The Abortion Argument Fails

The Abortion Argument

What is biological life and death?

Modern biology asserts two things.  First, humans are classified as a complex organism of the kingdom Animalia and class Mammalia.  More commonly, humans are referred to by their genus and species, Homo sapiens.  Secondly, biological life is defined as,  “A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.” (1)  As such, modern biology clearly recognizes the Homo sapien life cycle to begin at fertilization and end in death.  In fact, many high school biology students are required to describe and depict animal life cycles of frogs and other multi-cellular organisms beginning with zygote followed by growth and reproduction, and ending in death.  If we assume the life of a Homo sapien is characterized no differently than any other animal life, we must admit that life begins when a zygote is formed.  A zygote is the union of a haploid male sex cell and a haploid female sex cell, aka a sperm and an egg.  Even though many assert that life does not begin at conception, biology decidedly affirms that animal life begins with the formation of a zygote.  Furthermore, organismal death is defined as "The cessation of all vital phenomena without capability of resuscitation, either in animals or plants." (2)

Does consciousness determine life?

Since some in academia will concede that life does begin at conception, many wish to redefine what it means to be alive.  That is when the argument for consciousness comes into play.  Is an organism self-aware?  It is difficult to believe that an organism can know who they are before the nervous system has developed.  So many believe that ending the life of an organism that is not self aware is perfectly acceptable because the organism cannot understand that it is dying.  It is true that zygotes do not have nerve cells, but cell specialization begins as soon as the zygote divides into 16 cells, a morula.  Two types of cells now exist within the organism, trophoblasts and embryoblasts.  Upon implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall, cell differentiation begins.  In other words, there are no longer only two types of cells.  Nerve cells, skin cells, blood cells, and many more begin to form and the organism enters into a period of rapid growth.  While science has not yet determined the exact time frame and order of cell specialization, science has confirmed that all DNA needed to identify a unique Homo sapien organism is present at the time of zygote formation.  This is why blastocysts (the structure before implantation) can be used to identify genetic abnormalities even before the organism develops into a fetus. (11)

Many may argue that a blastocyst has no form of consciousness, and scientifically, I agree, since there are no nerve cells present and a mature nervous system does not exist.  However, if consciousness is used to define life, we would all become much less alive when we sleep because we all lose consciousness when we sleep.  So it cannot be possible that consciousness determines life. 

Is abortion murder?

According to our legal system, “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” (3)  Since a Homo sapien is the scientific definition of a human, and since it is a biological fact that a Homo sapien’s life cycle begins as a zygote, if ending the Homo sapien’s life is premeditated and malicious, then abortion is clearly murder.  Elective abortion is always premeditated, but is it malicious?  To answer the question, we need to consider how the US legal system defines malice.  According to US Legal, “Malice in law is the intent, without justification excuse or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.” (4)  Many argue that there is no wrongful intent in ending an unwanted pregnancy.  However, it is obvious that ending the life of another Homo sapien who has done no wrong in an effort to make your own life more comfortable, is a clear disregard for the the other human's well-being.  This action falls within the following legal definition of malice, “a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being.” (5)  No matter how a person wishes to dissect the term of murder or malice, if abortion were not written into the legal code as a lawful procedure, it would clearly be defined as a malicious killing, which is murder.  Similarly, if the Homo sapien were to threaten the life of the mother, as is the case in an ectopic pregnancy, the legal code allows for the killing of the human so as to preserve the life of the mother.  In that instance, removing the human from the body would not be defined as murder – but justifiable homicide (6).

But shouldn’t a mother have the choice to do what she wants with her body?

What defines an organism?  In the case of Homo sapiens, DNA is unique to every human being.  The only instance where this is not true is in the case of identical twins.  Even so, while identical twins both begin development with the exact same DNA, as they grow, mutations arise in DNA duplication and, upon maturity, the entirety of the genome for each person will deviate from one another.  It is never the case that a mother and the human growing within her have the same DNA because humans do not reproduce asexually.  A mother and the human within her are not the same body.  So while the mother has legal rights to do whatever she wants with her own body, those rights do not extend to another person unless there is a threat on her life.

