The Truth About Abortion
Simple yet powerful pro-life arguments which refute the pro-choice position.
Previously, we walked through the leak of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s first draft of a majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson, and if nothing changed between then and the Supreme Court releasing an official ruling, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would be overturned.1 In this article, multiple simple yet powerful pro-life arguments which refute the pro-choice position will be examined. Each of these arguments in turn will present the strongest pro-life position, and it is my hope you will either be persuaded by these arguments or seriously consider what the implications are. Remember, what matters here is the truth, not anything else.
Argument 1: The Nature of Abortion & the Unborn
The first argument addresses what abortion is and what the unborn are. The argument is as follows:
Abortion is the intentional termination of the unborn from conception until birth.
The unborn are innocent, living human beings.
Therefore, abortion is the intentional termination of innocent, living human beings.
Premise 1:
Let us examine the premises one by one. The first premise is the only working definition of abortion which allows for any genuine discussion between pro-life and pro-choice individuals. Many sources define abortions as the termination of a pregnancy. Yet terminating a pregnancy and terminating the unborn are two entirely different things.
This clarity is absolutely necessary, because otherwise confusion results as to what exactly the pro-life movement wants to prevent and what the pro-choice movement wants to prevent. Pro-lifers want to prevent intentionally terminating the unborn from conception until birth. They do not advocate for preventing the termination of pregnancies, as long as the termination of pregnancy does not result in the intentional termination of either the born child or the transferred unborn, nor do they want the child who was born to be abandoned intentionally which would result in the death of the child.2 3
Some confusion is also caused by the misleading definition of miscarriages as “spontaneous abortions.”4 This is misleading, because miscarriages are unintentional, and are accidental or spontaneous. Abortions, as the pro-life movement is arguing against, are the intentional termination of the unborn, not the spontaneous and/or accidental unintentional termination. Certainly, they view miscarriages as tragedies, but no one in the pro-life movement believes there should be legislation to criminalize miscarriages.
Abortions are not simply the “termination of a pregnancy.” Abortions are a specific kind of termination. There are other ways pregnancies can be terminated: birth, transplant, or artificial removal (such as C-sections).5 Abortions are not the termination of pregnancies at all, they are the termination of the unborn prior to the termination of the pregnancy. In short, the subject of an abortion is the unborn, while the removal of the subject from the womb is the termination of the pregnancy. This removal may be natural such as through birth, or artificial such as through abortion.
One final note: this definition helps us understand why it is not prudent to outlaw certain procedures which are used in miscarriages and abortions to remove the unborn from the womb. What the pro-life movement advocates is the outlawing of using these procedures to intentionally terminate the unborn from conception until birth. This is a crucial distinction often lost in the debate which must be kept in mind for the sake of truth and the sake of good legislation.6
Once the unborn are now born, whatever they are in the womb, it is obvious that terminating a born child is infanticide, and no one genuinely advocates for infanticide. Therefore, with the proper window of time, (conception until birth), and the proper understanding of what an abortion is, it is clear the first premise is not only true but it is the only proper definition.
Premise 2:
The Humanity of the Unborn
The second premise is demonstrably true through biology and philosophy. First, we will take the humanity of the unborn. Biologically, the unborn are completely composed of human DNA. The male, human sperm and female, human egg have come together to form a biologically and numerically unique organism which is completely and totally human.7 The unborn cannot and will not grow into any other organism, because it is literally physically encoded into every cell and fiber of their being to mature as a human being. Biologically, therefore, the unborn are human.8
Philosophically, it is important to understand science and philosophy go hand-in-hand.9 They are not opposed to one another, and therefore if it is true the unborn are biologically human then they are philosophically human as well. Yet some argue the unborn are not human because they are not developed enough to be considered human. This however confuses multiple facts which must be addressed here.
First, this is a confusion of essential nature and accidental nature. Essential nature determines what something is, or what kind of thing it is. Accidental nature determines the specific thing within the kind.10 For example, my cat is essentially a cat, and possesses the essential qualities of being a feline. However, the height, weight, color, and particular way my cat meows are all accidental qualities which help me identify my cat as opposed to all other cats. This is a basic principle of logic and being which is used every day. If you walk into a Walmart looking for a new T.V, you will go to the section of T.Vs and then select a specific T.V based on which accidental qualities best suit your living room and needs, (screen size, resolution speed, etc.). To say the unborn are not human because they have not developed is to confuse the accidental qualities of height, age, color, length, etc. with the essential nature of what the unborn are.
This leads to the second confusion, which is between act and potency. Act is what something actually is in reality, while potency is the potential which this thing possesses.11 The unborn are not potentially human, they are actual humans with potential. For example, an acorn is actually an acorn which possesses the potential to be a mighty oak tree. The essential nature of the acorn is oak, and as time passes the essence of the acorn, “oakness”, does not change but rather the accidental qualities change. It becomes taller, it grows branches, it makes leaves, and it reproduces by making more acorns. The potential is actualized over time as the accidental qualities mature. The unborn are essentially human, therefore they are actually human, and any potential they have will be actualized as they grow and mature as human beings.
