With great power—agency—comes great responsibility.
The American legal system is, in large part, built on a shared moral foundation—one that recognizes certain actions as fundamentally right or wrong. This principle underpins the argument that abortion, which ends an innocent human life, should be legally restricted. We don’t legislate based on religion, yet we agree on fundamental moral principles. As President Dallin H. Oaks observed, some people argue, “We should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes” [1].
We teach children fundamental morality by showing them what is right and wrong—what helps others and what harms them. This is not because the Bible demands it; rather, these principles are self-evident. Most people can easily recognize constructive actions versus destructive ones. Some critics have characterized this understanding as “childlike,” favoring instead a more “intellectual” moral relativism. While many people see morality as context-dependent—believing some acts may be right in certain situations—the fundamental principles of law depend on universal standards. Without them, society cannot function under rule of law.
Imposing religion is different from legislating basic moral protections. We do not outlaw murder, theft, or abuse because of scripture but because they violate universal human rights. As John Locke argued, reason teaches “all mankind … that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions,” grounding morality in universal human equality rather than religious doctrine [2]. Similarly, Immanuel Kant emphasized that moral principles must apply universally, stating, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law,” [3]. The same principle applies to abortion: defending innocent life is not a religious imposition but a universal moral imperative embedded in the very logic of law. Although the moral imperative to protect life is widely acknowledged, some who support abortion rights interpret it differently, believing that abortion can align with moral or religious considerations.
Some who support abortion rights frame their stance as equally morally serious. Leaders in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, for example, argue that respecting life includes respecting a woman’s moral agency, emphasizing that compassion sometimes requires allowing individuals to decide whether they can sustain a pregnancy [4]. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson similarly contends in “A Defense of Abortion” that even if a fetus has a right to life, one person is not always morally obligated to sustain another [5]. Engaging with these arguments highlights the complexity of the issue, but it cannot erase the fundamental truth: ending the life of an unborn child is the taking of an innocent human life.
As President Dallin H. Oaks observes, “[pretending] that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences” misses a key point: true agency is not freedom from responsibility [1]. Exercising moral agency requires making choices that respect the rights and dignity of others—including the unborn. Outside cases of violence, the decision that leads to conception is a moral choice, but the existence of an unborn child is not something we may morally undo. Just as society rightly shields the vulnerable from preventable harm, laws protecting unborn children uphold a universal moral standard and the enduring principle that life must be defended.
A closer look at the moral basis of abortion reveals a stark inconsistency: it conflicts with the principles we uphold elsewhere. Context may affect the challenges we face, but it does not change the fundamental wrongness of taking an innocent human life.
Most societies recognize that murder is wrong and that human life is sacred. Universal moral law—whether understood through reason, natural rights, or the Golden Rule—applies to all human beings, including the unborn. “Pro-choice” suggests abstract freedom, but moral reasoning requires asking whose choice is protected: the mother’s, the child’s, or society’s duty to safeguard innocent life. Unlike self-defense, where taking life responds to an immediate threat, abortion ends the life of an innocent and defenseless human being—a distinction consistently recognized in moral and legal frameworks.
While defending the unborn is a universal moral imperative, I acknowledge that in cases where the life of the mother is at risk, abortion may be morally permissible. Such instances are tragic but fundamentally different from elective abortions, which terminate otherwise healthy, innocent life. Certain historical or scriptural commands to take life were specific directives; they do not justify ending the life of an innocent person under ordinary circumstances. Even apart from religious belief, reason and universal moral law recognize that it is wrong to take an innocent human life.
Imagine a room full of adults—can you tell the circumstances of each person’s conception? Of course not–and it doesn’t change their worth. Life is sacred from conception. From the moment of fertilization, a distinct human organism with its own unique genetic identity begins to develop, making it a life worthy of protection.
The circumstances of conception do not determine a person’s inherent worth. Difficult or tragic beginnings do not justify ending an innocent life. Instead, society should respond with support and compassion for children and families facing hardship, helping them navigate real challenges rather than eliminating life. Each individual possesses inherent dignity and the same right to life, and it is not ours to determine whose life has value. Acknowledging the serious challenges women face does not give moral license to end another innocent life.
Abortion, defended with slogans like “My body, my choice,” frames the issue as solely about personal autonomy, ignoring the consequences on another’s life, and allows for the execution of the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our society. This framing can make it seem as though debate is closed, but in reality, society limits personal freedom whenever choices harm others or produce serious consequences. As President Oaks asks, “Which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices? Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse,” [1]? The principle is clear: when we make choices, we bear responsibility for their effects, and no moral or legal framework allows the harm of the innocent under the guise of personal autonomy.
Trying to present abortion as a universal right by calling it “pro-choice” obscures the moral reality: the choice in question ends the life of a distinct, developing human being. While many who identify as pro-choice would never describe themselves as anti-life, framing the issue solely around autonomy ignores the consequences for the most vulnerable. Framing autonomy as the ultimate goal ignores that freedom to choose is not an end in itself, but a means to exercise moral responsibility.
The term “pro-choice” sounds innocuous, but in reality, it permits morally reprehensible behavior. As President Oaks reminds us, we are not here to “secure choice, but to use it,” explaining that “choice is a method, not a goal” [1]. The purpose of agency is to choose good over evil [6]. Only choices that respect the value of life move society toward its moral goals, and failure to protect the sanctity of life carries serious consequences for individuals and communities [7].
It is a profound moral failing when a society founded on moral principles permits the termination of its most defenseless citizens. Policy must reflect the value of life. Because life is sacred from conception, public law must protect it—especially the unborn. We cannot claim to respect morality, agency, or justice while allowing innocent human life to be destroyed. Legislators, leaders, and citizens alike bear the responsibility to ensure that abortion is legally restricted except in the narrowest circumstances, and that society affirms the inherent dignity and rights of every human being from the moment of conception.