But what if the baby (zygote, embryo, fetus, etc.) will cause non-life threatening harm to the mother?

No one will argue that all mothers are prepared to care for a baby.  Some mothers are not in any way prepared to care for a child.  They may not have enough money.  They may not have any support.  The child may have been conceived through rape or incest.  There are certainly awful situations which become more complicated by birthing a child.  In these scenarios, we must divide them up into their own unique situations.

First – Did the mother willfully engage in sex?  If a woman choose to engage in sex with a man, does she have any culpability in the situation?  It is a rare (if not non-existent) circumstance when a woman chooses sex not knowing that pregnancy is caused by sex.  If a woman drove her boyfriend to a bank so that it could be robbed, would she be culpable in the robbery?  If a woman opened her house to a man who dealt drugs, would she be culpable in the following drug deals?  If it is a reasonable assumption that a woman is willfully engaging in an activity that may likely result in an unfavorable outcome, she bears part of the responsibility in the situation.  In other words, if you do not want a baby, you should take measures not to have a baby.  Knowing that no amount of contraception is perfectly “safe,” a woman should never willfully engage in sex if she is not willing to deal with the fact she might get pregnant.  Furthermore, the woman only bears half of the responsibility.  Since the woman will be carrying and birthing the child, the man must also bear equal responsibility in the care for the baby.  Whether that entails financial support, emotional support, or whatever other support would be determined half by a court of law.   A woman should not bear more responsibility than a man if a child was formed out of consensual sex.  Similarly, just because a mother is carrying another human life in her body, the rights of a father are not automatically terminated.

Second – Did someone rape the mother?  This becomes the most difficult situation to deal with because the mother never wanted a baby and did not agree to sex.  Yet, unless she undergoes either a spontaneous abortion or an elective abortion, she bears the consequence of pregnancy.  Legally, the father should be held fully accountable for any child produced through rape.  No stone should be left unturned.  If a man chose to bring a child into this world unlawfully, he bears complete and total responsibility for the well-being of that child, though he should have absolutely no parental rights in the child’s life because he has already proven himself an unfit father.  Also, the mother should never be forced to raise the child, though she should be given the option to do so.  Once a life has been formed in an unlawful and violent way, the mother should not have to bear the long-term responsibility of caring for the child.  Yet, the child remains completely innocent in the situation.  The child was the byproduct of violence.  The child itself is not violent or guilty of anything.  Taking the child’s life because of the father’s sin is not justifiable in any situation.  Certainly it would not be imposed on a child outside of the womb, and it should not be imposed on a child inside of the womb.  The child can easily be placed into adoption and raised by a family who can care for it. 

What about the harm of pregnancy and/or birth to the mother?

If a mother cannot murder the human within her due to a violent beginning, how can the harm done to the mother be mitigated?  There is no possible way to undo what was done.  Murdering the baby will not make the mother whole.  But there are things that can be done to mitigate the damage.  First, the financial cost of the pregnancy and birth should be completely covered – primarily by the father and then by the government if necessary.  Second, all efforts should be made to come alongside the mother during the pregnancy.  At minimum, she should be offered pain relief in birth, pregnancy clothes during pregnancy, and free counseling during pregnancy and after the birth.  It is impossible to return a woman back to her previous state before the rape.  Even if she chose to electively murder the child, it will not undo the crime.  In fact, most women experience repeated trauma through abortion.  There is no way out of a pregnancy caused by rape without mental and/or physical anguish.  Murdering the child is not the best answer nor does it harm the mother less than birthing the child. (10)  Holding the father accountable for his actions, protecting and supporting the mother, and finding another home, if necessary, for the child is by far preferable to murder.

How should we value human life?

Is the life of a mother more valuable than the life of the human inside?  Certainly in cases where the human in the womb is a direct threat to the life of the mother, the right to terminate the life of the human in the womb exists.  But how do we value life in the womb that does not threaten the life of the mother?  Does the mother get to determine the value of the life in her womb?  If the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the human in the womb, what caused that determination?  Is the value of human life determined by age, location, socio-economic status, the ability to care for oneself, race, religion, IQ, political power, or gender?  If life is valued based on any of these factors, which vary from person to person, than some people will be ranked as having more value (and ultimately more power) than others.  It is certainly true in some countries that various people are marked with higher values than others. But the United States Constitution begins with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”(7)  If the country no longer wishes to subscribe to the idea that all people have the same value, then the constitutional law must be changed.

