Few facts more starkly illustrate Christianity's moral revolution than its campaign against infanticide. In the ancient world, unwanted babies were routinely exposed to die—left on hillsides, in dumps, or by rivers to perish from the elements, animals, or starvation. This was legal, common, and morally uncontroversial. Christianity changed that. By declaring that every human life bears God's image from conception, Christianity gradually made infanticide unthinkable in Western civilization. This transformation reveals both the radical nature of Christian ethics and the fragility of moral progress when its foundations are forgotten.
Infanticide in the Ancient World
To understand Christianity's impact, we must first understand what it was up against. Infanticide was not a marginal practice in the ancient world—it was mainstream, practiced by the most civilized societies.
Greece
In ancient Greece, infanticide was widely practiced and philosophically defended. Plato, in The Republic, recommended that the state control reproduction and that defective children be exposed. Aristotle, in Politics, argued that deformed children should be exposed rather than raised. This wasn't the view of a radical fringe; it was the position of antiquity's greatest philosophers.
Sparta was particularly notorious. All newborns were examined by elders; those deemed weak or deformed were thrown into a pit called the Apothetae. This was not hidden or shameful—it was official state policy, considered essential for producing strong warriors.
Rome
Roman law granted the paterfamilias (the male head of household) absolute authority over his children, including the right to kill them. When a child was born, it was laid at the father's feet. If he picked it up, it was accepted into the family. If he refused, it was exposed.
Exposure was the standard method. Unwanted babies were taken to designated places and abandoned. Some died; others were collected by slave traders or brothel owners. A letter from Roman Egypt, dated 1 BC, perfectly captures the casual attitude: A husband writes to his wife, "If you have the baby before I return, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it." This was not cruelty by ancient standards—it was normal family planning.
Girls were especially vulnerable. The Roman preference for sons meant that daughters were far more likely to be exposed. Archaeological evidence suggests significant gender imbalances in the Roman world, partly explained by selective female infanticide.
The Letter of Hilarion
"Hilarion to his sister Alis, many greetings... If—good luck to you!—you bear a child, if it is a boy let it live; if it is a girl, expose it." This letter, discovered in an Egyptian rubbish heap, dates to 1 BC. Its casual tone reveals how unremarkable infanticide was. No shame, no hesitation—just practical instruction. This was the moral world into which Christianity came.
Other Cultures
Infanticide was not uniquely Greco-Roman. It was practiced in ancient China, Japan, India, and among many indigenous peoples around the world. The killing or exposure of unwanted infants—especially girls, the disabled, or children born under bad omens—was nearly universal in pre-Christian and non-Christian societies.
This universality is significant. Infanticide wasn't an aberration; it was humanity's default. The value we place on infant life today is the aberration—historically speaking. And that aberration is Christianity's doing.
The Jewish and Christian Response
Against this backdrop, the Jewish and Christian prohibition of infanticide was revolutionary.
Jewish Teaching
The Hebrew Scriptures provided the foundation. Human life is sacred because humans bear God's image. Children are gifts from the Lord (Psalm 127:3), not disposable property. The law prohibited murder without exception for infants. Jewish communities in the Greco-Roman world were known for not practicing exposure—a distinction that pagan writers sometimes noted with curiosity or contempt.
Early Christian Teaching
Christianity built on Jewish foundations and made the prohibition even more explicit. The Didache (late first or early second century), one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament, states plainly: "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." This instruction appears alongside prohibitions against murder, theft, and adultery—basic moral requirements for all Christians.
The Epistle of Barnabas (early second century) similarly commands: "Do not murder a child by abortion, or commit infanticide." The Letter to Diognetus (second century) notes that Christians "marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring."
The early church fathers consistently condemned infanticide:
Tertullian (c. 155-240): "For us, since murder is forbidden, it is not permitted to destroy what is conceived in the womb... To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or interferes with it while it is coming to birth."
Lactantius (c. 250-325): "It is as wicked to expose as it is to kill... If anyone is unable to bring up children because of poverty, it is better to abstain from marriage than to ruin the work of God with wicked hands."
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379): "Those who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves, as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus."
"Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him."
