Why the Pro-life Position Should be the Default Position

When it comes to the issue of abortion, there was a time when people would argue that a fetus was not a person. That is becoming less and less the case. The ultra-sound and now the videos by the Center for Medical Progress showing dismembered body parts of fetuses have exposed that lie. In addition, many pro-abortion advocates know that we are talking about a person. For example, in an article entitled, “So What if Abortion Ends Life?” Mary Elizabeth Williams writes:

I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

Despite all this, some still make the argument that the baby in the womb is not a person. How should we respond to these arguments?

First, I think we can make the argument scientifically.  It is clear that you have new (distinct) biological life at conception, and since it is a human embryo, it can be nothing less than human life.  From conception you now have metabolism, cell division, etc. Some might say, "Yes, but that is not human life, we came from an embryo." However, none of us came from an embryo, instead each of us was an embryo. In the same way, we didn't come from a toddler but were at one time a toddler (as if a toddler is less of a human than I now am as an adult). In other words, we are not talking about a different kind of being, but rather the same being at a different level of development (prior to conception this is not the case, but once conception happens you have new human life).

Let's suppose however that science didn't prove this (as some assert). Or perhaps the argument is changed to, "Yes it is life, but it's not a human person." Peter Kreeft gives a great (easy to understand) philosophical case for the pro-life position being the default position.  Below is a short (2.5 min) video that you should watch.



To summarize, he argues there are only two possibilities when it comes to the unborn:

1. It is a human life
2. It is not a human life

Then he adds that your knowledge of which of those is true can only be summarized in one of four statements:

1. It is a human life and you know it
2. It is a human life and you don't know it
3. It is not a human life and you don't know it
4. It is not a human life and you know it.

In all except the last case, the default position must be the pro-life position. Otherwise, abortion would be:

1. Murder, 
2. Manslaughter, 
3. Criminal Negligence. 

Since no one is making argument number 4, then the pro-life position ought to be the default position.


HT: Justin Taylor