Theologian N. T. Wright’s Atrocious Take on Abortion

Dr. Wright was asked a question about abortion on his Ask NT Wright Anything podcast (I wrote last year about the terrible answer he gave on that program to a question about science and the Bible). And his answer was biblically and theologically atrocious! But that’s not surprising because I find that when a person compromises Genesis with outside beliefs (like evolution/millions of years), it has a detrimental effect on other areas such as we see here regarding his answer on abortion.

Before we get to the answer, here’s the fairly lengthy question posed to him from a young lady in Germany:

As a Christian I was taught that abortion is a sin regardless of the stage of pregnancy because of the fifth commandment, you shall not murder. But here is my struggle, although I have heard this argumentation many times, it somehow doesn’t feel intuitive to me.

Why do we believe that it is murder to abort, especially at an early stage of pregnancy, when the fetus is not even formed, the heart is not beating yet, etc. It seems very abstract to me to say that from the moment of conception, when only two cells have met, there is life. [sic] That is just as valuable as any human being on earth.

As a student, I am sometimes confronted with this issue, for example, when I come across demonstrations for women’s rights on campus and I always find it difficult because I know as a Christian, I should be against abortion. But as I said, I often don’t feel that intuitively.

Also, there are these difficult ethical questions, such as what about cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape or cases where a decision has to be made whether the mother or the unborn child should be saved?

I would be grateful if you could help me to better understand the Christian reasoning on this issue.

It’s incredibly easy to answer starting with God’s Word.

In other words, she’s wondering, “When does life begin?” That’s the core issue. It’s incredibly easy to answer starting with God’s Word. And yet, N. T. Wright got it completely and utterly wrong.

Where’s the Bible?

Dr. Wright took about 10 minutes to answer to question—and never once quoted the Bible. That’s right, this young lady asked for “Christian reasoning” on this issue and got nothing more than N. T. Wright’s opinion with no reference to God’s Word and only a passing comment of starting with a “sense of respect for God’s creation in all its rich variety.”

Because he refused to stand on the authority of God’s Word and apply biblical principles, Dr. Wright and his cohost just danced around the issue. Over and over, they made sure to point out that abortion is a “hugely sensitive” and “difficult issue.” The cohost even said at one point, “We can’t assume this is a black-and-white answer when every case is going to be somehow different.” In his introduction, Wright said, “When [abortion is] presented as ‘you are killing, you are murdering, an unborn child, I think we do have to be very, very careful.” In other words, you can’t call abortion what it really is because “it’s sensitive” and “difficult.”

All throughout his answer, he highlights his own moral relativism. In his view, the morality of abortion is nothing more than a complicated ethical dilemma that depends entirely on the circumstances. It isn’t objectively right or wrong—although he does seem to think it’s sad or not generally the best option—it’s entirely dependent on circumstances. And that’s why he used euphemisms throughout his answer.

Instead of referencing the baby and thinking about abortion from the perspective of the human life growing in the mother’s womb, he distanced himself by generally saying “pregnancy” or something like that.

The best answer Dr. Wright could give was that in the so-called “hard cases” (rape, incest, and fetal abnormality), “With sorrow, because we do not want to do this in principle, but with sorrow and a bit of shame, the best thing to do is as soon as possible to terminate this pregnancy.”

He concludes with,

However, having said that, I do think that that sense of respect for God’s creation in all its rich variety is the primary starting point, even if we then have to say with sorrow and a certain sense of this is the least worst option in this situation that there may be some cases of exceptions.

That’s about as far as I can get at the moment. And as I say, I’m very much aware of just how sensitive this topic is politically, sociologically, as well as ethically.

His wishy-washy stance may seem “nuanced” to him, but it’s a deadly view on an extremely black-and-white issue—we don’t murder because God has said “you shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). I would argue his view on abortion is a direct consequence of his view on the authority of Scripture. As soon as you abandon God’s Word as the authority (as he has done in Genesis and elsewhere), you become your own authority, and more and more compromise follows. It’s a slippery slide of more and more compromise.

