interact with 1 John 3?

The tension here is important. In Romans 13, Paul says that governing authorities are “ministers of God” who bear the sword. In 1 John 3, John says hatred equals murder, and no murderer has eternal life abiding. So how do these fit?

A. Romans 13

• Addresses civil authority.
• Recognizes legitimate use of force by the state.
• Frames justice as part of God’s providential order.

B. 1 John 3

• Addresses personal moral disposition.
• Concerns hatred and lovelessness. And sinful behaviors.
• Focuses on relational and spiritual life.

The New Testament distinguishes:

• Personal vengeance (forbidden)
• Legitimate authority exercising justice (permitted)

Augustine and, later, Thomas Aquinas developed the Just War theory precisely to reconcile these texts. (See my articles on Just War Theory). The critical difference is: Is the act flowing from hatred? Or from ordered justice? But how are these two defined?

Now, abortion complicates this because many Christians rightly argue it is the unjust killing of the innocent, meaning it cannot fall under Romans 13’s “just sword” category. If the state protects injustice, then the believer’s allegiance is tested.

But again — John’s test is heart posture:

• Will you, the voter, harm others? (Yes, if you support abortion and a party that demands that killing babies continues, and that taxes fund some of it. The voter most certainly will cause harm to the baby and the mother, directly and indirectly, leading to the continued moral decline of this nation and its people.)
• Or are you navigating a broken system imperfectly? (That seems to be nothing but a religious excuse for the murder of an innocent baby, which is not a hard issue to understand its importance and high priority.)

Should Assurance of Salvation Be Publicly Questioned Over Political Issues?

This is where things become pastorally explosive. Historically, the church has excommunicated over:

• Idolatry
• Sexual immorality
• Murder (Is this not what abortion is?)
• Heresy

It has not historically been excommunicated over:

• Voting decisions (but if these decisions murder babies, that is much different)
• Political alliances
• Policy prioritization

Why? Because regeneration is evidenced by:

• Faith in Christ
• Love of brethren
• Repentance from sin
• Growth in holiness

Abortion or the murder of the innocent is the opposite of faith in Christ, love of the brethren, repentance from sin, and growth in holiness. ChatGPT seems to be saying that Christians should not separate over the politics of abortion on demand, which is immoral in itself. If we should not separate over the murder of the innocent, then what in heaven’s name should we ever separate over?

Political prudence judgments have never been treated as sacraments of orthodoxy, according to ChatGPT. That is simply not true, according to ChatGPT. See ChatGPT’s list of things that the church has historically excommunicated Christians for, such as those who murder (that includes abortion), or are idolaters, sexually immoral, and heretics. And calling the murder of the innocent “political prudence judgments” is sophistry at its best.

However, if someone openly celebrates the killing of the innocent and calls it good, that becomes a deeper moral category than mere policy disagreement, per ChatGPT. To suggest that abortion is a mere policy disagreement is disgustingly wicked. Shame on ChatGPT.

There is something that ChatGPT is missing, and that is this: those Christians who are in danger of hellfire because of their support of baby killing may not yield to the warning passages if they receive indecisive recommendations like those of ChatGPT. Their souls are at risk; that is why this must be made clear. ChatGPT is making things worse, not better.

I am not talking about church excommunication. I mean the salvation of a soul for whom Christ died.

The danger on both sides, according to ChatGPT:

• To ignore grave injustice and baptize it.
• To weaponize assurance and declare anyone politically wrong (on the matter of life and death) “unregenerate.”

And my response to ChatGPT is this. If the shoe fits, wear it. What do they care about what I or anyone else thinks? But they must know what God thinks. Their salvation depends on it.

John’s epistle gives tests of life, but they are:

• Spiritual
• Relational
• Moral
• Christological

According to ChatGPT, they are not partisan checklists. No one is talking about partisan checklists, but about matters of life and death and other moral issues that God has already condemned. Many politicians refuse to respect what many Christians hold sacred, such as marriage and the sanctity of life. It’s about political support for abortion (baby killing), gender confusion, homosexuality, and promiscuity. How is it possible for someone calling themselves a Christian to support any political party or candidate that supports immorality that the Bible condemns? This is the line of separation, isn’t it?

