Recently, the Supreme Court’s opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to the public. Since that event hit the news, there has been an uptick of pushback on social media from those in the pro-choice camp. Some of the pushback is an argument from women who believe men shouldn’t be involved in making decisions regarding abortion, simply because they’re men. This is an example of poor argumentation I’ve decided to address because it’s so prevalent in our culture at this time.
Saying that men have no right to speak on abortion because of their gender is a weak argument for at least two reasons. First, it does nothing to address the pro-life position these men (and many women) hold to. It is attacking a person rather than refuting his arguments. (This is a logical fallacy known as ‘ad hominem.’) Arguments can be good or bad, but they don’t have gender. Second, this particular argument is not followed consistently by those who use it. The inconsistencies are evident:
The U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade in 1973 were all men. (I don't hear any pro-choice advocates complaining about the decision these men made.)
There are many state legislators who are men in favor of abortion rights. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the power to legislate abortion is returned to the states, these men’s opinions will be very influential in promoting the pro-choice cause. (Will the pro-choice advocates tell them their opinions don’t count because they’re men? I doubt it.)
Women who use slogans like “No uterus, no opinion” more than likely expect to have the right to decide whether their infant sons are circumcised. This would expose yet another inconsistency in their gender-based argument.
A highly emotionally-charged issue like abortion can be difficult to debate without allowing emotions to override clear thinking. An unplanned pregnancy can be devastating. The decision to have an abortion is often an emotionally agonizing situation for women and their families to face. I have friends and loved ones who have been in this situation. I am not trying to minimize the psychological or practical difficulties involved, and I am not condemning any woman who has had an abortion. My goal here is to present sound arguments for protecting the life of the unborn, using scientific evidence and logical reasoning to demonstrate that, morally speaking, elective abortion is objectively wrong.
All the Wrong Questions
There are many questions surrounding the abortion debate: Should abortion be illegal after the first trimester? Should a woman have the right to choose? Should abortion be legal only in instances of rape or incest? Should certain types of abortion be banned?
These and other questions are frequently raised, but they all bypass the most fundamental factor that should be considered. The first and most important question that should be answered is, “What IS the unborn?” If the unborn is not a living, growing human being, there’s nothing to debate. Abortion would need no justification. The only reason abortion is so hotly debated is because the life of an innocent human being is at stake. It is not merely an issue of personal preference or majority opinion.
The Pro-Life Argument
Arguments from pro-life advocates are often dismissed as “merely religious.” While many who defend the sanctity of life do adhere to a religious worldview, the case against abortion can be argued based solely on embryology and philosophy. The philosophy of the pro-life position can be stated this way:
1. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
2. Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.
I have purposely used the terms ‘intentionally’ and ‘elective’ to differentiate between the vast majority of abortions that are performed and those performed to save the life of the mother. In cases where it is impossible to save both the mother and the baby (i.e., ectopic pregnancy), the procedure is not done with the intent to kill the baby, but in order to preserve the mother’s life. This is an important distinction.
What is the Unborn?
Science has taken us beyond the “just a blob of tissue” argument of decades past. Embryologists have affirmed that human development begins at conception. The unborn, even at the single-cell zygote stage, has all the genetic material necessary to become a full-grown adult. A zygote already has human DNA uniquely its own—different than that of either parent. The zygote is the only single human cell that, once formed, initiates a sequence of events for its own continued development and growth. The mother does nothing to activate or guide this sequence. She provides a safe environment and necessary nourishment for this development and growth to occur, just as she will do after her baby is born. This growth, if uninterrupted, advances through all the stages of human development into full maturity. Just as an acorn—the seed of an oak tree—is an immature stage in the life of a tree, a zygote is an immature stage in the life of a human. Both have everything in them they need to become fully mature versions of what they are by nature. They just need enough time, the proper environment, and sufficient nurturing.
Since, as science has clearly demonstrated, the unborn are human beings from the time of fertilization, the abortion issue becomes a matter of when, if ever, it is right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. (One popular argument is that the unborn are only ‘potentially’ human, but this can be adequately refuted with the findings of embryology mentioned above. One could say a newborn is only potentially an adult, but it is still human at every stage of development.) Popular arguments given by pro-choice advocates imply that the unborn are somehow less valuable than those already born. In reality, the only differences between the unborn and the born are her size, stage of development, location, and degree of dependency. The baby in the womb is the same baby after it’s born. There is no magical transformation that occurs during the journey down the birth canal, or during a Cesarean delivery.
