The next six segments will continue this critical examination, relying on the work of Randy Alcorn, a tireless advocate for the unborn. This section lays out common pro-choice arguments and responds with evidence-based and ethical reasoning, revealing the inconsistencies and moral bankruptcy at the heart of these positions.
1. “It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.”
a. If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.
b. Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.
c. Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception.
d. Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.
e. The possibility of human cloning does nothing to discredit the fact that all humans conceived in the conventional manner began their lives at conception.
This is a sensitive and complex issue, and it's understandable why people feel conflicted. However, if there is any uncertainty about when human life begins, shouldn't we err on the side of preserving life? Medical textbooks and leading scientific authorities consistently agree that human life begins at conception, which is why many scientists, including those who have testified before the U.S. Senate, affirm this with confidence. While the question of when life begins may have personal or religious connotations, the scientific evidence is clear: from conception, a new human life has started.
---
2. “The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix.”
a. A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from the mother’s.
b. The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals.
c. The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth.
d. Being inside something is not the same as being part of something.
e. Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence.
It’s common to hear this comparison, but it’s important to understand that a fetus is unique from the mother in fundamental ways. For instance, the fetus has its own distinct genetic code, separate from the mother’s, and can live or die independently of her. This indicates that while the unborn baby is inside the mother’s body, it is a separate and distinct individual. No one should be discriminated against based on where they live, even if their temporary home is the womb.
---
3. “The unborn is an embryo or a fetus—just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception—not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.”
a. Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.
b. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.
c. From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple, but very complex.
d. Prior to the earliest abortions, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have.
e. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves.
f. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance.
g. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is—a human being.
h. No matter how much better it sounds, “terminating a pregnancy” is still terminating a life.
It’s completely understandable to want to use language that softens what is happening, but semantics don’t change the reality. Terms like “embryo” and “fetus” are simply stages of development, much like “toddler” or “adolescent.” From the moment of conception, a human being begins to develop, and even at the earliest stages, this new life is complex and rapidly forming all the parts it will ever need. Every abortion stops a beating heart, and no matter how we phrase it, the termination of a pregnancy is still the ending of a human life.
---
4. “The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one; it’s like a blueprint, not a house; an acorn, not an oak tree.”
a. The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the concept is, neither is an independent entity.
b. The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life, but of an actual life.
c. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.
d. Comparing preborns and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading.
e. Even if the analogy were valid, scientifically speaking, an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person.
While eggs and sperm are indeed living cells, they are each a part of a parent’s body, unlike the embryo, which is a completely independent entity from the moment of conception. After an abortion, what remains is not just a collection of cells, but the remains of a developing human being. Something nonhuman does not become human just by growing bigger or older; it must be human from the beginning. The analogy to acorns and oak trees is a powerful one: an acorn is simply a small oak tree, and an embryo is simply a little person.
---
5. “The unborn isn’t a person, with meaningful life. It’s only inches in size and can’t even think; it’s less advanced than an animal, and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals?”
a. Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.
b. Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.
c. The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.
d. It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies.
e. If the unborn’s value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals.
f. Even if someone believes that people are no better than animals, why would they abhor the killing of young animals, while advocating the killing of young children?
g. It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.
h. Arguments against the personhood of the unborn are shrouded in rationalization and denial.
Personhood is not about size, skill, or the ability to think. Personhood is defined by our humanity, and from the moment of conception, the unborn is a member of the human species. It’s also important to note that unborn babies can exhibit signs of thought, movement, and response, even before they are born. If we start to determine the value of a human life based on intelligence, ability, or development, we risk opening the door to discrimination against those who are vulnerable or disabled. All human life, regardless of its stage of development, is valuable.
---
6. “A fetus isn’t a person until implantation… or until quickening or viability or when it first breathes.”
a. Implantation is a gauge of personhood only if location, nutrition, and interfacing with others make us human.
b. Quickening is a gauge of personhood only if someone’s reality or value depends upon being noticed by another.
c. Viability is an arbitrary concept. Why not associate personhood with heartbeat, brain waves, or something else?
d. The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually, babies may be viable from the point of conception.
e. In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others.
f. A child’s “breathing,” her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth.
g. Someone’s helplessness or dependency should motivate us to protect her, not to destroy her.
Determining personhood based on when a baby implants, moves, or becomes viable is an arbitrary line to draw. Implantation is simply a matter of location; quickening depends on when the mother feels the baby move; and viability is tied to medical technology, not the baby’s own humanity. Viability changes as technology advances, and one day, babies may be viable from conception. If we base personhood on these factors, we would also have to question the worth of born people who are dependent on others for survival, such as infants or those with disabilities.
---
7. “Obviously life begins at birth. That’s why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and why we don’t have funerals following miscarriages.”
a. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
b. Some people do have funerals after a miscarriage.
c. Funerals are an expression of our subjective attachment to those who have died, not a measurement of their true worth.
d. There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.
While it’s true that we celebrate birthdays, this is more of a cultural tradition than a scientific or moral statement about when life begins. Many families who experience the tragedy of miscarriage do, in fact, hold funerals or other commemorations for their lost child, acknowledging that life was present even before birth. The act of being born doesn’t fundamentally change a baby; they are the same person moments before birth as they are moments after.
---
8. “No one can really know that human life begins before birth.”
a. Children know that human life begins before birth.
b. Pregnant women know that human life begins before birth.
c. Doctors know that human life begins before birth.
d. Abortionists know that human life begins before birth.
e. Pro-choice feminists know that human life begins before birth.
f. Society knows that human life begins before birth.
g. The media knows that human life begins before birth.
h. Pro-choice advocates know that human life begins before birth.
i. If we can’t know that human life begins before birth, how can we know whether it begins at birth or later?
In reality, people do know that life begins before birth, whether it’s the children who talk to their mothers’ bellies, the pregnant women who feel their babies move, or the doctors who witness the heartbeat and development of the fetus. Even those who perform abortions or advocate for choice know that life begins before birth—it’s evident in the way they talk about pregnancies. If we deny that human life begins before birth, it becomes difficult to draw any firm line afterward. When do we truly begin to value life?
For More information: Click
Comments