By Laura Zee
Why Women Abort
What do you think are the most common reasons women choose to abort their pregnancies? Most people are surprised to learn that of the more than one million surgical abortions and untold number of chemical abortions that occur each year in America, only about 3.5% are for reasons that may be considered “hard cases”, including rape, incest, and efforts to save the mother’s life.[1] Fully 96.5% of abortions are performed for reasons of preference or convenience, and the reasons for abortion all over the world are largely the same.[2]
This means that in the United States alone, at least 965,000 lives could be saved each year (not counting chemical abortions) through negotiations that allow abortion in the “hard cases” but eliminate it for all other situations. Yet when I ask abortion advocates if they would be willing to support such a deal, they invariably say they would not. Why not?
Arguments for Abortion
The most common arguments I hear to defend abortion for all circumstances include:
- Privacy: The government doesn’t belong in people’s personal lives. Abortion is a private, family matter.
- Financial Burden: Some people can’t afford another child. It would be too much of a financial burden.
- Autonomy: No one should force their views on others.
- Safety: If we restrict abortion, women will be forced to get dangerous back-alley abortions.
- Women’s Rights: Reproductive freedom is necessary to preserve a woman’s right to self-determination, opportunity, freedom, and happiness.
- Role of government: It isn’t the role of government to legislate morality.
- Rape: A woman should never be forced to keep the offspring of a rape. That child will remind her of that horrible event for the rest of her life.
On the surface, these catch phrases may sound reasonable, and perhaps even convincing, but they all share one very important assumption: that the unborn is not fully human. While the average person doesn’t realize she is making this assumption, we can simplify the issue and help make it apparent by doing what Scott Klusendorf calls “trotting out the toddler”.[3] Put simply, we can ask whether each particular justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing a toddler (or a teenager, for that matter). If not, the argument assumes that the unborn are not fully human.
Trotting Out the Toddler
Let me give several examples using the justifications for abortion listed above.
Privacy: If privacy is the issue, is it okay to kill my toddler as long as I do it in the privacy of my own home? Is killing your toddler a private, family matter in which the government does not belong?
Financial Burden: If not being able to afford another child is the issue, is it okay to kill one of the older children to save money? After all, the older children cost more!
Autonomy: If we shouldn’t force our views on others, does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against parents killing their toddlers (or their teenagers)?
Safety: If safety is the issue, should we make the murder of older children safe and legal so that murderers don’t get hurt or die while committing murder? Should we make theft safe and legal so that burglars don’t get hurt or killed while breaking into peoples’ homes?
Women’s Rights: If your toddler is restricting your personal freedom, happiness, or self-determination (which, if you have a toddler, I guarantee she is), should you be able to kill her?
Role of Government: If it isn’t the government’s role to legislate morality, should the murder of older children be permitted? [Not incidentally, legislating morality is exactly what the government does. Every legislative issue is a moral issue.]
Rape: If it’s acceptable to kill an unborn child because they remind us of a horrible event, is it okay for a woman to kill her older children who remind her of her abusive ex-husband? Does hardship justify homicide?
If the arguments above do not justify killing toddlers, teenagers, or adults, we can be sure it’s because the abortion advocate considers these older individuals to be humans beings and yet does not ascribe the same status to the unborn.
What is the Unborn?
While “trotting out the toddler” helps people recognize their assumptions, it is only useful for the pro-life case if an unborn child is actually a human being. That’s why the most important question we need to answer is this: What is the unborn?
If the unborn is just a clump of non-living cells, then it’s fallacious to equate it with a toddler, or any other human being. If it’s merely a growth that attaches itself to the inside of a woman’s uterus, much like a tumor or a third arm, then perhaps removal of the unwanted part is not only acceptable, but wise. Everything hinges on this question. So what does the evidence indicate?
