What is the difference between the born and unborn?
As I mentioned yesterday, to mark the March For Life, this week I’m going to be posting a series of articles exclusively on the subject of abortion.
Today I’d like to outlining the two main stages I pass through when discussing the subject of abortion with those who are pro-choice.
Stage 1: Human Denial
Although most experienced pro-choice advocates will not head down this route, I’ve noticed that it’s still extremely common to hear people say something like this:
“The unborn aren’t really human”
The reason why experienced pro-choice advocates shy away from this particular argument is that it is scientifically and philosophically indefensible. The unborn are growing biological organisms with human DNA, being as they are the offspring of human parents i.e. human. These are small unborn humans who will grow into full-sized born humans…as long as they are not denied time, nutrition or a safe environment in which to flourish.
Stage 2: Human Discrimination
In response to the above explanation, the person in favour of abortion will typically adjust his argument slightly. He will usually say something along the lines of “Okay, well, it’s human…but it’s not fully human” or “Okay, it’s human, but it’s not a person“.
Apologetics by numbers
In order to justify his distinction, the advocate will typically point out some difference between the born and unborn which he thinks is significant, such as size. Regardless of the distinction made, I always respond in the following simple pattern:
(a) Distinction
I take the distinction which is being made between unborn and born and then point out that similar differences can also be found between a newborn baby and an adult
(b) Diversity
I point out that there is diversity found within humanity in this particular area.
(c) Dividing Line
I ask for a dividing line, based of the distinction being made, the point at which the unborn transition to become “fully human” or “a person”, thereby being worthy of continued life
(d) Discrimination
I ask whether discriminating on this basis is fair
This might seem a little abstract, so let’s look at some of the distinctions which are typically made by the pro-choice advocates…
Different kinds of differences
There are usually four categories of distinction which are made between the born and the unborn:
1. Size
The point made here is that fetuses are very small. In response to this, I point out that:
(a) Distinction
An embryo might be tiny in comparison to an adult, but so is a newborn baby in comparison to a grown-up
(b) Diversity
Humans come in all different sizes
(c) Dividing Line
How big do you have to be in order to be deserving of protection?
(d) Discrimination
Why shouldn’t we just treat humans of all different sizes with the same dignity?
2. Level of Development
The point made here is that fetuses are in an early stage of development. In response to this, I point out:
(a) Distinction
An embryo might be at a lower level of development in comparison to a newborn baby, but then again so is a newborn baby in comparison to a grown-up
(b) Diversity
Humans throughout the world are at different levels of development
(c) Dividing Line
What level of development do you have to possess in order to be deserving of protection?
(d) Discrimination
Why shouldn’t we just treat humans of all different levels of development with the same dignity?
3. Environment
The point made here is that the unborn are located within the womb. In response to this, I point out:
(a) Distinction
An embryo might be inside the mother’s womb, but how does that alter the value of the child’s life?
(b) Diversity
Humans are alive in many different environments. Some are in the womb, some are in incubators, some in cribs and some are in nursing homes.
(c) Diversity
What environment must one be in to be counted as a person? Do the eight inches of flesh between the womb and the world really change the value of a life?
(d) Discrimination
Why shouldn’t we treat all humans with the same dignity, regardless of geography?
4. Degree of Dependency
The point made here is that the unborn are dependent upon the mother for life. In response to this, I point out:
(a) Distinction
An embryo might need the mother’s body, but so does a newborn.
(b) Diversity
Different humans around the world have different levels of dependency: unborn, newly-born, toddler, child, teenager, adult, geriatric…
(c) Dividing Line
What level of independence must one have in order to be counted as a person?
Does dependency mean that one is less deserving of care? Or, in fact, if one is more dependent, more vulnerable, shouldn’t one be more deserving of care? For example, isn’t child abuse regarded as such a terrible crime because children are seen as defenseless?
(d) Discrimination
Why shouldn’t we treat all humans with the same dignity, regardless of how much help and protection they need?
As you can hopefully see, there is a common pattern to all these responses, which should hopefully make it easier to give a solid response when you encounter these pro-choice objections. This will rarely magically resolve the discussion, but it will often help guide you to the foundational issue behind someone’s reason for supporting abortion.
David,
This is a terrific series! I love your answers to these questions. I take a different approach these days with people who only parrot what the culture has taught them, but don’t think for themselves. They will rush to defend the “baby”. You have to come across like you mean it though!
“The unborn aren’t really human”
It goes something like this:
What? Of course abortion kills a human being, all the studies prove that. What kind of being is it, if not human? It is human, but who cares? Animals kill their young in the wild all the time, so why should we be any different or have different values? We are just animals ourselves, and abortion is just a way for the female animal to stay alive. If a woman wants to kill her own baby for any reason at all, the law of the land and nature says she can.
It would be nice if we could do it more humanely instead of crushing the babies skull and ripping it apart, literally, from limb to limb. I don’t think anybody would be opposed to at least giving the baby something to numb the pain before the knife hits.
You were saying?
I’ve noticed an odd strain of thought among some atheistic circles which actually would subscribe to this logic! I remember seeing a discussion between Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins about how much more cruel it is to kill a pig… :-/
Here’s the video: https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2012/08/25/killing-small-children/
True, but most people don’t think about like those guys do. They usually respond with something like “Wait a minute, that is not what I am saying….” now you have got them thinking that abortion is something painful and ugly and inhumane, which makes them feel uneasy.
Oh, agreed. I just find it worrying that, with crazy opinions like that, ad absurdum isn’t such a powerful weapon as it used to be!