Let’s Apply the Logic

Now I’m sure Dr. Wright is a smart man. But has he taken his thinking on abortion to its logical conclusions? Let’s do that for him. He claims it’s okay to kill an unborn child under certain circumstances, such as a fetal abnormality.

But what about a baby that is born with a fetal abnormality that the doctors missed in utero? Imagine the baby is born and the doctors immediately know something is wrong, they want to whisk the baby off to the NICU for lifesaving care, but the mother says, “No, I don’t want a baby with an abnormality—I don’t think my mental health would allow me to take care of such a baby.” In response, the doctors brutally kill the baby and discard him as medical waste (exactly what happens in an abortion—yes, it’s brutal). I’m sure Wright would be outraged—but why? Those doctors did exactly the same thing Wright said was okay for them to do in the womb: They killed a baby.

Now he (and his cohost) did lament that (1) some ethicists today are arguing for infanticide; and (2) pagan cultures of the past used to expose unwanted children to the elements until they died; and (3) late-term abortions do take place and he finds this “repulsive.” They both assumed that infanticide and late-term abortion are wrong (I say assumed because they never backed up their view with anything but their own opinions and a reference to Judeo-Christian history—again, no Scripture!). But why is killing a baby for a fetal anomaly “the best thing to do” in the womb, but outside of the womb, it’s the evil of infanticide? The only thing that changed was the baby’s location or, perhaps, level of development. But is that what makes us a person with value? No! Our status as an image bearer of God is what gives us value.

“I Am Not Medically Qualified . . . to Draw a Line”

So when does life begin? Well, Dr. Wright, by his own admission, can’t answer that because he’s not a scientist:

At the same time, there may be certain exceptions of which severe deformity might be one, of which certainly incest and rape would be others, and in those cases I would say “the sooner the better” because at a certain point—and I am not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line—then this is a viable human being that should then be cherished.

So a late-term abortion is “repulsive” to him, but he isn’t “medically qualified” to draw the line between when a life can just be discarded and when that baby magically becomes “a viable human being that should then be cherished.”

The testimony of Scripture is that life begins at the moment of fertilization.

No, he’s not a scientist. But he claims to be a Christian and a biblical scholar—he doesn’t need science to answer this question. He has God’s clear Word! And the testimony of Scripture is that life begins at the moment of fertilization. The unborn are always treated as persons with the same value as those outside the womb and Scripture is replete with references to God’s hatred of hands that shed innocent blood:

There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:16–17, emphasis added)

Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their highways. (Isaiah 59:7)

Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3, emphasis added)

What About Those “Difficult” Cases?

Wright’s entire view rests on the “difficult” and “sensitive” cases (he sort of implies that abortion on demand or for lesser reasons than rape, incest, or fetal abnormality is wrong, but he does not take a strong stance on even that in his answer). But these cases aren’t difficult when you start with God’s Word!

Rape and Incest

As Christians, we stand on the authority of God’s Word and call out rape and incest for the horrific sins that they are—sins that brought with them the death penalty under the law (Deuteronomy 22:25). God took such violence seriously (much more seriously than our culture today). We understand that we live in a sin-cursed world where the circumstances surrounding someone’s conception can be gut-wrenching and unthinkable. But the circumstances surrounding conception do not determine someone’s value. That baby is still a person, made in God’s image, and is him or herself a victim of the father’s sin. That baby does not deserve to die for the sin of the father (think about it—killing the baby is giving that child a far worse penalty than the rapist who committed the crime!).

No, rape and incest are not reasons for an innocent human life to be extinguished.

Fetal Abnormality

Arguing that children should die because they may be born with an abnormality is eugenics. It’s saying some children deserve to live and others die, simply based on their genetics. It’s saying that a person with a disability has no inherent right to life and is less valuable than someone more able-bodied. This thinking is biblically problematic as Scripture is clear that we’re to specifically defend and care for the weakest and most vulnerable:

Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause. (Isaiah 1:17)

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 82:3–4)

And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40)

And what about a baby with a disability so severe that they have little to no chance of life outside the womb? Is that a cause to end that life? No! That baby should be loved and cared for until birth and then, if nothing can be done outside the womb to save that life, held in loving arms until Jesus calls that baby home. That respects the value of human life.

