The Wisdom of C.S. Lewis on Abortion and Pro-Life Efforts

By: Megan Rials, JD, originally published October 12, 2025, Sebastian’s Point

C.S. Lewis, the most prominent Christian apologist of the 20th century, commented on many moral ills and societal issues. Contemporary Christians regularly turn to his writings for commentary on various issues related to theology and apologetics, but those looking for his thoughts on one main prominent scourge of modern society, abortion, will find no help in his mainstream published work. He never offered specific public commentary on the subject, which is likely due to the fact that abortion was not legalized in England until 1968, and Lewis passed on November 22, 1963. In a private letter, however, he stated,

It is certainly not wrong to try to remove the natural consequences of sin provided the means by which you remove them are not in themselves another sin. (E.g. it is merciful and Christian to remove the natural consequences of fornication by giving the girl a bed in a maternity ward and providing for the child’s keep and education, but wrong to remove them by abortion or infanticide.)[i]

One of Lewis’s stepsons, Douglas Gresham, confirmed how strongly Lewis would feel about our culture’s casual treatment of the mass slaughter of infants that modern societal sanction of abortion has produced:

I am convinced that if C.S. Lewis were alive today, he would think he had died and was living in Hell. And it’s our fault. If you presented Jack [Lewis’s nickname] with a world in which 60 million children are murdered before they have a chance to be born, he would be absolutely horrified… I don’t like to think what Jack would feel about today’s world. And I think the apathy of many of us Christians would horrify him equally.[ii]

The next logical question would be to inquire into when Lewis believed life began. Although there is no evidence that Lewis ever commented on that specific question, he offered the following commentary:

In a normal act of generation the father has no creative function. A microscopic particle of matter from his body, and a microscopic particle from the woman’s body, meet. … The human father is merely an instrument…always the last in a long line of carriers.  That line is in God’s hand.  It is the instrument by which He normally creates man…no woman ever conceived a child…without Him.[iii]​

Implicit in Lewis’s thoughts here is the idea that life begins at fertilization, when the “microscopic particle[s]” of the genetic material of a man and woman meet. But without specific further commentary from Lewis on abortion and the politics relating to abortion, can we as Christians seeking to promote the pro-life position still draw from his wisdom?

As a Lewis scholar, I believe the answer is a resounding yes. Lewis referred to the work of the homemaker as being “the most important work in the world,” noting, “We wage war in order to have peace, we work in order to have leisure, we produce food in order to eat it.  So your job is the one for which all others exist.”[iv] The only logical conclusion is that Lewis would have enthusiastically embraced the pro-life position.

Although I do not dare to speculate on what Lewis would have believed and recommended with respect to specific political strategies and policies about abortion had he lived today (assuming he would have ventured to offer public commentary), I believe we can apply his general wisdom to an area of abortion jurisprudence and legislation that is currently hampering the efforts of the pro-life movement: the widespread availability of the abortion pill even in states that have banned abortions. Although in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the “right” to abortion established in  Roe v. Wade  and allowed to continue in  Planned Parenthood v. Casey , loopholes nevertheless exist.  In 2000, the FDA approved a two-step, chemical abortion process, which involves the mother first taking a drug called mifepristone to stop hormones from reaching the uterus, then within 48 hours, taking a second drug called misoprostol to induce contractions.[v]  In 2016, the FDA expanded this process to allow for abortion up to 70 days, or from seven weeks’ gestation to 10 weeks.[vi]  In 2016, the FDA also relaxed the number of required doctor’s visits from three to one.[vii]  In 2019, the FDA then approved a generic form of mifepristone (marketed as Mifeprex), and in 2021, removed a significant barrier to the drug’s prescription by no longer requiring that mifepristone be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, such that it became available via telehealth visits and mail.[viii]

In June 2022, however, the Supreme Court of the United States in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization  overturned the “right” to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and allowed to continue in  Planned Parenthood v. Casey , and allowed each individual state to vote and decide on the legality of abortion for itself.[ix]  The logical conclusion would be to assume that Dobbs halted the use of mifepristone in states opposing abortion, but such has been far from the case because of two key stumbling blocks.

