Is Abortion Justified In the Case of Rape?

Published On: October 23, 2025

Rape is a horrific evil—a violent assault against one made in God’s image. The trauma it inflicts is profound, the injustice stark. When rape results in pregnancy, the emotional and moral weight becomes almost unbearable. No wonder then that this question dominates abortion debates—even though rape and incest account for less than 1% of all abortions. The hard case reveals our deepest convictions about life, justice, and compassion.

The Bible’s answer is clear but costly: abortion isn’t permissible, even in cases of rape. Scripture insists on the unborn child’s full humanity and right to life from conception (Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5). The innocent child cannot be punished for the father’s sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Deuteronomy 24:16). God sovereignly ordains life even amid evil, turning ashes to beauty (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28). Two wrongs don’t make a right.

This isn’t cold theology divorced from reality. It’s a framework that demands we protect both victims—the woman violated and the innocent child conceived. Let’s examine why Scripture leaves no room for abortion in rape cases, how we address rape’s unique challenges, and what genuine compassion looks like.

THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE FROM CONCEPTION

Human dignity begins in Genesis.

Genesis 1:26-27 tells us we’re created in God’s image. This applies equally to the unborn.
Exodus 21:22-25 treats harm to an unborn child as equivalent to harm against an adult, and requires “life for life” if death occurs.
Luke 1:41-44 shows John the Baptist leaping with joy in Elizabeth’s womb at Mary’s greeting—a clear affirmation of personhood before birth.
Psalm 139:13-16 is foundational: “You knitted me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed substance.”
Job 10:8-12 echoes this divine craftsmanship. God doesn’t form life at some arbitrary point after conception—He is intimately involved from the beginning. John Calvin emphasised that God’s direct formation of each life makes abortion an assault on divine work itself.
Exodus 20:13 commands, “You shall not murder.”
Proverbs 6:16-17 lists “hands that shed innocent blood” among things God hates. The unborn are innocent, and Scripture recognizes them as persons.

If life begins at conception—as both science and Scripture affirm—circumstances can’t change the moral calculus. Making exceptions for “hard cases” doesn’t just bend the principle; it breaks it entirely, opening doors to justify abortion more broadly.

The logic is inescapable: if the unborn are human persons made in God’s image, no circumstance justifies intentionally ending their lives.

INNOCENCE, JUSTICE, AND HEALING

However, we must speak directly to rape’s unique horror.

The child conceived isn’t the rapist. Punishing an innocent child for the father’s crime violates biblical justice. Ezekiel 18:20 states plainly: “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father.” This principle—that guilt is non-transferable—runs throughout Scripture.
The rapist deserves full punishment under law. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 prescribes capital punishment for rape in ancient Israel, showing God’s fierce condemnation of this sin. But the child bears no guilt. Taking innocent life to address injustice doesn’t restore justice—it compounds injustice.
Does abortion help rape victims heal? Research suggests it doesn’t. Studies indicate that 70-90% of women who abort pregnancies from rape report regret and compounded trauma. Meanwhile, many who carry to term describe finding unexpected purpose and paths toward healing, though the trauma remains real.
One violence doesn’t heal another. Why this pattern? Romans 2:15 reminds us God’s law is written on human hearts. Abortion doesn’t erase rape’s trauma—it adds another wound. Women often report abortion made them feel complicit in taking life, layering moral anguish atop existing pain.
Scripture teaches God permits evil but ordains its outcome for ultimate good. Rape is heinous, yet Psalm 127:3 declares without qualification: “Children are a heritage from the Lord.” The child remains God’s gift, regardless of conception circumstances.
Consider Joseph’s story in Genesis 50:20. His brothers sold him into slavery—a profound betrayal and injustice. Yet Joseph later told them: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.” Joseph didn’t excuse his brothers’ sin. He recognised God’s sovereign ability to bring redemption from the worst circumstances.
If God can redeem Joseph’s suffering, can He not also bring purpose from pregnancies conceived in rape? This doesn’t minimise evil or make it good—it affirms that God specialises in bringing light from darkness.

TW0 VICTIMS NOT ONE

We must speak clearly: rape creates one victim—the woman who suffers unspeakable violation. Abortion creates a second victim—the child who is innocent of the father’s crime.

This isn’t mere rhetoric. It’s biblical justice. Deuteronomy 24:16 states: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” Ezekiel 18:20 echoes this principle: “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father.”

Biblical compassion protects all innocent life, while surrounding victims with support. Proverbs 31:8-9 commands us to “open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute.” James 1:27 defines pure religion as caring for the vulnerable.

Churches provide comprehensive support: trauma counselling, financial assistance, adoption facilitation, ongoing community, and long-term care extending years beyond birth. If we insist women carry pregnancies from rape, we must bear their burdens practically (Galatians 6:2).

Abortion isn’t compassion—it’s a false solution that devalues life while failing to address trauma. True healing comes through the gospel. Isaiah 53:5 reminds us that Christ bore our sorrows and by His wounds we are healed. Victims find restoration not through more violence, but through God’s grace working in community.

Some folks argue for “victim’s choice.” But true autonomy submits to God’s law, not personal preference. Romans 12:19-21 teaches us not to repay evil with evil, but to “overcome evil with good.” We don’t overcome rape’s evil through abortion—we overcome it through extraordinary love that protects both mother and child.