The Deep Theological Tension

According to ChatGPT, here’s the uncomfortable synthesis:

1. The early church would clearly oppose abortion as killing.
2. Formally willing the unjust killing of innocent babies or anyone else is incompatible with love and eternal life abiding in them.
3. Remote political entanglement is morally complex. (I do not believe it. Not on the issue of life, for sure.)
4. Assurance of salvation should not be casually revoked over prudential judgments unless they are very clear violations of the laws of God. (Is ChatGPT suggesting that the killing of innocent babies is not as important as the assurance of salvation? Is killing innocent babies insufficient for questioning the salvation of a professing Christian? In this issue, ChatGPT is a blind and compromised voice.)
5. Persistent, unrepentant hardness toward innocent life is spiritually alarming and dangerous. (It is more than that. It is clear and convincing evidence that no eternal life abides in them, despite their claims to the contrary.)

The dividing line is not party alignment. It is the orientation of love. And the rejection of sin, especially the murder of the innocent.

Let us now consider those who claim to be Christian but are Pro-Choice

ChatGPT writes, ‘Among Christians who identify as pro-choice, the priority is usually not that abortion is a positive good. Rather, they generally argue that other moral principles should take precedence in public policy. Different pro-choice Christians emphasize different concerns.

Again, I disagree with ChatGPT. Pro-choice Christians do, in fact, argue that abortion is a positive good, but mostly for the woman, sometimes for the child. That is how sick all this is.

Some of the most common pro-choice arguments are:

Concern for Women’s Autonomy and Freedom

Many pro-choice Christians argue that God gave human beings free will, and therefore, women should have the freedom to make difficult moral decisions about pregnancy without government coercion. This position fails in many ways.

While it is true that God gave us free will, we are also held responsible for how we use that freedom. If we steal or physically harm another, there are consequences. Those can be spiritual and may also be legal if we are caught. No man or woman has the absolute freedom to steal or harm another person “without government coercion”. That is a ridiculous argument. Abortion is the taking of another human life. The woman is murdering someone else, not herself.

Lindsay Clancy and Dimone Flemming examples

(I initially wrote this article back in March of 2026 but had not published it yet.) But these two recent examples- Clancy in August 2026 and her after-hung-jury case, then Flemming killed. These recent examples of murdering their children underscore why moral compromise is leaven, and a little leaven leavens the entire lump. Where does it all end?

One well-known scholar (Dr. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher who has been a professor at Princeton since 1999) stated that women should be able to kill their children, under certain conditions, for the first 28 days after birth. Is there an end to this madness?

And yet in our morally depraved society, we give women the right to murder their own children. And where does it all stop? And consider the controversy over the hung jury in the case of Lindsay Clancy and the considerable support she has gotten from others excusing what she did. That support is a vulgar attempt to justify her actions by calling it a mental disorder for which she is not responsible for murdering her children. Calling any sin a sickness is one of the best excuses ever devised to justify sin. That is my point. And look at how eager some people are to do just that.

Pro-choice Christians often distinguish between:

• Believing abortion is morally troubling.
• Believing the state should not prohibit it.

In their view, Christians may personally oppose abortion while supporting legal access to it. But this sets aside the maxim that “What you do through others, you do yourself.” That maxim is true biblically, morally, and legally. Supporting legal access to abortion is a deliberate and active participation in it.

Social Justice Concerns

Many progressive Christians place abortion within a broader framework of social justice. They argue that:

• Poverty contributes to unwanted pregnancies.
• Wealthier women can often obtain abortions regardless of legality.
• Restrictions disproportionately affect poor women.
• Women facing abuse, homelessness, or severe economic hardship need options. (Does that include adoption? If so, why is that not mentioned?)

They often connect abortion discussions with:

• Healthcare access.
• Paid family leave.
• Childcare assistance.
• Poverty reduction.
• Racial and economic inequality.

These are justifications for their support of abortion. Even though some of these concerns are true, they leave out even more important truths. For example, instead of killing the child, why not let someone adopt the baby? Many couples would love to have a child but can’t. While it may be an inconvenience for a short time, it leaves the child with a life with another loving couple, and it saves the woman contemplating abortion from making a decision that many women have regretted for the rest of their lives. This is but one truth that is most often overlooked by these pro-choice Christians.

“Whole Life” or “Consistent Life” Ethics

Some Christians argue that Christians should be equally concerned about:

• The unborn.
• The poor.
• Refugees.
• Prisoners.
• Victims of war.
• Access to healthcare.

They sometimes criticize pro-life movements for focusing heavily on abortion while, in their view, neglecting other social concerns. This approach is often called a “consistent life ethic.”

This ploy is nothing more than a way to change the subject and avoid the real issue. All of these other things are not the same thing as abortion. And no one is saying that these other things should be neglected. Abortion is an issue of immediate urgency, while these other issues are not life-and-death issues as abortion is.