First, in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine , the Supreme Court created a loophole that allows mifepristone to continue to be prescribed.[x]  Although the technicalities of the opinion are beyond the scope of this piece, the Supreme Court refused to address the substance of the issue by punting on a legal technicality: that the plaintiffs, a group of pro-life doctors, did not have “standing,” or the legal right, to challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, as the Court found they had not suffered a direct injury from such, as the doctors did not either prescribe or use the drug themselves.  The Supreme Court thus dodged a prime opportunity to strike down the FDA’s approval of mifepristone in light of its own decision in Dobbs striking down abortion as a constitutional right.

The second stumbling block is the existence of so-called “shield laws” that states in favor of abortion have enacted to protect their own resident doctors when they prescribe abortion pills to be mailed to women living in pro-life states.  Although their exact content differs from state to state, generally, shield laws purport to allow the shielding state to refuse to comply with the extradition order from another state for a doctor who has provided abortion care that is legal in the shielding state, to refuse to participate in the prosecuting state’s investigation into the doctor, and to refuse to professionally discipline the doctor.[xi]

The end result is that mifepristone and the “abortion pill” are still available, which creates significant loopholes to the full enforcement of  Dobbs  and restrictions on abortion.  Tragically, abortion rates have actually increased since the  Dobbs  opinion was issued, and as of 2023, chemical abortions now account for almost two-thirds of abortions.[xii]  In Texas alone, telehealth medication-induced abortions have increased since Dobbs was decided, with an average of approximately 3,500 medication-induced abortions per month reported in the last quarter of 2024.[xiii]

For Christians, what is the proper response to these issues? As Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, “[P]rogress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man…. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake.”[xiv]  In light of Lewis’s wisdom, Christians must focus on closing the abortion-pill loophole to Dobbs.  There are several practical steps Christians can take to address these issues.

First, with respect to the FDA, public comments are always allowed when the FDA publishes proposed regulations.  Should the FDA modify any regulations with respect to mifepristone, Christians should prepare to submit public comments online to voice disapproval of the drug and the abortion pill.  Christians can also submit a “Citizen Petition” to the FDA to take specific action with respect to the abortion pill, though this process is lengthier and more regulation-riddled. 

The more likely battleground, however, for the fight with respect to the abortion pill is the courtroom.  The legal questions that shield laws raise are already heading to the courts, as the case of Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who is facing injunctions from the Texas Attorney General and criminal indictments in Louisiana for prescribing the abortion pill to women in Texas and Louisiana, illustrates.[xv]  These laws raise many constitutional questions, including those related to the Extradition Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause because the laws of shield states and pro-life states necessarily conflict, as well as related state sovereignty questions.  These cases are bound to involve religious liberty organizations such as the  Becket Fund, the  American Center for Law and Justice, and  First Liberty  in their fight for religious freedom.  To this end, Christians should support the filing of amicus briefs and these organizations.  Christian lawyers can also contribute pro bono work and amicus briefs themselves.

In conclusion, though, as Lewis writes in his seminal work  Mere Christianity , we must imagine ourselves as a “living house” that God has come to rebuild.[xvi] God first begins with small tasks: fixing drains, stopping up leaks, but He soon progresses to more painful repairs.[xvii]  According to Lewis, “The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of—throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards.  You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace.  He intends to come and live in it Himself.”[xviii]

As with the individual person, so with culture, for as the Greeks well knew, the polis is only man writ large: turning the societal tide begins with the smallest unit.  For all the importance of the foregoing legal analysis, Lewis would first encourage us to remember the girl who needs a maternity bed, the child who needs a home and an education.  We cannot expect to shift our legal landscape and entire culture if we forget to help the least of these in our midst.  Our efforts must be predicated on helping those affected most by unexpected pregnancies through crisis pregnancy centers and our personal efforts.  Lewis distinguished between “nice people” with pleasant personalities and manners from the “new men” redeemed and remade into God’s own sons and daughters.[xix]  In the fight to protect and preserve life, will we prove ourselves to be only nice people who parrot the right political talking points or new men ready to pay the costs of the renovations God seeks to make in our culture?

Megan Rials, JD, is an author, literary scholar, and poet with a Master of Arts in Apologetics.

References: Society of St. Sebastian.

The post The Wisdom of C.S. Lewis on Abortion and Pro-Life Efforts appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.