The Right to Life: Revisiting Terms and Truths in the Abortion Debate
Part One: Setting the Context of the Abortion Debate
I think the word “fetus” is a dehumanizing expression that allows people to objectify the unborn.
There are two problems with the word. First, the word “fetus” sounds more scientific and more academic than personal. It’s like the difference between “metacarpal appendage” and “hand”. I can accurately say that I held my wife’s metacarpal appendage last night on the way home from dinner, but most people will have difficulty seeing this as an act of affection. My language has abstracted her hand and the nature of my actions. If I want to accurately (and emotively) communicate my actions to folks without a scientific background, I need to pick words that are rooted in our common experience rather than scientific concepts. Secondly, the word “fetus” can be applied to any number of non-human species. Skunks also have fetuses. When we use the term “fetus” to describe the unborn, we are likely to associate it with other forms of life that are simply not human. Our language inadvertently moves the target from human life to other forms of life that we may not consider as precious.
I think we need to return “humanity” to the terms we use when describing the unborn. We need to use a term that identifies the unborn as a precious human being and connects it to the continuing life of this human being over time, both in the womb during pregnancy and out of the womb after birth. So rather than use the term “fetus” when describing the unborn, we should use the word “fetal human”.
Language is important. When we allow the debate to embrace terms that objectify and dehumanize the unborn, we give ground unnecessarily to those who would deny the humanity of fetal humans. That’s why I’m doing my best to stop using the term “fetus”. The expression, fetal human, seems to meet the criteria satisfied by the word “fetus”, while properly identifying the unborn as the same human who will eventually enter into other stages of human development. I have been a fetal human, an infant human, a prepubescent human, and a mature human. As a human being, I have experienced all of these stages of development. The term “fetal human” allows me to capture the distinct nature of my humanity and apply it to every level of my development. I may have been progressing between one stage of development to the next over the past seventy years, but I’ve always been a human. The term “fetal human” recognizes this reality.
Part Two: The Arguments
“Choice” is an appealing word. Everyone likes the freedom to choose and values their right to freedom of action. But what if our choices harm other human beings? What then? Does the right to choose outweigh the right to life? Even secular philosophy acknowledges a hierarchy of rights, with life at the very top. If we aren’t first granted the right to life, all other rights lose their meaning. What good is the right to free speech or the right to be treated with dignity and respect if I am not alive. All other rights are null and void if you are not first granted the right to live.
The abortion debate is often framed in terms of “choice,” which can obscure the reality of what abortion is and does. When we describe the unborn as “fetal humans,” we confront the truth that abortion takes innocent life. Proponents of abortion have effectively redirected the focus toward women’s rights, socioeconomic concerns, and career impact, but these factors do not determine a person’s value. We do not justify killing a person outside the womb due to their circumstances, and the same standard should apply to the unborn. A person’s worth is not dependent on whether they are wanted, rich, poor, or conceived in a challenging situation.
The argument that a woman has the right to control her body is a compelling one, but it assumes there is only one body involved. In pregnancy, there are two bodies—the mother’s and the fetal human’s. Just as a mother cannot abandon her baby or withhold essential care after birth, she bears a duty of care to her child during pregnancy. The child has as much right to its existence as the mother does to hers. The child is the product of a natural process and the child belongs in her mother’s womb. That child is developing in their natural environment, in their rightful place, and therefore, have a rightful claim to their mother’s body.
Critics may argue that pro-life advocates have no right to object to abortion unless they are willing to care for unwanted children. However, countless pro-life supporters adopt children or work to make adoption accessible. Even if none did, it would not justify taking a life. We don’t use this logic for the homeless or other vulnerable groups, nor should we for the unborn.
Arguments that abortion should be permissible due to youth, poverty, career impact, or fear, fail to justify ending an innocent life. These are genuine societal challenges, but killing innocent fetal humans is not an ethical solution. Apart from abortion, when else may a woman, in pursuit of career, education, lifestyle or personal interest, have the legal right to kill an innocent, defenseless human being? Rape is wrong because it violates the dignity and value of that person and it is an example of a person attacking a vulnerable, innocent human being. Abortion is wrong for the same reasons. The truth remains that the unborn are human beings, and their life is inherently valuable.
The argument that no child should be given life if they are unwanted is flawed. (1) “Wantedness” applies to things not people. (2) It is true that some unwanted children are abused and abandoned, but does that justify killing the unwanted? What about the homeless and orphans who have been abandoned, do we have the right to kill them simply because no one wants them? (3) Who is to say that a “wanted” child will remain “wanted” and that an “unwanted” child will remain “unwanted”? Where did you gain this omnipotent knowledge to know who will be wanted or unwanted? Furthermore, are we really going to assert that the life and value of the child depends on whether it is wanted or not? (4) And despite the legalization of abortion, there has been little change in the number of unwanted children and no less child abuse in our society.
For those who argue that while they are personally opposed to abortion but still think it should be legal, perhaps they should remind themselves why they are personally opposed to abortion. The answer is because abortion kills an innocent human being. Let me see if I got this straight. You oppose abortion because it kills an innocent human being, but you think it should be legal to kill innocent human beings. Hmm?
The rape/incest argument is a very emotional and serious one. But how should a civil society treat innocent human beings that remind us of a very painful event? May we kill them? In a just society, we do not punish the innocent for the crimes of others. To end the life of an unborn child conceived in traumatic circumstances compounds tragedy with further violence. We must carefully consider whether the origin of conception diminishes a person’s inherent dignity? Can you think of any other case where, having been victimized yourself, you can justly turn around and victimize another completely innocent human being?
