Is Abortion a Moral Right or Morally Wrong: The Pro-Life Case

So what exactly is the unborn? Can we gain any meaningful information from embryology regarding what the unborn is? I believe we can. Let me clarify what embryology is. It is the study of the beginning and developmental process of the human embryo from the moments of fertilization till death. Contrary to popular opinion, it is without dispute when human life originates with respect to embryologists. Let me mention one major textbook that is widely used in medical schools. In The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 8^th edition by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, they document the following regarding the question of when human life originates: “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell, a zygote, into a multicellular human being.” (The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 8^th edition, P. 2, Para. 1).

Moreover, on the same page in the terminology section, a zygote is simply defined as the beginning of a new human being, which would reiterate the earlier point. In his article “Embryology: Inconvenient Facts”, William Saunders cites a major textbook indicating the clarity as to when human life originates when he writes, “Human development begins at fertilization…. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (P. 1, Para. 3). There are other quotations that confirm this. Saunders contends, “Every human being begins as a single-cell zygote… Each human being is genetically the same human being at every stage, despite changes in his or her appearance.” (P.1, Para. 2)

First, it should be recognized that the human embryo contains its own unique genetic structure independent of the mother and father. When the male sperm and female egg unite, they form an ovum, which marks the beginning of the developmental process. Different chromosomes from the sperm and egg merge together and form a unique, whole living human being. Another fact to consider is that the embryo is capable of guiding its own internal development from the inside out. Even though it will undergo changes in its appearance and development, it will not change into another entity through the developmental process. As Scott Klusendorf points out, human embryos are clearly human beings because they are the offspring of their human parents and have the “genetic constitution characteristic of human beings.” (The Case for Life, P. 37, Para. 5).

In short, it is clear from the facts of embryology that the human embryo is a distinct, whole, and living human being. Maureen Condic, a professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah, states why assigning humanity to the unborn is a scientific matter and nothing else, “Linking human status to the nature of developing embryos is neither subjective nor open to personal opinion. Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death” the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells.” (Life: Defining the Beginning by the End, P. 6, Para. 3). The facts of embryology are clear: the human embryo from fertilization onward is a distinct, whole, and living human being. Anyone, who questions these facts, does not represent the conclusions of the majority of embryologists on this issue.

But is the human embryo a person endowed with intrinsic value? By advocating the substance view of persons and the acronym SLED – which stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency - I will argue that the unborn human embryo is a person who cannot be justifiably killed through an abortion procedure. First, what is the substance view of human persons? The substance view of human persons is essentially the view that human beings are persons in virtue of the kind of thing they are, not in virtue of their abilities. It is the fact you are a human being that gives you value in the first place. Moreover, preserving self-identity over time is a real fact of life according to this view. For example, even though I have changed in height, weight, and level of intelligence, I am the same person now that I was at the age of 14. So the substance view of human persons is the claim that (1) It is our nature that grounds our being a person and that (2) identity over time is preserved, not lost, despite changes in various factors. This view of human persons can be traced all the way back to Thomas Aquinas and has contemporary defenders as well. For example, Francis J. Beckwith defends the substance view of persons in his book “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal case against abortion choice”. Philosophers J.P. Moreland and ethicist Scott Rae also defend it in their book “Body and Soul”.

Now let us apply this reasoning to the pro-life issue. Klusendorf asserts, “ You were the same being then as you are now, though your functional abilities and physical characteristics have changed. From the moment you began to exist, there’s been no substantial change in your essential nature. Moreover, you are intrinsically valuable in virtue of being you, not in virtue of some attribute you acquire at some point, such as nice looks, intelligence, etc. Thus, if you are intrinsically valuable now, you were intrinsically valuable at the embryonic stage as well. “(The Case for Life, P. 50, Para. 4 & P. 51, Para. 1) Another point can be made to clarify what we mean when we say that human beings have intrinsic value. In ethics, which is the branch of philosophy that investigates moral principles in various ways, there are usually two different kinds of value: intrinsic and instrumental. Intrinsic value, as I clarified, is the value for simply being what it is. Instrumental value, by contrast, is the value that gains its value from how it can be used for certain things or purposes. Something that has instrumental value only has value in as far as how it can be used for a certain end or purpose. Examples of this would be hammers, trucks, chairs, and even companies. Their existence isn’t what gives them value but what they can produce or well they function is what gives them value. If their level of functionality worsens, then so does their value.

By contrast human beings, according to the substance view, are not like this. Human beings have value simply for who they are. It would be morally wrong to use them as means to a certain end. This is a fact that virtually everyone affirms, even those who use other people for their own gains. If people’s value were instrumental and not intrinsic, then using them for our own gains or redefining their value to accommodate our self-pleasures and desires would not be morally wrong. One more reason why one ought to accept the substance view of persons, which grounds intrinsic value, is because it can ground human equality. It is commonly said that everyone ought to be treated equally. But what justifies this? Since everyone differs from each other in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, the obligation to treat everyone equally cannot be based on those factors. So what is it? It must be because everyone shares a common human nature regardless of those other factors.

The acronym SLED is helpful in our understanding of what it means to argue for the moral, intrinsic worth of each human being. It stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency. How does this apply to the pro-life position? Put simply, there is no essential moral difference between the human embryos we all once were and the adults we are now that would justify killing us at those prior stages of development. A simple argument illustrating this principle will go something like this:

Ø  Unborns, infants, and toddlers have different sizes, levels of development, come from different environments, and have different degrees of dependency.

Ø  Killing someone at an earlier stage of development based on the properties in SLED is morally wrong.

Ø  Since those changes apply to newborns, infants, and toddlers as well as human embryos and fetuses, it follows that those changes cannot be used to justify killing the unborn but sparing the infants and toddlers.

In simple terms, bigger people are not more valuable than smaller people, smarter people are not more valuable than less intelligent people, where people are does not determine who they are, and people more dependent on their parents are not less valuable than people who are more independent. People are intrinsically valuable regardless of their sizes, levels of development, environments, and degrees of dependency. To deny this would inevitably deny everyone human equality.