There are many slogans that get heralded by those trying to protect abortion “rights” in America.
“My body. My Choice.”
“No womb? No opinion!”
“Abortion is healthcare.”
“Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor.”
“No more unwanted children!”
“A woman shouldn’t have to carry her abuser’s child!”
There are plenty more slogans like these and numerous variations of the ones above. Nonetheless, every single argument for abortion I have ever heard is a red herring. That is to say, every argument for abortion completely misses the only point that is really relevant to the debate. One question, and one question only, matters when deciding whether abortion ought to be either morally permissible or legal.
Here is the question: “What is the unborn?”
The answer to that question is what determines not only the verdict of the abortion debate but also whether there really even needs to be a debate. If the unborn is a human person then no justification for an abortion is sufficient. If the unborn is not a human person then no justification is necessary.1
Simply put we argue the following:
It is morally wrong to terminate the life of an innocent human person.
Abortion terminates the life of an innocent human person.
Therefore abortion is morally wrong.
Again we can argue:
The termination of the life of innocent human person (murder) should be illegal.
Abortion terminates the life of an innocent human person.
Therefore abortion should be illegal.
I offer these two similar arguments because there is indeed a gap between morality and legality. Ideally there are no laws which are not also moral but, in reality, there are many.
Premise 1 of both arguments is rarely challenged by anyone. The conclusion of both arguments is guaranteed by the rules of logic to be true if both the premises are true. So then the whole argument rests on the second premise (which is identical in both arguments). Abortion either terminates the life on an innocent human person or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then carry on. If it does then it is both immoral and ought to be illegal.
So then the case must be made to show what the unborn is. I’ll proceed to that in just a moment. First, however, I want to address anyone who might answer that he or she is simply “unsure.” Perhaps you don’t know whether or not the unborn are human persons, you think it’s possible but you might go either way on it. To you I would say that it is your moral duty to find out the answer before you act in any way. It is certainly your moral duty if you are pregnant and considering an abortion. It is also your duty to find out if you are not pregnant but want to say anything at all about the matter to anyone else. Speaking about such grave issues while ignorant of the facts is a dangerous thing.
An illustration might be useful in thinking about why we have a moral duty to investigate this question before taking any action.
Imagine that you are the foreman on a large demolition project involving explosives. You and your people have set the charges and are ready to bring the building down. Before you trip the explosion you have a very significant moral duty, namely, to make sure no one is left inside the building. It is far from sufficient to say “I am unsure whether anyone is in the building.” One would be criminally negligent if they proceeded with the demolition without having a very high degree of certainty that the building was cleared of all persons!
The abortion question is similar. If you don’t know for sure if anyone is in there (if the unborn in the woman are human persons) then you really have an obligation to figure it out before you flip the switch or encourage anyone else to.
So how might we demonstrate that the unborn are innocent human persons and therefore demonstrate the cogency of both arguments? Well first there must be an acknowledgement of the three terms which have been combined to form the claim that the unborn are 1. Innocent, 2. Human, and 3. Persons.
Innocence: Here this term is being used in a strictly legal sense and not a theological one. The point is that the unborn have committed no crimes. This is really incontestable and doesn’t require a belaboring of the point. I’ll only say that to gain a legal status of guilty, and guilty of something that might forfeit your right to go on living, is well beyond the capacity of an unborn organism of any kind.
Human: This really shouldn’t require much work to establish either. One of the most basic principles of biology is that organisms reproduce after their own kind. A woman who is pregnant is not pregnant with an owl nor a donkey, she is pregnant with something after her own kind. If that is insufficient to make the point then there is genetic testing that can, and has, been done. From the moment of conception there is a genetically human zygote which grows into a human embryo which then becomes a human fetus (I am simply using medical terms here for stages of development). At all points of growth in the womb, from the very beginning, it is a genetically human entity.
Person: This is really the term where the rubber meets the road. Many assume (not altogether unreasonably) that to be human is to be a person. In fact, I think this is true. Nevertheless there has been an attempt to place a wedge between the two terms. I acknowledge that the terms are not identical but I deny that there is ever a living human that is not also a person. The remains of a deceased individual are in fact still human (and deserve respectful treatment on that account) but the personal aspect of that human body has departed upon natural death.2 But from the moment life begins until death occurs, to be human cannot be separated from being a person.
There is a continuity of life in a human being from conception until death. Any distinction that one might try to make so as to say “you can kill a human being at this point of development but not at that point” is completely arbitrary. There are only four things which separate the born and unborn and they can be remembered by the acronym S.L.E.D.
Size: The unborn are smaller, generally, than the born. Although that is not always entirely the case since some children are born at 7 lbs. and others at 10 lbs. (still others born prematurely are significantly smaller than some still in the womb). But what does size have to do with value as a person? Do taller people have more value than shorter one? Perhaps when there is a need to reach the top shelf! But, truly, a 5 year old child is no less of a person than a 12 year old nor is the 12 year old less of a person than the 25 year old though each is generally larger than the former. It doesn’t make much sense to say personhood is in any way connected to size.