— Psalm 127:3
Christian Practice
Christians didn't just condemn infanticide—they actively rescued and cared for abandoned children.
Rescuing the Exposed
Early Christians would go to the places where babies were exposed and rescue them. These children were either adopted into Christian families or raised by the church community. This practice was well-known enough that critics mocked Christians for it—apparently unable to understand why anyone would bother saving discarded babies.
The church organized this care systematically. Widows and deaconesses often took lead roles in caring for foundlings. Churches developed networks for placing rescued children with families. This grassroots rescue operation was one of Christianity's distinctive practices in the ancient world.
Caring for the Vulnerable
Beyond rescue, Christians developed institutions to care for vulnerable children. The first orphanages were Christian foundations. Hospitals—another Christian innovation—cared for sick children who might otherwise be abandoned. The church created a social infrastructure of care that the pagan world lacked.
This wasn't charity in the modern sense of optional good deeds. It was Christian duty—an expression of love for those made in God's image, a practical application of Jesus's teaching that whatever was done for "the least of these" was done for Him.
The Impact of Numbers
Sociologist Rodney Stark has argued that Christianity's opposition to infanticide contributed to its numerical growth. By not exposing children (especially girls), Christian families were larger. By rescuing exposed children and raising them as Christians, the church grew. Women, who were more likely to be exposed as infants and more likely to be converted as adults, found in Christianity a community that valued them. The pro-life ethic was not only morally right—it was demographically successful.
Legal and Cultural Transformation
As Christianity grew in influence, it transformed laws and cultural norms.
Constantine's Reforms
When Constantine legalized Christianity (AD 313) and became its patron, Christian influence on law increased. In AD 315, Constantine issued a decree providing state funds to support poor families so they wouldn't need to expose children. This was a remarkable innovation—using public resources to prevent infanticide.
In AD 318, Constantine made the killing of a child by its father a crime punishable by death. This was a direct assault on the Roman tradition of paternal power over life and death. The father no longer had absolute authority; the child had rights against even its own parent.
Subsequent Legislation
Later Christian emperors continued the work. In AD 374, Valentinian I explicitly criminalized infanticide, stating that all parents who exposed infants would be subject to the law. In AD 529, Justinian's Code confirmed that exposed children were free persons, not slaves—an important reform given that many exposed children had been collected for slavery.
The legal transformation was gradual and imperfect. Infanticide didn't disappear overnight. But the trajectory was clear: what had been legal became criminal; what had been normal became shameful; what had been unremarkable became murder.
Cultural Shift
More important than laws was the change in moral consciousness. Christianity didn't just criminalize infanticide—it made it morally unthinkable. Generations raised with the imago Dei couldn't imagine discarding babies. The practice that had been universal became, in Christian cultures, almost unimaginable.
This cultural transformation is profound. We take it for granted that babies deserve protection. But this conviction came from somewhere—and that somewhere is Christianity. We are the heirs of a moral revolution we barely recognize.
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."
— Matthew 18:10
The Fragility of Progress
The victory over infanticide, however remarkable, is not irreversible. When the foundations are forgotten, the progress built on them becomes vulnerable.
Abortion and Infanticide Today
The modern West has re-embraced the killing of children before birth through abortion. While most still distinguish between abortion and infanticide, the line is philosophically unstable. Some ethicists—Peter Singer most famously—have argued that if abortion is permissible, infanticide should be too. After all, a newborn has no more self-awareness or autonomy than a late-term fetus.
Singer's logic is impeccable if you accept his premises. If dignity depends on capacities (self-awareness, rationality, preferences), then newborns lack dignity as much as fetuses do. Only the Christian premise—that dignity is intrinsic, based on the imago Dei—provides a consistent basis for protecting all human life, including infants.
Euthanasia of Infants
In some countries, euthanasia of severely disabled newborns is now practiced. The Netherlands' Groningen Protocol, established in 2004, provides guidelines for ending the lives of infants with severe disabilities. Belgium extended its euthanasia law to include minors in 2014.
This is, functionally, a return to ancient practices—killing infants deemed unfit to live. The grounds have shifted from economic convenience to compassionate mercy, but the result is the same: some lives are judged not worth living, and those in power decide who lives and who dies.
