the facts

If we're being intellectually honest, the whole abortion debate comes down to one question.

Pro-choicers make it seem as if that question is whether or not we trust women to be their own moral agents or to have "control over their body." Drawing attention to the vague notion of "choice," they mysteriously leave out exactly what choice they are talking about. They proudly proclaim "a woman's right to choose..." Choose what? Why don't they ever finish their statement?

If abortion does not kill innocent human beings, then I absolutely support a woman's right to choose it, too. But if it does, then it never has been, nor ever will be, a legitimate decision. Unfortunately for abortion advocates, there is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of "choice;" we always have to look at what is being chosen. If it is choosing vanilla over chocolate ice cream, that is one thing; if it is choosing to kill an innocent unborn child, that is quite another. Thus, it seems there is no way around it. We have to determine if abortion does or does not take a human life. It all comes down to this single question: When does human life begin?

My friend Caitlyn* is convinced that this can't be determined. She once told me, "I don't think anyone knows when life starts. That's a complex philosophical and religious issue that will never be answered in one single way. It should be up to the woman to decide." Caitlyn's form of response is quite typical among the pro-choice crowd. On the surface, it may not sound unreasonable. But upon further examination, her contention is quite silly. In essence, she is suggesting that if one woman decides her 6-month-old unborn child is not a living human being, then it's not (and she can abort her); meanwhile, if another woman decides her 6-month-old unborn child is a living human being, then it is (and she can "keep" her). In other words, both women are right. Obviously, this position is logically ridiculous since the two children are biologically identical. Though I love Caitlyn dearly, she is terribly mistaken.

The fact is, every medical, biology, or embryology textbook says life begins at conception, and no other time. With all due respect to those who would like to think differently, this really is 3rd grade science class stuff. There is nothing complex, let alone religious, about it.** Fritz Baumgartner, MD, puts it succinctly when he says: "There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender [and distinct set of DNA], who had previously simply not existed." He goes on to explain that the moment of fertilization is the only accurate moment to begin calling a human "human," and that to claim it is any other point is a blatant degradation of factual embryology. People have a right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to their own facts.

If universally undisputed science isn't enough, simple reasoning tells us when life starts. Wherever we draw the "life line," whether at conception, 3 or 6 months after that, or at birth, we need to have good reasons for doing so.

So what are the pro-lifer's reasons? Stephanie Gray (President of Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform) explains. The pro-life person starts with the recognition that the right to life is an inalienable right— an inherent right. I can't give you the right to life, because if I give it to you, that means I can also take it away. Thus, I don't earn the right to life by accomplishing something, or performing another thing, or appearing a certain way; I have the right to life by virtue of my existence. And the only changes that a child undergoes between fertilization and 3 months after that, 6 months after that, or 9 months after that at birth are his larger size, his increased level of development, his lessened degree of dependency, and his location. But these are changes that occur after the baby has been born, too. The least arbitrary of the lines, the one which is most reasonable, is the one drawn when the child begins to exist. And we know the child begins to exist at conception.

It doesn't make sense for me to say, "I once was a sperm," because I wasn't; nor does it make sense for me to say, "I once was an egg," because I was not an egg. But it does make sense for me to say, "I once was five, I once was a newborn, I once was a fetus, and I once was an embryo." Since each of us began to exist at fertilization, that is the only fair and rational time to begin to protect a human's right to life.

I'm not sure where my pro-choice friends were led astray. I trust they have good intentions; I just think they have bad facts. To any of these such readers, thank you for venturing to see things from the other side. If, after looking through the lens of science and reason, the pro-life position actually proves to be as irrational and absurd as you may have been led to believe, fine; by all means, give it the rejection it merits. But, if it rather proves to be sensible, I encourage you to rethink your position and side with the strongest evidence. One thing is certain: If abortion really does kill innocent children, there is too much at stake to falsely believe otherwise.***

Vita Pro Omni!

*Name has been changed

**If religion happens to reaffirm what science has settled, the fact does not cease to be a strictly scientific truth. Those who maintain that life begins at some point other than conception need to contend only with science, not religion. To deny this certainty of biology does not indicate a lack of faith, but a lack of basic knowledge of human genetics.

*** Randy Alcorn makes and expands on this point in his book Why Pro-Life?

Note: The above 4-D ultrasound shows a 22-week-old baby, capable of fine hand and finger movement. This baby scratches, rubs, and pats his cheek before doing the same to his nose.