Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Objections, Part 1 of 3

What follows are some of the most common objections to the pro-life view one is likely to hear from defenders of abortion, both in the media and in everyday conversation. It is my hope the pro-life responses underneath will be beneficial to those who are defending the unborn, whether it be via e-mail, Facebook, or face to face. Rather than reinvent the wheel each new conversation, I have found the following points to be especially helpful in simplifying the debate and defending the right to life of unborn human persons, over and against the common objections of the pro-abortion choice position.

It should be noted that the following objections are not the more philosophically sophisticated defenses of abortion one is likely to encounter from those such as Judith Jarvis Thomson or David Boonin. Rather, these are common rhetorical talking points often made by those less informed on the topic but which nevertheless need to be addressed due to their prevalence and sometimes unfortunate effect of leaving pro-lifers speechless. 

Objection #1: No One Knows When Life Begins

First, let us suppose for a moment we do not know when life begins. This turns out to be an argument in favor of the pro-life view, for if you do not know when life begins you should err on the side of life. Just as a hunter in the woods should not immediately shoot at a rustling bush but rather should err on the side of human life until he determines what he is shooting at (lest he shoot his hunting partner!), so also we should err on the side of life if we do not know whether or not there is human life in the womb. A position which says, “We don’t know when life begins, therefore abort it” is morally bankrupt.

But second, and more importantly, we do in fact know that life begins at conception. Science has already settled this issue. During the process of fertilization, a living sperm unites with a living egg to produce a living zygote. There is no period of non-life. Biology textbooks commonly recognize three criteria for life: growth (reproduction), metabolism, and reaction to stimuli. These are present in the unborn from conception. In other words, dead things do not grow, metabolize, or react to stimuli.

Furthermore, “a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony”:[1]

I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception...I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life...I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage. (Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania)

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." This "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention; it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” (Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris)

It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. (Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School)

The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. (Dr. Watson A. Bowers, University of Colorado Medical School).

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:[2]

           

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

           

Objection #2: The Unborn is Only a Potential Human Being

This objection is related to the first one above and so often the two objections must be dealt with together. Refer to the quotes above, along with these additional quotes by embryologists (who should be considered experts in the subject matter) relating to the actual (not potential) humanness of the unborn:[3]

It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. (Dr. Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 43)

The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being...Each of us starts life as a cell called a zygote. (Dr. Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 1, 12).

The science and logic behind this is simple and straightforward. The unborn has human parents and human DNA. The unborn has a human genetic fingerprint. In other words, human beings make human beings. If the unborn is not a human, one needs to explain how it is possible for two human beings to produce something that isn't human (in spite of the scientific evidence) but somehow later becomes human.

To put it another way, life is a continuum. Embryologists agree that from the moment of conception the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being. Scott Klusendorf sums it up this way:

You didn't come from an embryo. You once were an embryo. At no point in your prenatal development did you undergo a substantial change or change of nature. You began as a human being and will remain so until death. Sure, you lacked maturity at that early stage of your life (as does an infant), but you were human nonetheless.[4]

In other words, "embryos are human individuals at a particular stage of their development."[5] This is an important point to grasp. No one is arguing that embryos are fully mature and developed human beings. Neither are newborns or toddlers for that matter. Rather, embryos, like newborns and toddlers, are human beings at a particular stage of development.

To summarize, the unborn are distinct from their parents possessing their own unique chromosomal structure and directing their own internal development. They are living because dead things do not grow, metabolize, or react to stimuli. And they are human because they come from human parents and have a human genetic signature. All the unborn needs are time and nourishment, just like the newborn.

Therefore, the unborn is not a potential human being anymore than a newborn is a potential human being. They are both human beings at particular stages of development. An embryo is a potential fetus, which is a potential newborn, which is a potential toddler, which is a potential adolescent, which is a potential adult. But all are human beings.

On a more abstract philosophical note, a potential X must be an actual Y. It is not enough for the defender of abortion to say the unborn is a potential human being. They must define what it is actually. So if they are going to deny that the unborn is actually human, what is it? What kind of being is it? A fish being? An ape being? A cat being? Again, science makes it clear that the unborn from conception belongs to the species Homo-sapiens, in other words, the unborn is a human being.

---

[1] See Randy Alcorn, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000), 52-55.

[2] Ibid., 55.

[3] Ibid., 52.

[4] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 36.

[5] Ibid., 37.

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Objections, Part 1 of 3