The Loss of Foundation
As Western culture abandons Christian foundations, it loses the basis for its convictions. Why is human life sacred? Why should the weak be protected? Why shouldn't parents decide whether their children are worth raising? Without the imago Dei, these questions have no compelling answers.
We may be witnessing the early stages of a moral regression—a return toward pre-Christian norms. The progress Christianity achieved is not self-sustaining. It requires the foundation that generated it. Remove the foundation, and the structure eventually crumbles.
Peter Singer's Challenge
Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argues that "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." This sounds monstrous—and it is. But it's also logically consistent if you reject the imago Dei. Without inherent human dignity, worth is measured by capacities, and animals with higher capacities deserve more protection than humans with lower ones. Singer forces us to see where secular premises lead.
The Apologetic Significance
The history of infanticide provides powerful apologetic material.
Christianity's Moral Contribution
When critics claim Christianity has been a force for evil in history, the abolition of infanticide is a devastating counterexample. Christianity took a universal practice—killing unwanted babies—and made it unthinkable. This is moral progress on a civilizational scale, achieved by Christians applying Christian principles.
The Foundation Question
When secular people express horror at infanticide (as most do), ask them: Why is it wrong? What makes infant life valuable? If they appeal to human dignity, ask where that dignity comes from. Push gently on their assumptions, and you'll often find they've borrowed Christian premises without realizing it.
The Stakes Today
Point out that the consensus against infanticide is historically unusual and philosophically vulnerable. If dignity depends on capacities, infanticide becomes defensible. If we're just evolved animals, why should infant life be sacred? The ongoing protection of newborns depends on convictions that Christianity provides and secularism struggles to ground.
A Conversation Approach
"Did you know that infanticide was legal and common throughout the ancient world? Greeks, Romans, and virtually every other culture practiced it. What changed? Christianity. Christians taught that every human being—including infants—bears God's image and deserves protection. They rescued abandoned babies, created orphanages, and eventually changed the laws. We take it for granted that babies matter, but that conviction came from somewhere. It came from the Christian belief in human dignity. Take that belief away, and I'm not sure the protection of infants can be sustained."
Conclusion: A Legacy to Preserve
The abolition of infanticide is one of Christianity's greatest gifts to humanity. Against the universal practice of the ancient world, Christians declared that every infant bears God's image—that the newborn has the same dignity as the emperor, that the disabled child deserves life as much as the healthy one. This conviction transformed laws, institutions, and moral consciousness.
But this legacy is not self-perpetuating. It depends on the conviction that generated it. As Western culture abandons Christian foundations, the protection of infant life becomes vulnerable. Already we see the edges fraying—abortion nearly universal, infanticide openly defended by some philosophers, euthanasia of disabled newborns practiced in some countries.
The church's task is both to proclaim the truth and to preserve the practice. Every infant is made in God's image. Every infant deserves protection. This is not culture-bound preference but objective truth—as true in the first century as in the twenty-first, as true in Rome as in New York.
The ancient world learned to value infant life because Christians taught them. If the modern world forgets, perhaps Christians will need to teach them again. The image of God in the smallest and most vulnerable must be defended—or the darkness returns.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart."
— Jeremiah 1:5
Discussion Questions
- How does learning about the prevalence of infanticide in the ancient world change your perspective on Christianity's moral contribution to civilization?
- The lesson argues that the protection of infant life depends on the Christian doctrine of imago Dei. Do you agree? How might a secular person try to ground infant protection, and is that grounding adequate?
- What connections do you see between ancient infanticide and modern practices like abortion or euthanasia of disabled newborns? How might you discuss these connections with someone who supports abortion but opposes infanticide?
Discussion Questions
- How does learning about the prevalence of infanticide in the ancient world change your perspective on Christianity's moral contribution to civilization?
- The lesson argues that the protection of infant life depends on the Christian doctrine of imago Dei. Do you agree? How might a secular person try to ground infant protection, and is that grounding adequate?
- What connections do you see between ancient infanticide and modern practices like abortion or euthanasia of disabled newborns? How might you discuss these connections with someone who supports abortion but opposes infanticide?