With this in mind, it becomes clear any attempt to say the unborn are not human because they lack certain qualities is absurd. The unborn, by virtue of the fact they are essentially human, and by the very basic inherent capacity of being human, will develop brainwaves, a heartbeat, lungs, kidneys, etc. In other words, the only reason the unborn would not develop these things is if something interferes with the basic inherent capacity which is present in all human beings to develop these organs.12 Take the following illustration: All women have the basic inherent capacity by virtue of the fact they are essentially women to become pregnant. However, not all women can be pregnant. It does not follow that they are no longer women. What follows is that some other factor has inhibited these women from actualizing their potential which is only possible because they are essentially human.
To put it in another frame which may be easier to grasp, this boils down to a confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions.13 Womanhood is necessary for pregnancy. Pregnancy is sufficient to demonstrate womanhood. But pregnancy is not necessary for womanhood. Womanhood is not sufficient for pregnancy. In other words, if someone is a woman you know she can become pregnant, and if she is pregnant then you know she is a woman. However, if you walk up to a random woman and simply say, “How’s the baby coming along?”, when she is not pregnant, you might walk away with a black eye, because womanhood is not sufficient for pregnancy. Just because someone is a woman does not mean she is pregnant.
Now let us apply this to the abortion debate. The unborn are actually, essentially human, as they have the basic inherent capacity to actualize their potential by developing accidental qualities which grow and develop over time. None of these accidental qualities are necessary for humanity, but they are sufficient to demonstrate humanity. The presence of developed and distinguished human organs in the unborn is sufficient to demonstrate their humanity. But those traits would never develop in the first place unless the unborn were human beings. Therefore, biologically and philosophically, the unborn are human beings.
One final note: it is interesting, is it not, that any time the debate between pro-life and pro-choice advocates take place, everyone subconsciously assumes we are debating about the same thing? After all, we aren’t debating over unborn cows, or fish, or dogs, or cats. We are obviously debating over unborn humans. Unborn is actually an adjective, an accidental quality, not a noun, an essential nature. Therefore, the very nature of the debate requires the unborn be human beings, otherwise there is no debate to begin with.
The Life of the Unborn
Are the unborn living? Once again, we turn to biology. Biologically, something is considered living if it is composed of active DNA.14 When something dies, it is still composed of DNA, it simply no longer active as it is being decomposed. The unborn are composed of active DNA. Therefore, they are biologically living. The unborn are therefore biologically living human beings.
Philosophically, this continues to hold true. The soul can be defined as the animating force of the body.15 When death occurs, something is not just ceasing, something is missing, the person who was once present is gone, even though the body remains. Death is an ugly reminder that materialism is false, because personhood is demonstrably separable from purely material functionality.
When someone dies, the reason why the biological activity ceases is because the animating force of the body is no longer present. In short, the soul is gone. It is clear, therefore, that if the soul is what causes the activity to take place then it necessarily follows the moment activity begins is when the soul is now present in the creature, i.e. the person is present in the body. This moment is the moment of conception, when the biologically unique and complete organism is now biologically active independently of other processes. Clearly, this is the moment when the soul is present, when the personhood is here. From the moment of conception, the animating force of the body which is the person of a human being is present. Therefore, the unborn are philosophically living. Taking all of this together, the unborn are living human beings.16
The Innocence of the Unborn
The unborn are living human beings. The question is now whether the unborn are innocent. In fact they are. This is obvious to anyone who can think to any extent. The unborn are not guilty of any crimes. They have not lied, cheated, or stolen. They have not invaded anyone’s homes, they were brought into the world through the actions of a man and a woman who chose to follow a certain course of action. The unborn possess neither the mens rea nor the actus reus for any crime. They did not consent to being brought into existence, such an idea is absurd. Therefore, the unborn are innocent, and even if some hypothetical charge could be brought against an unborn child for committing some sort of violation of the law, whether moral or criminal, (as ridiculous as it may sound), we do not convict people who had no choice in their actions. The unborn had no choice, therefore they are innocent. Therefore, the second premise of the argument is true.
Conclusion:
It is therefore sufficiently demonstrated that the first two premises are true. Therefore, the conclusion is true. There is no way to escape the fact the unborn are innocent, living human beings. Abortion is the intentional termination of innocent, living human beings. The next arguments will take this fact and place them in the broader context of the abortion debate.
Argument 2: The Right to Abortion
The second argument addresses claims to having a right to abortion. The argument is as follows:
No one has the right to intentionally terminate an innocent, living human being.
