Richard Hays points out that the Bible contains no texts about abortion.  Those texts which are claimed to be pertinent to the question (Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17; Ex 21:22-25; Psa 139:13-16; Lk 1:44; Gal 5:20 and Mt 19:14) are more or less irrelevant.

However, a broader survey on the biblical material relating to pregnancy and childbearing would yield the following conclusion:

‘Children are a great blessing from God, and childlessness a terrible affliction. Children are seen as a guarantee of posterity and as a source of economic blessing and security.’

To cite just one example:

127:3 Yes, sons are a gift from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb is a reward.
127:4 Sons born during one’s youth
are like arrows in a warrior’s hand.
127:5 How blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!
They will not be put to shame when they confront enemies at the city gate.

(Psa 125:3-5)

There are numerous accounts of women praying for, and giving thanks for, the birth of children (e.g. Gen. 21:6–7, 1 Sam. 1–2, Luke 1).  No text represents pregnancy as a problem.

Scripture thus:

‘portrays a world in which abortion would be not so much immoral as unthinkable or unintelligible.’

More broadly:

(a) Scripture affirms that God is the creator and author of all life.  John’s prologue bring the role of the Logos into the picture:

‘All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.  In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.’ (Jn 1:3f)

Hays observes:

‘Wherever new life begins to develop in any pregnancy, the creative power of God is at work, and Jesus Christ, who was the original agent of creation, has already died for the redemption of the incipient life in utero.’

Again:

‘As God’s creatures, we are stewards who bear life in trust. To terminate a pregnancy is not only to commit an act of violence but also to assume responsibility for destroying a work of God, “from whom are all things and for whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8:6).’

Hays adds, significantly:

‘To put the matter in these terms does not presume any particular decision about when the fetus becomes a “person.” Whether we accord “personhood” to the unborn child or not, he or she is a manifestation of new life that has come forth from God.’

In the thought world of the Bible, the normal response to pregnancy is one of rejoicing – even if the pregnancy was unexpected.

We are God’s creatures:

‘We neither create ourselves nor belong to ourselves. Within this worldview, abortion—whether it be “murder” or not—is wrong for the same reason that murder and suicide are wrong: it presumptuously assumes authority to dispose of life that does not belong to us.’

(b) Moreover, there are within the pages of the NT a number of paradigms that illuminate the issue.

In the story of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37), Jesus gives his response to the question : ‘Who is my neighbour?’  But, rather than providing a boundaried definition of ‘neighbour’ our Lord turns the question around, not only by including the despised Samaritan in the category of ‘neighbour’ but also by answering it in terms of who shows (rather than who receives) mercy.

‘How does this story illuminate the issue of abortion? The point is not that the unborn child is by definition a “neighbor.” Rather, the point is that we are called upon to become neighbors to those who are helpless, going beyond conventional conceptions of duty to provide life-sustaining aid to those whom we might not have regarded as worthy of our compassion. Such a standard would apply both to the mother in a “crisis pregnancy” and to her unborn child. When we ask, “Is the fetus a person?” we are asking the same sort of limiting, self-justifying question that the lawyer asked Jesus: “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus, by answering the lawyer’s question with this parable, rejects casuistic attempts to circumscribe our moral concern by defining the other as belonging to a category outside the scope of our obligation. To define the unborn child as a nonperson is to narrow the scope of moral concern, whereas Jesus calls upon us to widen it by showing mercy and actively intervening on behalf of the helpless. The Samaritan is a paradigm of love that goes beyond ordinary obligation and thus creates a neighbor relation where none existed before. The concluding word of the parable addresses us all: “Go and do likewise.” What would it mean for our decisions about abortion if we did indeed take the Samaritan as a paradigm?’

In the account of the Jerusalem community soon after Pentecost (Acts 4:32-35) the church witnesses to the power of the Resurrection by the practices of sharing and caring for the needy within the community.  This suggests that, within the church, there should be no justification for abortion on economic grounds or because of the mother’s inability to care for the child.  Moreover, the church must not only share its resources but also call its men to accountability.  Indeed:

‘The fact that abortion is usually treated as a “women’s issue” shows how disastrously the general culture has allowed males to abdicate responsibility for children…A man who has fathered an unborn child should be required and helped, within the fellowship of the church, to take responsibility for supporting the pregnant woman both emotionally and financially and to assume continuing responsibility for the child after its birth.’

Moreover:

‘The community of faith should provide whatever support is necessary for both man and woman to assume their roles as parents. This would entail not only financial support but also the support of friendship, counsel, and prayer. If the church seriously adopted the paradigm of Acts 4:32–35 as a model for its life, many of the usual arguments for abortion would fall away.’

In its teaching on the imitation of Christ (Rom 15:1–7; 1 Cor 11:1; Gal 6:2; Phil 2:1–13), the church is called up to give up its self-defined freedoms in order to serve others – especially the weak.  Among other things, this means that we should welcome children – both born and unborn – even when this is difficult and may cause severe hardship.  And this call to imitate Christ as addressed, not just to individual women, but to the entire community of faith.

‘This is what it would mean to “welcome one another…just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7). Such a sacrificial welcome must be extended not only to the child but also to the mother in a crisis pregnancy; she should not be left alone to deal with her decision and its consequences. The community must welcome her, bear her burden, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:1–2). If it were so, there would almost never be any need for a Christian woman to seek an abortion.’

Hays cites the following -real-life example:

‘William H. Willimon tells the story of a group of ministers debating the morality of abortion. One of the ministers argues that abortion is justified in some cases because young teenage girls cannot possibly be expected to raise children by themselves. But a black minister, the pastor of a large African American congregation, takes the other side of the question. “We have young girls who have this happen to them. I have a fourteen year old in my congregation who had a baby last month. We’re going to baptize the child next Sunday,” he added. “Do you really think that she is capable of raising a little baby?” another minister asked. “Of course not,” he replied. No fourteen year old is capable of raising a baby. For that matter, not many thirty year olds are qualified. A baby’s too difficult for any one person to raise by herself.” “So what do you do with babies?” they asked. “Well, we baptize them so that we all raise them together. In the case of that fourteen year old, we have given her baby to a retired couple who have enough time and enough wisdom to raise children. They can then raise the mama along with her baby. That’s the way we do it.”’

Hays, Richard B.  The Moral Vision of the New Testament. HarperOne. Kindle Edition.  Chapter 18.