Uncertainty About When Personhood Begins

Some pro-choice Christians argue that Scripture does not explicitly define the precise moment when a fetus becomes a full human person.

Because of that uncertainty, they argue:

• Christians should be cautious about criminalizing abortion.
• Different believers may reach different conclusions.

This is one of the most common theological arguments among pro-choice Christians. But Scripture answers this question most definitively, and the early church’s teaching supports that position without equivocation. At the moment of conception, it is a new life. This argument is not just weak; it is morally pathetic.

Difficult Cases

Many pro-choice Christians focus on situations such as:

• Rape.
• Incest.
• Severe fetal abnormalities. (Down syndrome, for example.)
• Threats to the mother’s life.

They argue that these situations are morally complex and should be left to the woman, her family, physicians, and spiritual advisors. And, of course, there is some truth in this, but this argument also has a major failing. For instance, two wrongs do not make a right. In the case of rape, to kill the innocent child is to attempt to correct the evil of rape by committing the evil of murder.

How many times have doctors been wrong about their predictions that a child may be born with a severe abnormality, and it was not the case?

And if there are cases where the life of the mother is at great peril, then she alone is in the position to make a final determination.

Reducing Abortions Rather Than Banning Abortions

Some argue that the most effective way to reduce abortion is not legal prohibition but:

• Better healthcare.
• Better economic support.
• Better education.
• Support for mothers and families.

They often point to abortion rates declining in some places through social programs rather than criminal penalties. This argument is at best weak and at worst is simply propaganda to keep abortion legal. The truth is that outlawing abortion is the single best way to stop the murder of innocent babies.

Just laws would never give anyone the right to terminate the life of another human being, especially the most innocent of all.

Many Christian groups offer help for unwed mothers willing to carry their children to term. Adoption is a very viable alternative.

How Pro-Life Christians Respond

Pro-life Christians generally answer that if the unborn child is a human being, then social justice must begin with protecting that child’s life.

Their argument is usually:

1. The fundamental issue is not autonomy but whether the unborn is a person.
2. If the unborn child is a human person, then abortion is the taking of innocent human life.
3. Social justice concerns are real and important, but they do not justify intentionally ending innocent life.
4. Christians should both protect unborn children and care for mothers in crisis.

Many pro-life Christians, therefore, see abortion as the foundational human-rights issue because every other right depends on first having the right to live.

A Christian-Theological Observation

Historically, the overwhelming majority of Christians before the twentieth century opposed abortion. The early church condemned abortion in documents such as the Didache, and opposition to abortion remained the dominant position through the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions for most of Christian history.

The modern debate among Christians is therefore usually not about whether Christians historically opposed abortion, but about whether contemporary concerns such as women’s rights, poverty, social justice, and legal freedom should affect how abortion is treated in law and public policy.

ChatGPT writes this: “One thing worth noting is that many pro-choice Christians would say their highest priority is compassion toward women in difficult circumstances, whereas pro-life Christians would say their highest priority is protecting the life of the unborn child. The disagreement often begins with those different starting points and then extends into questions of personhood, justice, freedom, and the role of government.”

ChatGPT unfortunately forgets to mention that pro-life Christians and Christian groups also have great compassion for the woman facing abortion, and that it is never just about stopping the murder of innocent children, but also caring, in practical ways, for the mother of the child. The most compassionate way to care for the woman is to stop her from killing her child. Many women who abort their babies never get over it unless they experience the forgiveness of God. To suggest that encouraging a mother to murder her baby is compassion is nothing but a deceptive lie. It is the opposite of compassion toward the baby’s mother.

For what reasons do women have abortions?

There is actually good evidence from both sides of the abortion debate that can help make this part of my article much more precise. Some pro-life advocates claim that the single most important reason is that women do not want to be inconvenienced. You may have heard that before. Is that true or is it simply pro-life rhetoric?

According to ChatGPT, ‘The important qualification is that the best national data generally do not ask women, “Was this abortion for convenience?” That is a loaded term. Instead, researchers ask women why they obtained the abortion and then classify the answers—financial problems, timing, relationship circumstances, existing children, education, employment, health, etc.

The most important pro-choice study: Guttmacher

The strongest source on what you are asking about is a study published by the Guttmacher Institute, a major pro-choice/reproductive-rights research organization.