Abortion is the intentional termination of an innocent, living human being from conception until birth.
Therefore, no one has the right to an abortion.
Premise 1:
This premise is nearly a self-evident truth. It is a universal which is accepted by all peoples, in all places, at all times. While people do commit murder, (which is the intentional termination of innocent, living human beings), they should not commit murder. Every time someone murders, they always attempt to justify their actions, which demonstrates they know murder is wrong, otherwise they would not attempt to justify themselves or make an exception to the rule.17
Every single person from Ancient Greece to modern America, from the first dynasty in China to present-day India, and from the poorest third-world countries to the richest and most developed ones have all acknowledged this universal principle. Every time someone tries to deny this principle, they always affirm this universal truth and rather than deny it outright they end up attempting to demonstrate someone is either A) not innocent, or B) not human. Niccolo Machiavelli attempted option A in The Prince.18 John Locke in his Second Treatise expounds under what circumstances it is justified to kill another person.19 Adolf Hitler took the route of option B in Mein Kampf.20
No one has the right to murder. This means no man or woman has the right to murder under any circumstances. Everyone, everywhere, knows it is wrong to murder. The first premise stands as true.
Premise 2:
The second premise was demonstrated sufficiently in Argument 1, therefore the second premise is true.
Conclusion:
Since no one has the right to intentionally terminate innocent, living human beings, (which is the definition of murder), and this is exactly what abortion is, then there is no right to abortion. Any attempt to deny this results in either denying a person is innocent and/or denying a person is human, but never results in denying the principle itself. Therefore, the principle always stands, and since it is a fact the unborn are innocent, living human beings there is no escape and no exceptions.
A stronger form of this argument could be phrased this way:
It is never justified to terminate an innocent, living human being.
Abortion is the intentional termination of an innocent, living human being from conception until birth.
Therefore, abortion is never justified.
This form of the argument goes further than the language of rights, which are often competing with one another when one adopts such language. This gets to the very heart of the matter, which is whether it is just, not just whether it is possible, but whether it is justifiable under any circumstances. Since the first premise is universally accepted just as the first premise of Argument 2 is accepted, and the second premise is true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.
Argument 3: The Constitutional Argument
The third argument addresses specifically the context of the Constitution of the United States and what exactly it has to say regarding abortion. The argument goes as follows:
The Constitution prohibits the deprivation of life of any person without due process of law.
Abortion is the deprivation of the life of persons.
Therefore, the Constitution prohibits abortion without due process of law.
Premise 1:
This argument is based on the text of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The 5th Amendment states:
“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”21
The 14th Amendment states:
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”22
Therefore, there are two prohibitions in the Constitution: first, there is a universal prohibition contained in the 5th Amendment, and second there is a specific prohibition on States performing such actions in the 14th Amendment. This is the result of the plain meaning of the text. Therefore, it is clear the first premise is true.
Premise 2:
Argument 1 sufficiently demonstrated the fact the unborn are innocent, living human beings and the fact they are in fact persons. Therefore, since the unborn are persons, they are entitled to the protections the Constitution guarantees to persons. It is important to note they are not citizens until they are born, as the Constitution makes clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”23 Nonetheless, immigrants are not citizens unless they are naturalized, but they are still entitled to equal protection under the law on the basis of their being persons. In other words, they are entitled to due process which all persons in the United States are granted. As this illustration demonstrates, it is clear there is a category of protection for all persons in the Constitution, and since the unborn are persons, they fall under this category.
Conclusion:
Therefore, since the first and second premises are true, the conclusion is also true. While the pro-choice movement can claim the Constitution does not prohibit all abortions, it most certainly has a universal prohibition at minimum of abortion on demand. There must be, based on the Constitutional text, a minimum of some form of due process which gives the unborn, as persons, equal protection under the law as those who are born.
Conclusion:
Argument 1 proves abortion is the intentional termination of innocent, living human beings. Argument 2 proves no one has the right to an abortion, and the second version goes farther to prove there is no circumstance where abortion is justified. Argument 3 proves there is a Constitutional prohibition on abortion on demand, and the unborn are entitled to equal protection under the law. Based on these three arguments, the pro-life position is correct. It is time for Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Doe v. Bolton, and every other ruling which protected abortion beyond the Constitutional limits to be overturned. May God protect the Supreme Court in the coming days, and may God protect and be with every mother and her unborn children.
Writer, Anonymous. “Dobbs Draft Leak: What We Know.” Substack, 3 May 2022, https://writeanon.substack.com/p/dobbs-draft-leak-what-we-know?s=r. Accessed 4 May 2022.
While I fervently am opposed to IVF being used in this manner, the fact this procedure is possible actually gives the pro-life movement the medical basis we need to demonstrate it is not necessary to terminate the unborn in certain medical situations. While many ethical issues arise from this procedure, maybe it is possible to save mother and child by removing the unborn and placing them in an incubator and then allowing the mother to receive her child again? Such questions we need to answer. Again, I do not support using IVF in this way. I see this story as a back-door gift because it shows we may be able to save lives.
