The Real Reason I’m Pro-life

I am pro-life because I care about protecting innocent human lives, and because I believe it is a grave moral evil to kill innocent humans. It is not because I want to control women’s bodies. Abortion advocates who want to be taken seriously by the those of us who advocate for protecting human life should drop the "control" line of attack and focus on the serious issue of how we should view and treat unborn babies. "My body, my choice" ignores the biological reality that there are two bodies, but only one chooser. It would be more accurate to say "Our bodies, my choice," but that doesn't sound quite as nice.

My Position

I believe abortion should be illegal in every case except where a procedure must be undergone in order to save the life of the mother and the baby cannot be saved (note: there is some debate about using the term “abortion” for such cases, as procedures to save the life of the mother that result in the death of the baby are not done for the purpose of “aborting” the baby; the abortion is a tragic side-effect (source)). These situations are exceedingly rare and would only be relevant if the baby is not far enough along gestationally to be delivered (around 21 weeks--see viability section for source). The most familiar example is an ectopic pregnancy, wherein the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus (most often in a fallopian tube). If the zygote continues to grow outside of the uterus, it will most likely result in internal rupturing and bleeding, in which case the baby will be lost (and very likely the mother as well) (source). Treatment to prevent such life-threatening rupturing typically includes removal of the ectopic tissue, which results in the death of the baby (source).

Yes, the Unborn Baby Is a Human

Since my concern is with protecting innocent human lives, I’ll first establish that the unborn child is a human. Throughout this article, I’ll present questions for abortion proponents that are critical to the discussion but are often ignored.

The reason pro-lifers believe human life begins at conception (and not before) is because that's biologically when it begins. When an egg is fertilized by sperm, it forms a zygote and begins rapid cell division. The completely unique human DNA is entirely present, and this “organism” will continue to develop until a baby is born in about nine months, unless something goes wrong (either naturally or artificially) (source, source).

If an unborn baby (fetus) isn’t a human, what is it?

Faced with what we know about biology, the burden of proof is on abortion advocates to explain exacly when human life begins (if not at conception). We’re dealing with life and death here; there’s no room for fuzzy lines.

If a human life doesn’t begin at conception, when precisely does it begin?

This Human Doesn’t Need to Fit Your Definition of “Personhood” to Matter

Some advocates of abortion recognize the reality that life begins at conception, but they argue that this unborn baby does not deserve protection, since it is not a “person.” I can grant you that a zygote one second after conception does not have the same level of “personhood” as an adult. I can also grant you that a fetus four weeks after conception doesn’t have this level of personhood (but perhaps has more than the zygote). I’ll even grant you that a fetus at eight months isn’t quite there. But here’s where it gets interesting: a one-year old baby isn’t there either, and neither is an eight year old. Or certain mentally handicapped individuals.

Whether it’s the ability to feel complex emotions or to engage in critical thinking and ponder existential questions (or to simply show signs of what we generally refer to as “personality”), using “personhood” as the measure of when a human life should matter is untenable. There is simply no way to come up with a proper definition of personhood that couldn't logically exclude young children and adults with various conditions.

When exactly is a human enough of a person to have the right to life?

Human Life Matters Even if the Human Cannot Survive on His Own

Using “viability” as a measure for determining when a human life should be defended is equally fraught with problems for two major reasons.

First, there is no determinable “point” of viability. It is now (11/11/2021) currently possible for some babies to survive delivery as early as 21 weeks (source), but not every baby delivered that early will survive. In other words, just because a baby can survive doesn’t mean it will survive, so where is the line drawn? Furthermore, as medical technology and techniques continue to improve, we can assume the earliest point at which a baby can be delivered will continue to shift earlier and earlier (perhaps even to the point where a fertilized egg could be moved into an artificial womb to complete development).

When exactly is an unborn baby viable?

Second, although a baby can survive delivery at 21 weeks, it cannot survive on its own. It will require medical care for several months (at least) after delivery. So if we add the requirement for independent survival, our point of protection shifts later. Unfortunately, this shifts way too far, because it turns out a two-year old cannot survive independently either. If you don’t believe me, leave your two-year old completely unattended and see how long he survives (disclaimer: don’t actually do this; if you do this, you are a terrible parent and will likely end up in prison). Who else can't survive independently? Certain very elderly, handicapped or ill people. Can we end their lives against their will also?

If independent survival is the determining factor, are you prepared to support full-blown infanticide and non-consensual euthenasia?

The Baby’s Life Doesn’t Matter More than the Mother’s, but It Doesn’t Matter Less

The reason I believe there should be a solitary exception for cases in which the baby may not survive a procedure to save the life of the mother is precisely because I do not believe the baby is more important than the mother. If it comes down to one not surviving or two not surviving, I would prefer one survive. It’s not about one life being more important than the other.

In every other case of abortion, defending the child is not about placing the baby’s value over the value of the mother. It is about recognizing that they are two, biologically distinct humans whose lives both matter immensely. Neither should have his or her life extinguished. While true that pregnancy is often inconvenient and involves pain and sacrifice by the mother, this is simply not a good enough reason to end the life of an innocent baby. We should (and many do) rally around mothers to ensure they have the support and love necessary to bring a healthy baby into this world and to care for him or her following delivery. But even if we fail in this, killing a baby is not the answer. If lack of financial resources, support, etc can be used as an excuse to terminate the life of an unborn baby, nothing prevents this argument from being logically applied to infanticide.

How much more must you value the life of the mother to justify ending the life of the child?

The Baby Is Innocent

This point should be obvious; but If there is any definition by which a human can be considered innocent (except Jesus, of course, who Christians such as myself recognize as having been perfectly sinless), an unborn child is the most innocent of us. These helpless, innocent humans deserve the right to life; and it should be our duty to protect them from harm.

No Exception for Rape/Incest

Since you may be wondering, I do not believe there should be any exceptions allowing abortion for cases of rape/incest, because I am pro-life. It’s simple. If you accept the arguments laid out above, you cannot believe it is morally acceptable to kill an innocent human because grave evil was committed against his mother. Two wrongs don’t make a right. To allow such an exception would be to fundamentally undermine our commitment to life.

This is the real reason I’m pro-life.