Contrast that picture of loving grief with what Wright is advocating for—that doctors should give mom a pill to starve her child and then expel the baby (a medicated abortion early on) or force the baby’s heart to stop beating before they enter the calm, protected space of the womb with a pair of forceps to violently tear the child apart and remove him or her in pieces (a surgical abortion later on).

Which one do you think honors the image of God in that precious child?

“It’s Very Hard for a Man to Talk About This”

At one point, Dr. Wright claims,

So the whole debate about the woman’s rights, it’s very difficult, it’s very hard for a man to talk about this. And indeed one of the problems has been, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, when women, particularly say a girl who’s been raped or who’s had incest committed on her, then discovering that unmarried men from the Catholic hierarchy are telling her what she can and can’t do.

As people now say, the optics of that are pretty bad. That’s part of the same system of male bullying, which we have to avoid like the plague.

Is he really saying that men speaking strongly against abortion is “part of the same system of male bullying” and that it’s just men telling a woman “what she can and can’t do”? The only way you would get such a view is if you are basing your view on abortion on your own opinion!

When you ground your thinking on God’s Word, it isn’t me telling a woman what to do or engaging in “male bullying”—it’s the God who fearfully and wonderfully made the life in question telling men and women what they can and can’t do to that life!

This isn’t my opinion vs. a woman’s opinion. It’s God’s Word vs. mankind’s word.

When you ground your thinking on God’s Word, it isn’t me telling a woman what to do or engaging in “male bullying”—it’s the God who fearfully and wonderfully made the life in question telling men and women what they can and can’t do to that life!

What Is the Christian Reasoning?

Dr. Wright didn’t give the woman who asked the question the Christian reasoning as to why abortion is wrong at any and every stage of development, so I’ll do it for him.

Sarah from Germany, the crux of your question is “when does life begin?” The Bible answers that question by always treating the unborn with the same level of personhood as those who are born. There’s no distinction. Just consider Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:41, or Exodus 21:22–25. It’s obvious that, biblically speaking, life begins at the moment of fertilization.

And this is confirmed by science. When the egg and sperm come together, you have a unique combination of information that has never been seen before and will never be seen again. Everything that makes you who you are is present from the moment of fertilization: nothing new is added. Since the DNA (the information) in that new life is 100% human, the baby can’t be anything but 100% human! And if that person is human, then they are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). You see, we aren’t animals, and we don’t go through some kind of development to become increasingly more human. We’re 100% human from the start. Science confirms the Bible.

The Bible is clear that murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13), God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17), and that, under the law, if someone struck a pregnant woman and she miscarried, he also lost his life because he took a life (Exodus 21:22–25).

We don’t get to be the arbiters of who lives and who dies. God has fearfully and wonderfully made each and every human life, in his image, and he alone holds the power of life and death.

And even if you didn’t know any of that and all you had was the gospel, you could still powerfully answer the abortion issue: The gospel says, “I died for you”; abortion says, “You will die for me.” Abortion is a perversion of the self-sacrifice and laying down of one’s life that Christ calls us to, a perversion that costs the life of the most vulnerable.

What a difference it makes when you stand on the authority of God’s Word! The foundational principle that man is made in God’s image and that human life begins at fertilization enables us to speak authoritatively on the topic of abortion.

Get More Answers on Answers News

This item was discussed earlier this week on Answers News with cohosts Dr. Tim Chaffey, Kevin Hadsall, and Rob Webb. Answers News is our weekly news program filmed live before a studio audience here at the Creation Museum, broadcast on our Answers in Genesis YouTube channel, and posted to Answers TV. We also covered the following topics:

• Inventor of deadly and dangerous abortion pill dies at 98.
• Evolutionary story changes . . . again.
• James Webb Space Telescope breaks its own record yet again.
• And more!

Be sure to join us each Monday at 2 p.m. (ET) on YouTube or later that day on Answers TV for Answers News. You won’t want to miss this unique news program that gives science and culture news from a distinctly biblical and Christian perspective.