Azad, Sonia. “Same-sex Couple Carries Same ‘Miracle’ Baby in What May Be Fertility World First.” WFAA.com, 29 Oct. 2018, https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/nation-now/same-sex-couple-carries-same-miracle-baby-in-what-may-be-fertility-world-first/465-02aec675-907b-437c-9b20-7f17a00f21c8. Accessed 4 May 2022.
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Acts are designed to prevent born children from being abandoned by those who are responsible for their care even if the birth of the live child took place as the result of an attempted abortion. This legislation does not prohibit abortion, it prohibits using a failed attempted abortion as an excuse for abandoning children who are born alive. See the following link as an example from Govtrack.com: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s130.
“Miscarriage.” MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine, https://medlinplus.gov/miscarriage.html. Accessed 4 May 2022.
Termination means to “end in time or existence” according to Merriam-Webster. Therefore, it is proper to refer to birth as the “natural termination, (end in time), of a pregnancy”, because the unborn are now outside of the womb. While most sources on the internet will associate terminating a pregnancy with abortion, this is due to the assumption there is some form of intentionality, thus emphasizing the point being made that abortions are the intentional termination of the unborn. C-Sections are artificial because they require external cutting across an area over the lower torso in order to remove the unborn from the womb.
According to the MayoClinic, there are at least three ways to handle a miscarriage: natural expulsion, (which is similar to stillbirth, as the unborn are not alive); medical treatment, (where medicine is used to induce labor so as to remove the unborn); or surgical treatment, (such as Suction D&C). Pro-life legislators must take caution not to go too far and outlaw such procedures as are necessary to handle miscarriages and prevent health complications for the mother. Remember, a miscarriage is the unintentional, spontaneous and/or accidental termination of the unborn prior to birth.
"Conception: How it Works.” UCSF Health, https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception-how-it-works. Accessed 4 May 2022.
An extremely helpful resource can be found here at The Endowment for Human Development, which goes in detail in explaining the development of human beings from conception until birth. (EHD is a nonprofit organization which is committed to being neutral with regards to all bioethical issues including abortion).
See the following resources:
Howe, Richard G. “What is Philosophy, and Why is it Important?” The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics, edited by Joseph M. Holden, Harvest House Publishers, 2018, pp. 347-352.
Potter, Douglas E. “What is Scientism, and What is its Essential Flaw?” The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics, edited by Joseph M. Holden, Harvest House Publishers, 2018, pp. 367-371.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Vol. 1, Christian Classics, 1948. (Pt. 1, Q. 77 Art. 1)
—. “Commentary on the Metaphysics.” St. Isodore, translated by John P. Rowan, 1961. https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/Metaphysics5.htm#7. Accessed 4 May 2022. (Book 5, Lesson 7; Book 9, Lessons 1 & 9).
See Footnote 10.
The harvesting of fetal organs from aborted children for the purpose of “medical research” is a backhanded acknowledgement of the human nature of the unborn. Let alone the nature of embryonic stem cell research.
Swartz, Norman. “The Concepts of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions.” https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm. Accessed 4 May 2022.
There is much debate regarding biological life, however the common thread which all definitions have is that all biological life is composed of active DNA. Take this link here, which provides several criteria of life which are only possible with active DNA. Aristotle also attempted to define life, which you can find here. (Note: most biological definitions of life presented usually depend on a Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian worldview, though even Darwinism requires active DNA in order for life to take place).
See Aristotle’s De Anima and Thomas Aquinas’ subsequent commentary on the same. I chose this definition as it not only fits within an Aristotelian-Thomistic framework, but it also leaves room open for other definitions from various worldviews, (such as the Qi in Chinese concepts or the Hindu account of reincarnation). The animating force of the body, whatever it is called, is necessary for human life because we cannot even begin to live without it. Of course Christians know this is most properly understood as the Breathe of Life from Genesis 2.
Some may object to this by calling on materialism. However, materialism is self-defeating and a false worldview. See Geisler, Norman. “Materialism.” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999. It can be purchased here. You can also find it on Logos Bible Software.
Lewis, C. S. “Mere Christianity.” The C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, HarperCollins, 2017, pp. 15-36.
Machiavelli, Niccolo
. The Prince. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield, 2nd ed., The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by C. B. Macpherson, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980.
Hitler, Adolf. “Mein Kampf.” Translated by James Murphy. Project Gutenberg of Australia, https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt. Accessed 4 May 2022.
United States Constitution. Amendment V. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript. Accessed 4 May 2022.
United States Constitution. Amendment XIV. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27. Accessed 4 May 2022.
See Footnote 22.