As we approach the third anniversary of Dobbs which overturned the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, abortion remains a dominant issue in the national conversation. Just last week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. announced a review of the FDA’s approval of the chemical abortion pill regimen. His decision came in response to a report from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), which found that 10.93 percent of women who take these drugs experience serious health complications, including hemorrhaging and sepsis.
For Christians, these developments once again highlight the need to think biblically about abortion and the value of human life. This is especially important as theologically liberal Christians continue to argue that the Bible is either pro-choice or neutral on the issue. Two claims in particular have resurfaced that deserve attention. First, how should pro-life Christians respond when critics assert that God is not pro-life because of events like Noah’s Flood or the conquest of Canaan? Second, does the Bible actually teach that “life begins with breath,” as some have claimed? What follows are responses to these arguments.
Claim #1: Noah’s Flood and the Conquest of Canaan Prove God Is Not Pro-Life
One argument leveled against pro-life Christians is that the Bible contains examples of God-sanctioned killings. An article published by the Freedom from Religion Foundation contends:
We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. . . . It can be concluded from this ghastly program of human annihilation that the God of the bible is the greatest mass murderer in history and that he does not care about unborn children or living children or living adults.
How should Christians respond to these claims? Although space does not allow for an in-depth apologetic of Noah’s flood, the conquest of Canaan, or the Old Testament wars, the Bible provides an explanation for these events that does not compromise the pro-life ethic we have seen elsewhere.
First, the Bible presents Noah’s flood as God’s just judgment on the wickedness of humanity. According to Genesis 6:11, the pre-flood world was “corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with wickedness.” Moreover, “every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time” (Gen. 6:5). Although the concept of sin offends modern sensibilities, the Bible presents humanity’s rebellion against God as an egregious affront to his holiness that merits judgment. Given the shocking decadence and depravity of pre-flood culture, the flood—which, admittedly, is one of the most graphic displays of God’s judgment in the Bible—was a just response.
Second, the people of Noah’s generation were given many chances to repent. First Peter 3:20 teaches that “God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared.” Additionally, 2 Peter 2:5 indicates Noah preached righteousness in the years before the deluge. These passages suggest that if anyone had repented, they would have been spared judgment alongside Noah and his family. The fact that no one repented is evidence of how corrupt the world had become.
The massive destruction and loss of life brought about by the flood reveal God’s holiness, the wickedness of sin, and God’s righteous judgment upon sin. The fact that the floodwaters fell on children and unborn babies is heartrending. However, the context of the flood narrative reminds us that all death is a consequence of human sin. Ultimately, every person, including every child and baby drowned in the flood, died because of the pre-flood world’s wicked rebellion against God.
Like Noah’s flood, the conquest of Canaan is often invoked as evidence that the God of the Old Testament was vengeful and violent. However, the conquest of Canaan must be understood within its place in the biblical storyline.
In context, the wars against the Canaanites occurred after the exodus and the wilderness wandering. As the Israelites prepared to enter the Promised Land, God instructed them to drive out and “completely destroy” the inhabitants of the land (Deut. 7:1–6 cf. Deut. 6:19; 12:3; Num. 33:51–52).
Although devoting the Canaanites to destruction (i.e., placing them “under the ban”) appears ethically problematic, the Bible provides important context and a rationale for the command. First, Scripture reveals that the idolatry of the Canaanites was a long-standing, worsening reality. In Genesis, God explicitly told Abram that his offspring would live in a foreign country and be oppressed for 400 years before returning to the land promised to them. One of the reasons God gave for this lengthy travail was “the iniquity of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Gen. 15:16). In other words, the sobering reality is that God was patient with the Canaanite nations and that his judgment had been building for centuries. By the time of the conquest, the pagan inhabitants had reached the point of no return and were ripe for judgment. Thus, Israel’s conquest of the land was God’s means of executing divine justice; it occurred within the moral framework of punishment, not arbitrary violence (Deut. 9:4–6).
Second, up until the moment of the conquest, it appears mercy was available to repentant Canaanites who submitted to God and identified with his people. For example, Rahab and her family were spared because they provided aid to the Israelite spies (Josh. 2:8–24). The lesson is clear: choosing to live as God’s enemy results in judgment; submitting to God’s rule results in blessing (and for Rahab specifically, inclusion in the line of the Messiah—Matt. 1:5).
Third, the Canaanites’ continued presence in the land threatened the religious purity of Israel. According to Genesis 18:18, God’s intention was to bless the nations of the world through Abraham’s descendants. However, the egregious idolatry of the Canaanites—which by this time included child immolation (Deut. 12:31)—would, if allowed to continue, corrupt the witness and integrity of the Israelites by influencing them to adopt wicked, syncretistic forms of worship (Deut. 20:16–18).6 Thus, eradicating Canaanite religion was a matter of safeguarding God’s covenant people through whom he intended to bless the world.
Finally, the conquest of the land was limited and directly sanctioned by God, who personally fought on behalf of Israel (Exodus 14; Joshua 6; Judges 7). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, wars waged for selfish reasons or conducted with unrestrained violence and bloodshed are condemned. The unique purposes of the conquest—to divinely judge the Canaanites and protect the religious purity of Israel—were unique to this period of redemptive history; no other nation or person can claim the same mandate.
Claim #2: “Life Begins with Breath”
A theological argument put forward by some pro-abortion advocates is that “life begins with breath.” According to this argument, abortion is morally neutral (and thus permissible) because it ends the life of an unborn child before he or she has taken his or her first breath. Supporters of this position cite Genesis 2:7, which says, “Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.”
In context, Genesis 2:7 does not teach that life began with Adam’s first breath. In fact, the passage says nothing about Adam breathing (although it can be assumed Adam began breathing after receiving life). According to the passage, God breathed into nonliving matter and the first human being became a living being. Adam’s creation was unique; he was personally formed by God and given life as a fully adult man. It may appear too obvious to need pointing out, but how God gave Adam life differs from how every other person subsequently born receives life. In other words, Genesis 2:7 does not describe normal human development. Following God’s creation of Eve, the normal biological process of reproduction was the means for creating new life. The special circumstances of Adam’s creation are not paradigmatic or representative of how the rest of humanity comes into existence. After our first parents, no one has received “the breath of life” directly from God in the same way.
Additionally, critics who insist the Bible teaches that life began with Adam’s first breath should note that the unborn are “breathing” in the sense that they receive the oxygen they need for their cells to function. Adam began breathing through his mouth after receiving life because that is how a person at that stage of development takes in oxygen; unborn children receive oxygen from blood vessels in the umbilical cord.
This excerpt is from Life After Roe: Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life Today. Copyright (c) 2025 by David Closson. Used with permission of the author and publisher, B&H Academic.
David Closson serves as the Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council. He researches and writes on life, human sexuality, religious liberty, and related issues from a biblical worldview. David’s work has appeared at Fox News, Real Clear Politics, National Review, The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Decision Magazine, WORLD Opinions, The Gospel Coalition, Townhall, and Christian Post. David is the author of the forthcoming book Life After Roe (B&H Academic, 2024) and is the co-author of Male and Female He Created Them: A Study on Identity, Sexuality, and Marriage (Christian Focus, 2023). David is a regular guest on Washington Watch, FRC’s national television and radio program heard on over 800 stations in forty-eight states.