With the assistance of modern medical technology, doctors and scientists now know without doubt that from the time of conception the unborn is a distinct, living, whole human. He or she is not an appendage, a clump of non-living cells, a partial human, or some other species. The unborn is a living human being with his or her own sex, blood type, and DNA. Apart from an action that induces death, the unborn child will continue to grow and develop just as older children do. We can learn this by looking at almost any secular biology textbook, countless medical journals, and even expert testimony given by top embryologists before the United States Senate. Let’s look at a few examples.
From Conception
Langman’s Medical Embryology explains, “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.[4]
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology says, “Human development begins at fertilization when male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell, called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”[5]
The Unborn is Distinct
In his textbook, Biology of Gestation, Dr. Louis Fridhandler reports, “[Fertilization is] that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.”[6]
Yet another text, Human Embryology, states “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon …that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”[7]
The Unborn is Living
In their text, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, Potter and Craig write, “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”[8]
Not only textbooks, but also expert testimonies before Congress report the same findings. The official government record of testimony for the Senate judiciary subcommittee hearing on when life begins shows that, along with at least eight other experts on the topic, Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic testified before Congress, “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”[9]
The Unborn is Whole
In their article for The New Atlantis, titled “Acorns and Embryos”, Robert George and Patrick Lee wrote, “From conception onward, the human embryo is fully programmed and has the active disposition to develop himself or herself to the next mature stage of a human being.”[10]
This is consistent with the fact that the unborn’s whole DNA is present at the time of conception, as acknowledged even by the National Geographic in their 2005 television program, In the Womb, which summarized the beginning of life this way: “The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception [fertilization], when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”[11]
The Unborn is Human
The evidence is so clear that it led Dr. Bernard Nathanson, obstetrician and co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Righs Action League (NARAL), to completely change course. After resigning from his position, Nathanson later stated “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.”[12]
And atheist philosopher and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Peter Singer, writes in his book Practical Ethics, “Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being.”[13]
Conclusion
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that life begins at conception, and that the unborn is a distinct, living, whole human being. In fact, in the early 1980s, after an extensive search failed to produce even one qualified scientist who would testify that human life begins at any time other than conception, the official senate report on Senate bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, summarized the issue this way:
“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning 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.”[14] And the evidence to support this conclusion has only grown with time.
The unborn may differ in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (distinctions observed among older children and adults as well), but these are merely superficial characteristics. The central question we must ask is, “What is the unborn?” Biology textbooks at all levels of education teach what doctors and scientists have long known, which is that from conception, the unborn is a distinct, living, whole human being.
For a more in-depth treatment of this subject, I highly recommend The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture by Scott Klusendorf. As an excellent supplement, I also recommend Randy Alcorn’s book, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments. For shorter articles, check out Live Action News at liveaction.org.
Footnotes:
[1] Tabulation of reports on “Induced Termination of Pregnancy” from Florida [1998-2020], Louisiana [1996-2018], Minnesota [1999-2019], Nebraska [2001-2019], and Utah [1996-2018]; https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
[2] Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas. “Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries.” International Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 24, Number 3 (August 1998). Table 2, “Percentage Distribution of Women Who Had an Abortion, by Main Reason Given for Seeking Abortion, Various Countries and Years.”
[3] Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009.
[4] T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995), 3.
[5] Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier, 2008), 15.
[6] Louis Fridhandler, “Gametogenesis to Implantation,”Biology of Gestation, vol. 1, ed. N.S. Assau (New York: Academic Press, 1968), 76.
[7] Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
[8] E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.
[9] Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.
[10] Robert George and Patrick Lee, “Acorns and Embryos,” The New Atlantis, No. 7, Fall 2004/Winter 2005, 90; https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/acorns-and-embryos.
[11] Terzo, Sarah. “Science is clear: Each new human life begins at fertilization.” Live Action News, January 13, 2013. https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/
[12] Alcorn, Randy. Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments. (Multnomah Books, 2000), 54.
[13] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
[14] Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.
Disclaimer: All views expressed by those associated with this ministry or on our platforms do not necessarily represent the opinions of Women in Apologetics, Inc. or its individual team members.