Those who accept the positions of FOR-life and FOR-choice do so from a fundamentally religious point of view. Many in this fierce debate say that their views are not motivated by any form of religion and share their "neutral" position.
Such a statement on the surface seems true until we check that the FOR-life and ZA-choice positions are not just about who can shout louder or be more committed to their cause. The claims of each country presuppose a view as well as a basis for ethics.
What is a human being? How should we treat other human beings? Does life have an inherent moral value and if so, where or from whom? The Christian responds that the Triune God is the Creator of all life and that we (including the unborn child) are created in His image. He realizes that this same God gives us the self-awareness of how we should treat one another, pointing to God's law that commands us not to kill.
These are the same questions that the secularist or atheist FOR choice offers answers to. What is different is not only the answers, but also the consequences that come from the way we answer these questions. But the point is that no position is non-religious. He who is FOR choice simply motivates his faith from an evolutionary point of view, which presupposes the natural world as supreme. Therefore, there is no God, no absolute standards of morality, and no arguments as to why we should not tear our children to pieces for the sake of convenience. Again, it is important to consider the consequences. Both sides set out an ideology that represents social order.
For the adherents of life, the fatal mistake comes in denying or temporarily rejecting our religious pre-commitments in order to look "non-aggressive." Instead, we argue pragmatically, talking about the negative consequences of abortion because it is related to a woman's health, or the scientific certainty that demonstrates that life begins at conception. As important as these arguments are, many of the ZA-choices are already accepting them, and yet they retain their position. This often baffles Christians who cannot understand why they could still stand their ground.
The reason is that such arguments are ineffective in dealing with what is ultimately a heart problem, that is, a deeply held religious commitment to the will of man as an absolute authority that cannot be touched. It is beyond good and evil and is not under the transcendent law. Such a position is not reached through scientific research or intellectual reasoning. This is a position of rebellion against God and is therefore the fruit of a sinful heart, a darkened heart, a symptom that you are the son or daughter of Adam. They are evidence that someone is in the flesh, hostile to God's law and truly incapable of obeying it.
Matthew 15: 18-20
„18 And that which proceedeth out of the mouth cometh out of the heart, and defileth the man.
19 Because from the heart arise evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
20 These are the things that defile man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile him.
Therefore, the answer to this conundrum is not to deny our Christian commitments as adherents of life, but rather to assert ourselves in them and speak of the problem of the heart by speaking the truth in the Word, rather than appealing to the fallen intellect with our clever arguments. .
The gospel message is God's power of salvation and the only hope. It is an invitation for men and women to forsake sin and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. We do not win this battle without God's Word, but instead we see victory as we stand on the truth of its content and, if God wills, we will continue to see more lives preserved in the process.
English 
Bulgarian