Level of Development: Similar, but not exactly the same, is the idea of development. This involves size. As a person develops they do get larger until they reach physical maturity. But this also involves other things like motor skills, speech, ability to reason abstractly, etc. But, again, is the 6 month old less a person because he cannot walk as the 18 month old can? Does the child who cannot yet write have less personhood than the one who is writing his masters thesis? The process of development is continuous from conception and steady throughout life. There is no reason for us to divide one part of development from another as to what constitutes personhood. The continuity of personhood is so real, in fact, that you may refer to yourself as having been a zygote, a fetus, a toddler, an obnoxious teenager, etc. That was all you!
Environment: Location, location, location. That’s what real estate is all about. It has little to do with personhood, though. Inside the womb or out of it, you are the same person. Continuity! What changes about a person just because of their present location? Nothing fundamental about their nature. Why should those who have taken the trip through the birth canal be more of a person than those who haven’t? Presumably most pro-abortion advocates don’t believe in magic and yet this is essentially what they claim when they say things like “It is isn’t a person with rights until birth.” Presto Chango! No. People in palaces and mud huts are still persons and so are people in the womb and out of it.
Degree of Dependency: This is probably the difference that pro-abortion advocates make the most of. The unborn are wholly dependent upon their mothers in the womb. However last time I checked (and I have four kiddos) the 2 year old outside of the womb is still radically dependent upon their mother (At least us dad’s get to be a bit more helpful at that point I admit). But this is besides the point, why should varying degrees of dependency have any effect on the personhood of the individual? Is the teenager more of a person than the 5 year old because he is more independent? Is the 30 year old making a six figure salary more of a person because she doesn’t ever ask for gas money any more? Does grandma lose personhood when she starts becoming more dependent upon her children later in life? Hopefully it is obvious to you that these rhetorical questions are just that, rhetorical. Dependency does not determine personhood or value.3
So, then, none of the differences between the born and unborn constitute a distinction in personhood. So we do have, in fact, innocent human persons in question when we talk about the unborn. So our arguments hold and abortion is immoral and should be illegal.
Now, briefly, back to our slogans we started this article with.
“My body. My Choice.” Sure, but the unborn are not actually your body. They are a distinct human person and not an extension of your body. From conception they have their own unique DNA which is different from your body. They are dependent upon you for existence but then so will they be at 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, etc., at varying degrees. Regardless, we are not just talking about your body, we are talking about someone else’s body and very life.
“No womb? No opinion!” Again, I don’t have an opinion on your womb but I have an opinion about not putting to death innocent human persons which is what the unborn are.
“Abortion is healthcare.” The purpose of healthcare is to preserve and improve the quality of life. By definition abortion terminates human life and therefore is the opposite of healthcare. There is also fair amount of medical evidence that suggests having an abortion is detrimental to the physical and mental health of women.
“Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor.” While the right to privacy of medical information is real and valid, this is insufficient to justify an abortion. We do not have a right to privately take the life of an innocent human person.
“No more unwanted children!” Ideally every child is wanted but is the fact that some parents don’t want their children a sufficient reason to put them to death? Imagine that we solved the orphan problem by exterminating children without parents. If it is wrong to kill a 2 years old or a 15 year old that is not wanted by their parents then it is also wrong to kill an unwanted child still in the womb. They are no less a human person than the born are (as demonstrated above) so this is not a good argument. It’s a great argument for sexual abstinence until you are at a place where you are ready for children but a poor one for killing kids already in existence.
“A woman shouldn’t have to carry her abuser’s child!” This is a common argument in favor of abortion. A couple of things need to be addressed. First, there should be nothing but compassion, empathy, and help for women for whom this is their reality. It would be unbelievably hard to become pregnant because of rape or some other kind of abusive relationship. It does not, however, change the fact that an innocent human person now exists which deserves to keep on living. The child did not do anything wrong and does not deserve to be punished or put to death.4 Secondly, this particular kind of argument is generally used as an emotional smuggling device. Though it is the case that some women really do find themselves in these difficult circumstances it represents a very small percentage of the total pregnancies. If pro-lifers were to concede this argument and offer the concession that abortion should be legal in only these situation the pro-abortion lobby would not be satisfied because they want nothing less than abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. These arguments draw sympathy but they do not draw us to the truth. The truth is that one kind of abuse should never lead to another and abortion is not justified even in these hard circumstances.
Virtually every argument for abortion can be addressed by “trotting out the toddler.” In other words, any situation in which someone proposes “Abortion is justifiable in circumstance X” you should simply substitute the unborn with a toddler. Ask, “Would it be morally permissible to kill a two year old for reason X?” The answer will always be “no.” Then simply remind your friend that there is continuity in personhood and no reasonable distinction between the born and unborn. If it isn’t okay to kill a two year old for reason X then neither is it okay to kill an unborn person for reason X.
I am indebted for this statement, and much of the content of this post, to Scott Klusendorf, founder of Life Training Institute. I am simply passing on what I learned from him and others fighting this good fight and I commend their work to you also.
As a Christian I affirm the importance of the body even after death and I believe in the future resurrection of the dead and reuniting of body and soul in the eternal state.
Sadly, of course, there are those who adopt a “might makes right” utilitarian philosophy. Unborn, even newly born, and grandma, are all subject to execution if they are perceived to become a drain on the “greater good” of their happiness or society. If you reject as a fundamental principle the value of human life then we have to have a different conversation and it probably includes arguments for the existence of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The argument in this article is for people who would say they believe we ought not to take innocent human lives.
In a just society rapists would be put to death and babies protected, sadly our society protects rapists and murderers from the death penalty and supports the execution of unborn children.