Applying what Scripture says about the sanctity of human life makes sense to us, but what about others? The sacred value of human life applies universally whether one believes in God or not. So, if the sanctity of human life is universal and not just for Christians, is there a way of defending it in terms that do not get dismissed by secularists as narrowly theological and thus irrelevant to public policy? Evangelicals have been doing this by appealing to a commonly held sense of human dignity obligating everyone to respect the personhood of everyone else. But defending the sanctity of human life by arguing personhood without shared faith in God is hardly ever effective, because it is impossible to change how nonbelievers view personhood when deeply committed to justifying abortion. Most cling to developmental thinking because it justifies the outcome they desire, and for that reason, relying on personhood to defend life in public policy matters usually ends in a draw with no one changing his or her mind. But there is a more effective way to advance the sanctity of human life in nontheological terms, and that is by approaching it without mentioning personhood at all the way God does in the Bible. Ironically, defending the sanctity of human life this way is both more biblical and more persuasive in nontheological terms. The essential personhood approach is factually true, and we must continue affirming it. But it also turns out there is a better chance of changing how nonbelievers in secular society view defending human life if we instead focus on general obligation to protect innocent human life. This paper will look at what makes this approach more biblical and will explain what makes it a more effective way to defend the sanctity of human life in nontheological arenas.