HOLDING FAST TO HOPE

The biblical position is clear: no to abortion in all cases—even rape—grounded in Scripture’s unyielding defence of innocent life. The Bible requires we uphold two truths simultaneously—the woman deserves our utmost compassion AND the child deserves protection. It calls us to action:

To advocate for life-affirming policies
To support rape victims through church ministries and crisis pregnancy centres
To facilitate adoption
To pursue justice for rapists while protecting their innocent children
To trust God’s providence even when circumstances seem impossible

Romans 12:21 provides our mandate: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” We overcome the evil of rape not with another act of violence, but with extraordinary love that protects all innocent life while supporting victims with everything we have.

This is the harder path. But the Bible doesn’t promise easy answers, only true ones. And the truth is this: God can bring redemption even from the worst evil. Our calling is to trust His wisdom and live out our convictions in sacrificial love.

RELATED FAQs

What if continuing the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life? This is a distinct question from rape-related abortion. When a mother’s life is genuinely threatened—such as in ectopic pregnancy or severe preeclampsia—the principle of double effect applies. Medical intervention to save the mother’s life is morally permissible even if it unintentionally results in the child’s death, provided the intent is to save life, not end it.

Theologians like John Frame and Wayne Grudem note these are genuinely tragic situations requiring medical wisdom. The key distinction: we’re choosing between one life or two deaths (mother and child both dying), not choosing convenience over life. In ectopic pregnancy, for instance, the child cannot survive regardless of intervention, but the mother can be saved.

Aren’t you advocating a woman carries her rapist’s baby against her will? This concern deserves serious engagement. The woman has already had her will violated horrifically. The question is: does abortion restore her autonomy or compound her victimisation?

Consider what abortion requires: the woman must undergo another invasive medical procedure, often experiencing physical pain and potential complications. Studies show this frequently doesn’t restore psychological wellbeing but adds regret and grief.

Theologian Scott Klusendorf argues that while we deeply sympathise with the rape victim’s suffering, her autonomy—like all human autonomy—exists within moral boundaries. We don’t have unlimited rights over other human lives, even when those lives exist within our bodies. The child’s right to life doesn’t disappear because of the father’s crime. True restoration of dignity comes through justice against the rapist, not through ending an innocent life.

What if the victim is a child herself—say, a 12-year-old? This scenario intensifies our horror at rape while raising additional concerns about a child bearing a child. Yet the ethical framework remains consistent: the unborn child’s humanity doesn’t change based on the mother’s age.

Pastor Voddie Baucham addresses this by noting our moral outrage at a child being raped should increase—not reduce—our commitment to protecting all innocent life. The rapist deserves maximal punishment. The young victim deserves maximal support. But the conceived child remains innocent.

Practically, this demands even more comprehensive support: medical care tailored to young mothers, educational accommodations, family counselling, and long-term social services. Adoption becomes especially relevant here, allowing the young girl to resume childhood while ensuring the baby receives proper care. The hardest cases don’t undermine principles—they test whether we’ll apply them consistently. Compassion means protecting both victims, not sacrificing one for the other’s perceived benefit.

How do we respond to women who say, “I couldn’t love a child that reminds me of my rapist”? This is painfully honest and understandable. But it reveals why adoption is such a crucial option. The woman isn’t obligated to raise the child—she’s obligated not to kill him or her.

Apologist Stephanie Gray Connors points out bonding difficulties don’t justify ending life. Many biological parents struggle to bond with wanted children due to postpartum depression or other factors. We don’t consider infanticide permissible in those cases; we provide support and sometimes alternative placement.

Furthermore, many women who feared this outcome report something unexpected: the child doesn’t remind them of the rapist. The child has his or her own personality, appearance, and identity. Biblical compassion provides options—counselling, adoption support, ongoing care—while refusing to treat murder as a solution to difficult emotions.

Doesn’t banning abortion force rape victims to have their rapist’s baby? This framing subtly shifts the moral question. The child isn’t “the rapist’s baby” in any meaningful sense beyond biological contribution. The child is a distinct human person with his or her own identity, dignity, and right to life.

Theologian Kevin DeYoung notes we recognise this principle elsewhere. If a rapist fathers a child who is then born, we don’t consider the 5-year-old “the rapist’s child” in a way that diminishes the child’s worth or rights. We rightly see the child as an individual person who happens to have an evil father.

Moreover, laws didn’t “force” pregnancy—rape forced pregnancy. Law simply protects an existing life from being intentionally ended. This distinction matters.

The language of “forced birth” also obscures biology. Birth is the result of pregnancy. Abortion requires active intervention to end life. The question isn’t whether the state forces birth, but whether the state permits killing of the innocent.

What about cultures where rape victims face honor killing or severe ostracism? This raises mission field complexity. In some cultures, rape victims face violence from their own families or complete social exclusion, especially if pregnant. Missionaries and international workers grapple with this reality.

Theologians acknowledge these situations are genuinely heart-wrenching. However, the response isn’t to compromise on the sanctity of life but to recognise that evil cultural practices require comprehensive gospel transformation.

The church’s role becomes even more critical: providing physical sanctuary, economic support, relocation assistance if necessary, and long-term community. In contexts where families reject victims, the church must become family (Mark 10:29-30).

How do we avoid being seen as caring more about the unborn than about babies born of rape? This is perhaps the most important question for Christian witness. If we merely prohibit abortion without providing tangible support, we rightly earn the accusation of hypocrisy.

Randy Alcorn argues pro-life commitment requires “whole life” support: funding crisis pregnancy centres, facilitating adoptions, providing childcare, offering job training, supporting single mothers long-term, and pursuing criminal justice for rapists.

It also means criminal justice advocacy. We should demand that rapists face full legal consequences while their victims receive comprehensive support. Fighting for both justice and mercy demonstrates we value all image-bearers (James 1:27).

OUR RELATED POSTS