When these four criteria—size, stage of development, location, and dependency—are taken into consideration, it’s easier to see why arguments for abortion are based on unjust discrimination against the unborn, and therefore morally wrong. Killing a toddler based on any of these factors would be considered unfathomable; but there’s no difference between the toddler and the fetus she once was that falls into any other category. Taking a human life requires moral justification, and none of these categories satisfy that requirement.
One argument that might be brought up at this point is that the unborn are human, but not persons. There is no definitive scientific argument for a human not being a person. Bioethicists have vastly varying opinions of how personhood is defined. There is no evidence that personhood is achieved at some arbitrarily selected point during the human life cycle. The concept of personhood is impossible to define when separated from the fact of being a biological human. This means that arguments for justifying abortion based on personhood are at best, just a guess.
The only sure conclusion is that we are all either persons or property. On this point, we would be wise to remember that some of the most tragic crimes committed against humanity were the result of defining certain humans as ‘non-persons’ (Jews, slaves, women, etc.). Basing human rights on variable human traits nullifies the entire concept of equal human rights, and puts us on a trajectory to repeat history. I don't think anyone wants that.
Imago Dei
Up to this point, I have argued for the right to life of the unborn without reference to any religious beliefs. I have not quoted a single Bible verse, or condemned abortion as sin. I have used only science (embryology), philosophy, and ethics to support my arguments. My final point, however, is religious in nature and is directed only to those who believe humans are made in God’s image. It’s an issue I believe is often misunderstood by Christian pro-life advocates, which ultimately leads to a weakened defense of their position. I will address this point by asking and answering the question, “What does it mean to be made in the image of God?”
When asked this question, many Christians will answer with a list of specific qualities or abilities that mankind shares with God, but perhaps to a lesser extent. These are sometimes defined as the 'communicable attributes' of God. Such qualities would include things like the ability to communicate, emotions, intelligence, free will, ability to reason, ability to love, etc. While it is true that we humans share these qualities with our Creator, it is a mistake to define the image of God by using any of these or similar attributes. Here's why:
Being God's image-bearers is what makes humans unique among all of God's created beings, and it's what gives mankind an intrinsically sacred status. Therefore, no quality or ability of mankind that is, or could potentially be, possessed in any degree by animals (or artificial intelligence) can be said to be the image of God. Qualities that depend on brain function are absent or not fully present at the earliest stages of human development, and can be lost through aging, illness, or injury later in life. If these qualities describe what it means to bear the image of God, then that image can be only partial in early stages of cognitive development, and not permanent since it could be lost. This view does not comport with what the Bible teaches, and it weakens the argument for sanctity of human life in the womb.
The image of God is not a quality or ability possessed by humans. It is what we are by nature of being human, and we are human from the moment of conception, regardless of our cognitive abilities or physical appearance. The image of God is not something humans acquire. We are created as God's image. To be human is to be God's image-bearer. This is why it is incumbent upon Christians to defend and protect the sanctity of human life at all stages.
Fighting for the Right Rights
Science has proven that the unborn is a separate, living human being who just needs time, a safe environment, and proper nurturing to continue maturing into adulthood. She is a person who deserves the same protection of human rights as any other human being. To deny her this protection is unjust discrimination. The debate on abortion is not about gestational trimesters, methods of abortion, or women’s rights. It’s about human rights. Only when this is rightly understood can we say we truly believe in and are willing to fight for equal rights for all.
If you are pro-life, I hope you have found this information helpful for defending your position on the sanctity of life. If you are pro-choice, I hope you have found the information worth giving some serious thought. Regardless of your current views on abortion, I encourage you to do more research, find answers to your specific questions, and let your own conclusions be based on good reasons and evidence. To that end, I have listed some resources below that I highly recommend for a more in-depth treatment of the topic of abortion.
Recommended resources:
Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Francis J. Beckwith
Ethics for a Brave New World, 2nd edition, John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg
Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion, Gregory Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
Precious Unborn Human Persons, Gregory Koukl
Image of God (online article), Dr. Michael S. Heiser: https://www.miqlat.org/the-image-of-god.htm
This is a great article, and I appreciate it starting out with the non-Biblical points of reference (though, obviously, I believe those are still valid points themselves). I am curious to know if you have any specific articles or references from embryologists that would confirm your point saying, ”Embryologists have affirmed that human development begins at conception.” This is the most common argument I hear from pro-choice people in my circles.