DIY abortion up to birth: A wake up call for the Church?

Britain's upper house of parliament has supported measures to remove women from criminal liability related to abortion.

Dave Brennan, who directs Brephos (brephos.org) - a ministry that helps churches to respond to abortion - reacts.

In 1965 the Church of England’s Board for Social Responsibility published a report: Abortion: An Ethical Discussion.

The Abortion Law Reform Association had been hard at work for decades, the debate was now brewing in Parliament, and this was the established church’s contribution to that national conversation.

But instead of providing much-needed clarity on the moral status of the child in the womb and the immorality of intentionally killing him or her, this report – scant on Scripture – asked "whether the life of the foetus should be sacrificed in the interest of the mother", and ultimately concluded that in many cases it could be, even for social reasons.

The Church report concluded with its own draft Bill, "[which] may be cited as the Abortion Act 1965": in it provision is made for abortion for reasons as broad and vague as "mental well-being" of the mother, taking into account her "total environment, actual or reasonably foreseeable."

Child sacrifice officially had the state church’s blessing.

This is the document that "helped" David Steel, who brought the Private Members’ Bill that became the Abortion Act 1967: "I still maintain to this day [it] is the best argued document from a Christian standpoint in favour of having a positive law on abortion. And it counteracted better than I could the arguments of the Roman Catholic Church. I had no difficulty reconciling my Christianity with abortion law reform."

The Abortion Act 1967 had the Church’s fingerprints all over it.

And it wasn’t a Church of England problem only: there was general silence from evangelicals at the time, and it got even worse when that silence was broken by Rex Gardner, an "evangelical" whose book Abortion: The Personal Dilemma (1972) also argued in favour of child sacrifice and claimed that life only really begins at birth.

The Church’s witness did get clearer and stronger from the end of the 1970s, thanks in large part to Francis Schaeffer, but widespread, long-lasting conviction never really took hold of the soul of the British Church, nor did it manage to take root in the pulpits.

Schaeffer’s harrowing quote still has to be heard today: "Every abortion clinic should have a sign in front of it saying: Open by permission of the Church."

Today

Fast-forward to March 2026, and the state of the baby genocide in our nation has gone from bad to worse. The death toll stands at some 11 million babies; one in three babies are being killed in the womb. And yet it would seem that our "sin has not yet reached its full measure" (Genesis 15v16), for we are to be handed over to up-to-birth, DIY abortions, approved last week by the Upper House.

We can thank God that ten Church of England bishops did in the end vote against it, but the fact that there was even a question mark over that shows how far we’ve fallen. Sarah Mullally’s speech was somewhat confused and in Damian Thompson’s words "lacklustre", suggesting that abortion up to birth involves "moral complexity" and repeating the Church of England’s vague statement of "principled opposition, recognising that there can be limited conditions under which abortion may be preferable to any available alternatives". These "limited conditions" have never been defined. At least she voted the right way.

But significantly: where were the other bishops? Fewer than half of the Lords Spiritual turned up to one of the most important moral votes of a lifetime. The main vote was very narrow: what difference might it have made to have not only a dozen more votes in the bag but also some more opposing speeches? It is surely not too much to ask of a bishop that he will be capable of articulating the case for life and the immorality of killing babies persuasively.

The Church's witness and the state of the nation

I started way back in 1965 because it is important to see that last week's appalling vote, shocking though it is, is not in a sense surprising; it did not appear in a vacuum. What happened last week is the latest result of a long process: the moral tide of our nation going farther and farther out. We need to understand this if we are to respond appropriately. And I want us to see the connection between the Church’s witness (or lack thereof) and the state of the nation.

We can and we should grieve and lament for the babies that will be butchered with impunity as a result of this heinous ruling. We can and we should grieve and lament for our nation, governed by such wicked fools: for mothers, fathers, siblings, generations that will be devastated by even more state-sanctioned shedding of innocent blood.

But as we look upon this scene, we should perceive in it a reflection of ourselves. To a great extent, the nation is a reflection of the Church within it. We have dressed the wound of this people lightly, saying "peace" where there is no peace (Jeremiah 6v14). We have not been "voices for the voiceless" (Proverbs 31v8).

How then should we respond?

1. We should lament, and our lamentation should have confession of our own sins, particularly our sins of omission, built into it. Consider the examples of Ezra 9 and 10; Nehemiah 1. What if churches up and down the land, following this result, all sang Graham Kendrick’s poignant Who Can Sound the Depths of Sorrow? Might it not move our people to prayerful engagement? Might it not move the hand of God as we all cry out for mercy in our gathered worship?
2. We should teach on abortion. Pulpits still remain largely silent on this vital issue of our day. 180 attendees of a major evangelical convention in Britain were surveyed in 2023 and 2024: more than half said they had never heard abortion even mentioned in their churches over the previous five years.
3. We should train and equip our people to be effective and gracious voices for the voiceless: we need to be prepared to respond well, speak life, and bear good Christian witness to those around us on an issue that is affecting hundreds more people daily in our nation.
4. We should mobilise for prayer and action. It’s not enough just to get our thinking straight. Jesus taught us that love for our neighbour looks like something, and this is backed up by the rest of the Bible, notably the Mosaic Law, the Prophets, Proverbs, James, to name but a few. I have seen a lot of dismay and outrage online – and so there should be – but I hope that it translates quickly into positive action that makes a difference in persuading the nation of the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.
   
   And as well as advocating – speaking up for those babies who cannot speak for themselves – we also as God’s people need to be holding out grace – gospel-centred, Christ-preaching grace – to those who have had abortions, and life-affirming hope and help to those who are pregnant and not sure what to do. The local church is uniquely placed to carry out these ministries. It is time that we got serious about them.

To conclude

I want to finish on a note of encouragement.

Parliament is wildly out of step with the population at large. Whilst both Houses have now voted in favour of DIY abortion up to birth, I have been involved in extensive public education work concerning the same and the general public’s horror at and opposition to this barbaric practice has been almost universal – even amongst those who would generally be somewhat "pro-choice".

In fact, about 62 per cent of the general public would be in favour of a heartbeat bill, which would ban almost all abortions. So the recent Parliamentary votes belie a widespread discomfort with abortion outside Westminster.

Moreover, pro-life sentiment is growing. Even the BBC has joined in the gathering trickle of reportage on the young, ambitious, rising anti-abortion generation. (If only the bit about being handsomely remunerated by American organisations were true!) Of course there will be a lag, but where public opinion goes, public policy (especially in a democracy) must follow. The history of social reform, particularly the abolition of the slave trade, has much to say to us on this, and reminds us that shifting public opinion is of paramount importance.

The rising generation is a mixed picture. On the one hand we see an increased spiritual hunger and interest in Christ, on the other this generation is killing off half of their babies (more than other generations). One is reminded of C.S. Lewis’s contention, expressed in That Hideous Strength, that throughout history the good becomes better and the bad becomes worse: the possibility of neutrality disappears with increasing rapidity and stark decisions must be made. Perhaps Gen Z will embody both the light and the darkness with sharper distinction than generations gone by.

For me, the critical question is: What about the Church? Will we now give up all vestiges of neutrality, apathy, silence, and present a clear, bold, gracious witness for life?

There have been laudable efforts by select voices in the wilderness over the last few decades but in all honesty, the pro-life movement in Great Britain is yet to truly begin.

Perhaps this vote is the shock we need to finally get going.