In its study of U.S. women obtaining abortions, researchers found that the most frequently cited reasons included:

• 74% said having a baby would dramatically change their life.
• 73% said they could not afford a baby at that time.
• 48% cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood.
• 38% said a baby would interfere with their education.
• 38% said a baby would interfere with employment.
• About one-third said they were not ready to have a child.
• 13% mentioned possible fetal health problems.
• 12% mentioned their own health.

These percentages aren’t mutually exclusive; women could give multiple reasons.

ChatGPT continues, ‘And this is particularly interesting for your argument: the study itself explicitly addresses the word “convenience.” Guttmacher says the perception that women who have abortions for reasons other than rape, incest, or life endangerment are doing so for “convenience” is too simplistic. Its researchers concluded that women were often concerned about maintaining economic stability and caring for their existing children.

ChatGPT doesn’t recommend saying, “Pro-choice researchers admit most abortions are simply for convenience.” The evidence doesn’t support that formulation, according to ChatGPT and the pro-choice movement.

But there is another, important way to make the point.

What the actual reasons show

If we define “convenience” broadly as the pregnancy is unwanted because it interferes with the woman’s existing plans, circumstances, relationships, education, employment, finances, or desired timing of childbearing, then the data show that these considerations constitute a very large proportion of abortions, according to ChatGPT.

For example, Guttmacher’s worldwide review found that the most common reason women gave for abortion was postponing or stopping childbearing. The second major category was socioeconomic circumstances, including disruption of education or employment, lack of support from the father, poverty, unemployment, and inability to afford another child.

That is considerably different from saying that most abortions are performed because the mother’s life is endangered or because the child has a severe abnormality. In fact, health-related reasons were a relatively small component of the reasons reported in the major U.S. study.

Another particularly revealing finding

There is an older Guttmacher analysis concerning unwanted pregnancies in which women were asked for their primary reason for seeking an abortion.

The leading answers were:

Primary reason	Percentage
Unmarried	25%
Stopping or spacing childbearing	19%
Too young / still in school	18%
Problems with partner	16%
Economic issues	7%
Health problems	2%

This is useful because it gets closer to your question about what actually motivates abortions, rather than simply asking what circumstances exist around an abortion.

And notice the 2% health-problem figure in that particular study. That doesn’t mean only 2% of all abortions have any health consideration whatsoever—the studies use different samples and definitions—but it does demonstrate why it is misleading to portray abortion primarily as a procedure performed because of serious medical necessity.

What about the more recent years?

ChatGPT writes, ‘This is where I would be careful in your article.

The CDC’s most recent national surveillance data are very useful for telling us how many abortions occur and when they occur, but the CDC does not collect a national standardized dataset of women’s reasons for obtaining abortions. Its 2022 report, for example, records 613,383 reported legal abortions from 48 reporting areas and provides extensive information on age, gestational age, method, etc., but not a national breakdown of reasons.

So, there isn’t a good 2024 or 2025 federal statistic saying: “X% of abortions were for convenience, X% for health, X% for rape, etc.”

That’s an important limitation to acknowledge. The most frequently cited detailed U.S. reasons study remains Guttmacher’s research, despite its age.

According to ChatGPT, I think there is an even stronger argument for your article

Rather than arguing: “Most abortions are for convenience.” ChatGPT writes, ‘I think the evidence allows you to make a more defensible statement:

“The overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed because the mother’s life is endangered or because the unborn child has a serious medical abnormality. The reasons most commonly reported involve an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy and circumstances involving relationships, finances, education, employment, existing children, or the woman’s plans for her life.”

That is much harder to dismiss because it comes substantially from pro-choice research itself. And then you can ask the genuinely Christian moral question:

If the unborn child is a human being created in the image of God, do difficult circumstances—including poverty, an absent father, interruption of education, employment concerns, or the fact that the pregnancy came at an inconvenient time—justify intentionally ending that child’s life? That gets to the heart of the disagreement without caricaturing women who obtain abortions.

One more important distinction, writes ChatGPT

Distinguish “unwanted” or “mistimed” from “convenient.” A woman may genuinely be facing terrible circumstances. She may already have three children, have very little money, have no support from the father, and be terrified about what another child will do to her family. Calling that merely “convenience” can sound dismissive, suggests ChatGPT.

But from the pro-life moral argument, the response is not necessarily that the circumstances aren’t serious. It is that serious circumstances don’t change the unborn child’s identity or moral worth. That distinction makes this article considerably stronger.

In Part 2, we will consider pro-life arguments alongside pro-choice ones. We will also consider how the Anabaptists handle such matters.