N.T. Wright’s Latest Comments Leave Pro-Life Christians Troubled
Recently, the eminent British theologian and former Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright, who is famous for his defense of the doctrine of Resurrection, showed a shocking lack of familiarity with the basic moral case against abortion. Answering a question on his “Ask N.T. Wright Anything” podcast, Wright asserted that abortion can sometimes be the best choice:
…there are many, many cases where it is about the mother’s health versus the health of the child. . .. And particularly, as you cited, in cases of rape, in cases of incest, there may be a very, very strong argument for saying, ‘this ought never to have happened.’ And 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.
Wright went on to emphasize that killing a later-term baby is “repulsive,” and rivals the evil of post-birth infanticide, which he called “pagan,” and said early Christians were correct to oppose.
But what is a “later-term baby”? Wright said he doesn’t consider himself qualified to make that judgment, partly because “it’s very hard for a man to talk about this.” Also, he considers men who are dogmatic about abortion to be “bullying” women. He then said that “. . . I am not medically qualified to say what point I would draw a line . . . (when) this is a viable human being that should, then, be cherished.”
So, according to Wright, abortion is sometimes the best course of action, especially in cases of rape, incest, and “severe deformity.” In these cases, it should be done with “sorrow” and “shame” but “as soon as possible” to avoid committing the morally “repulsive” act of late-term abortion, which is comparable to infanticide. When and where that moral line exists is not for men (as opposed to women) without medical degrees to say, even though he immediately added that viability is the moral line when a child should be “cherished.”
But why should abortion be performed with “sorrow” and “shame” unless it’s wrong? And if it is wrong, how would killing an innocent human be compassionate for someone suffering deformity? How does another evil undo the evil of rape or incest? What about the “many, many” other cases he alluded to where it is “about the mother’s health” (he explicitly included “mental health”) “versus the health of the child”? Who makes that call? What kind of abortion couldn’t be justified by appealing to mental health?
For that matter, why should a human with “severe deformity” only be killed before birth but not afterwards? And if Wright doesn’t have the credentials or chromosomes to say when a child should be cherished, how does he know it has anything to do with viability?
Every one of Wright’s arguments are familiar and his inconsistency obvious. In fact, that’s the point of these re-hashed arguments for abortion. The scattershot approach confuses the issue rather than illuminates it, and they all start with the premise that the preborn aren’t valuable human beings. That Wright has absorbed them and is repeating them shows he is either unaware or intentionally ignoring the actual case for life. It also shows that even if pro-lifers are tired of making basic pro-life arguments, we must continue to make them, even to eminent theologians.
In fact, the concise formulation of the pro-life argument by Scott Klusendorf, author of The Case for Life, exposes every one of Wright’s claims:
Premise 1: It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Premise 2: Abortion kills an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Abortion is always wrong.
Anyone who thinks abortion is “the best thing to do” in some circumstances must either disprove one or both of these premises or show the conclusion is somehow invalid. Wright waffles on this task.
In another problematic answer, Wright seemed to question whether a belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection is essential for Christians, including for fellow theologians who know better what is at stake. Such people can love Jesus, Wright said. They’re just “very, very muddled.” This very muddled statement, especially when applied to studied Biblical scholar Marcus Borg contradicts Paul’s assertion about the physical resurrection and the faith. It’s especially disheartening coming from Tom Wright, whose book defending the Resurrection is incredible.
Wright’s long list of books and teachings on Scripture and Jesus have been of enormous benefit to the Church and make him one of the preeminent scholars of our lifetime. All truth is God’s truth, including the truth he articulates in his work. But so is the truth about the preborn and the evil of abortion. Even basic truths must be repeated and defended, and at times to fellow Christians who ought to know better than anyone else.
Photo Courtesy: ©GettyImages/Anna Rose Layden / Stringer
Published Date: June 12, 2025
John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.
BreakPoint is a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.