Can one person own another person?

If it can be agreed that all humans share the same value, then what gives one person a right to decide the fate of another?  The legal system provides guidance on capital punishment.  In other words, if a person is found guilty of a certain crime, they may have to pay for it with their life. (8)  In those instances, a person can be killed due to their guilt.  The government decides their fate.  However, there is no other relationship where the premeditated killing of a person is allowed.  Before the Civil War, certain states treated African Americans as property.  People with certain characteristics were allowed to be owned by others.  Slaves could be tortured, wounded, and sold at the will of their master.  In many countries today, slavery still exists.  In fact, there are numerous countries where women are still considered property and their lives are under complete control of the men around them.  While it may be considered a cultural construct, there is no basis for human ownership of another human in biology or in the U.S. government.  A husband does not own a wife.  A wife does not own a husband.  A parent does not own a child, and certainly a white person doesn’t own a black person.  If a United States citizen wants to argue for abortion, they must also ascribe to the idea of human ownership. According to End Slavery Now, “Slavers and human traffickers grossly violate human rights since they claim ownership, labor and/or the humanity of another human being.”  (9) The only way one human can premeditatively take the innocent life of another human is if they claim ownership of the other person. 

The Pro-Life movement is imposing their religion on others!

Up to this point, I have not written anything from a religious perspective, but rather from a biological and legal perspective.  However, I am a devout Christian.  I love to study God’s Word and teach others.  But I do not wish to cram my religion down anyone’s throat.  We are all free to choose which religious path we wish to take.  In the beginning of the argument, I presented two assumptions.  The first was that humans are animals, and the second is the biological definition of life.  Personally, I only ascribe to the second even though I understand the first fully.  I do not believe people are animals.  I believe humanity was created in the image of God.  (Genesis 1:26) This means that humans are different from animals because we have a soul that reflects our Creator.  The Bible teaches us that the breath of God gives us life (Job 33:4).  I also vehemently am against ranking human life.  The Bible does not teach that Jews are better than Gentiles, nor Black people are better than White people, nor old people are better than young people, nor rich people are better than poor people.  Every single person was created in the image of God and therefore has equal footing with fellow individuals in humanity. 

I can write an argument against abortion based upon Bible verses alone.  In that case, I would use the following verses to explain God’s creation of life, God’s sovereignty, and God’s judgment, and God’s authority.

All of the following verses teach us that life begins from God at conception, and possibly even before conception. The idea of a soul is unique to humanity and comes directly from God. Finally, murder is never justified. An innocent life should not be taken because of the sins of another. If you choose to look up these verses, I encourage you to read them within the context they are found so you can better grasp the ideas at hand. I also encourage you to look up key words, such as, womb, life, and murder, in their original language (Hebrew or Greek). Because English is just one of many languages, the full impact of a word cannot always be ascertained by examining the English language alone.

Psalm 127:3 (NIV) Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him.

Psalm 22:9-10 (NIV) Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Jeremiah 1:5a (NIV) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

Psalm 139:13-16 (NIV) “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 (ESV) As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

Ezekiel 18: 20 (ESV) The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Matthew 5:21 (ESV) You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’


References  
(websites retrieved on 5/20/19 between 10am and 3pm)
(1) https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
(2) https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Death
(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
(4) https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malice/
(5) https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1197
(6) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justifiable_homicide
(7) https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/white-pages/the-declaration-the-constitution-and-the-bill-of-rights
(8) https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty
(9) http://www.endslaverynow.org/act/educate/human-rights-and-slavery
(10) https://lagunatreatment.com/support-for-women/mental-health-abortion/
(11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development (Yes, this is a weaker citation, but it includes all information necessary instead of trying to read a large biology textbook.)

Please remember that all information on this post and blog is copyright protected and must be cited if reproduced.  (The post will be edited and updated if errors are found.)