Human From Conception: The Science of Fetal Personhood

Not all pro-choice people deny that the unborn are biological humans. Still, pro-lifers should understand how to present the scientific case against abortion.

Among the various arguments in favor of abortion, some pro-choice people argue that the unborn are not biologically human. While not all pro-choice people reject the scientific case for the unborn’s humanity, pro-lifers should still know how to respond when confronted with someone who denies the unborn are biological persons.

But pro-lifers should not assume that all pro-choice people need to change their minds about abortion is a biology lesson. It would be great if that were the case, and while science is important to the abortion debate, there are other pro-choice objections it does not answer.

For some pro-choice people, successfully persuading them of the unborn’s biological humanity will not make them pro-life. They may still reject fetal personhood at a philosophical level, believe bodily autonomy rights negate fetal rights or hold to some other belief that justifies abortion regardless of whether the fetus is a human being.

Even for these persons, pro-lifers should still try to convince them of biological fetal personhood. This makes it more uncomfortable for them to defend abortion after conceding fetal personhood than it would be if they remained convinced abortion was nothing more than the removal of a clump of cells.

The biological case for fetal personhood and against abortion is as follows:

Most everyone agrees that murder, i.e., the willful killing of an innocent person, is wrong. And to a certain extent, most people are generally in favor of the mantra “My body, my choice,” outside of the issue of abortion. If a woman desired to get a tattoo, get a haircut, have plastic surgery, or do anything similar to her body, pro-lifers would not object.

Thus, it must be determined whether obtaining an abortion is a proper exercise of one’s control over one’s own body, like in the case of getting a tattoo, or if an abortion is but another method of willfully killing an innocent person.

Science leaves no doubt that at conception, a new, independent person exists. The baby’s cells reproduce, it metabolizes food for energy, and it can also respond to stimuli. It is universally accepted that anything with these characteristics is alive. Furthermore, the fact that this living thing has unique human DNA that differs from the DNA of its mother proves that it is its own person.

This is further substantiated by fetal development during the pregnancy. For example, three to four weeks after conception, the baby’s heartbeat can be detected. At ten weeks, the baby’s fingernails and hair start to appear. By 16 weeks, the baby’s eyes can slowly move. Just like human beings outside the womb, so long as the baby is provided with proper nutrients and a proper environment, it will continue to develop on its own.

This is only a minor sampling of the scientific evidence in favor of unborn personhood, but it is quite clear that the baby, from conception, is a unique human being. There is no denying that abortion is the willful killing of that human being.

As a society, we have already determined that killing an innocent human is wrong. The only question that remains is who is human? Science supports the claim that the unborn are valuable human beings like us, which means they are entitled to the same rights and privileges thereof.