The very basis of Christian morality is the dignity of the human person because the whole point of morality is taking care of one’s neighbour. The killing of an innocent human is never an act of loving your neighbour. Reverence for life is the bedrock of morality.
The Fetal Human is Human Life
Not all the denial, not all the legalistic, ideological, sophistic gymnastics in the world can evade the truth. The fetal human is human life. The crux of the argument is that science confirms that the complete structure of a human (nothing is added to that individual’s genome after conception) is present at the moment of conception. The scientific point is clear-cut and settled. It's inescapable that unique human beings are created at the moment of fertilization. From the time of conception onward, the unborn child is a living, developing individual with its own unique genetic constitution. In pregnancy, there are two different heartbeats, brainwave patterns, blood types and one can die and the other live. The unborn child can be viewed, monitored, receive blood transfusions and even have surgery. It is illogical to believe that they are not part of the human family.
An acorn is not an oak, but that just shows that an infant is not an adult. An acorn has all the genetic structure to become a great oak. It happens to be an immature oak, but it is an oak. It never becomes an oak somewhere later in its development. All living things go through stages of development, but as they change in size, shape and appearance, they always remain what they are. A fetal human is not a potential human being, but a human being with great potential. Once conception occurs, the species begins and that life is on a developmental growth pattern that leads it from total dependence to independence. At no time is the life a different species. The fetal human is human because it comes from human parents.
If we assign degrees of humanity/personhood based on developmental stage or dependency, we risk creating a dangerous precedent that could logically extend beyond birth. Imagine suggesting that a 1-month-old child (who lacks independence and viability, consciousness and self-awareness) has “less serious” moral worth than an adult. We intuitively understand this is wrong. Human dignity is constant, unchanging, and independent of age, development, or dependency.
When being human alone no longer grounds natural rights, we’re left with troubling questions. What is our shared foundation, if not our common humanity? People differ widely in gender, age, size, intellectual capacity, and level of development, yet these differences have no bearing on our intrinsic worth.
Throughout history, powerful elites have imposed selective criteria for humanity/personhood. In 1850 in the USA, it was based on race and intelligence; for the Nazis, it hinged on religion and appearance. Today, for the unborn, it’s often criteria like size, development, location (in the womb), and dependency. Proponents sometimes argue that personhood requires certain cognitive functions—self-awareness, consciousness, desires, pain perception, and viability. But who determines these standards, and on what scientific or moral basis?
Consider:
Self-awareness: While fetal humans lack self-awareness, so do newborns for their first few months and those with severe dementia. Would anyone argue for their harm on this basis?
Consciousness: Those in a coma lack full consciousness. Are they less worthy of protection?
Desires: Buddhists, whose goal is to eliminate desires, retain full dignity. What about someone with suicidal thoughts who has lost the desire to live?
Ability to Feel Pain: Science shows that by eighteen weeks, fetuses can experience pain. Those with congenital insensitivity to pain lack this ability entirely—would it be justifiable to harm them?
Viability: This metric shifts as medical technology advances. Today, a child can survive as early as twenty-one weeks. Should our fundamental rights depend on technological capability?
These distinctions lead to inconsistency and dangerous implications. Grounding rights in functional capacities dehumanizes all people, not just the unborn. As Abraham Lincoln noted, grounding human worth on qualities that vary leads inevitably to inequality. The only consistent foundation for human rights is our shared human nature, acquired at conception. The pro-life view upholds human equality by rooting dignity and rights in our humanity alone.
The right to life is essential for moral and dignified society, recognizing that all human beings, regardless of circumstances, deserve protection and respect. When we uphold this perspective, we affirm the inherent value of every life from its earliest stages, strengthening our collective commitment to justice and compassion for the vulnerable.
Part Three: A Christian Response of Compassion and Support
In a world marked by complexity, the decision to undergo an abortion is rarely, if ever, a simple or easy choice. For many, it is a decision that comes after great inner turmoil, in situations fraught with challenges that few can truly understand. While we firmly believe that the taking of an innocent human life is never an acceptable solution, we are also called to respond with deep compassion and understanding toward those who have made this choice.
For some women, abortion may have seemed the only option in the face of painful circumstances—whether due to a traumatic experience like rape or incest, or because they felt too young, too unprepared, or too financially insecure to bring a child into the world. These are profoundly heavy burdens, and the weight of them cannot be underestimated. It is important to acknowledge that, in such moments, feelings of loneliness, fear, and desperation are often overwhelming. These experiences leave deep marks on the heart, marks that only compassion and healing can touch.
Understanding the Pain Behind the Choice
The journey following an abortion can be emotionally complex and, for many, deeply painful. Guilt, grief, shame, and confusion are common experiences that can linger for years. For some, there is a sense of profound loss; for others, regret. In these times, individuals may feel as though they carry a secret burden, one they may feel is too heavy to share openly. They may fear judgment or feel unworthy of forgiveness. Yet it is in these moments that they need love the most.
Jesus himself modeled for us the highest standards of love, forgiveness, and mercy. He did not turn away from those who had made mistakes, nor did he condemn those in pain; rather, he welcomed them, offering compassion and understanding. As followers of Christ, we are called to mirror his love, extending it to those who are hurting, without reservation.
Our Responsibility to Offer Support and Care
To support women who have been through this experience, we must ensure that they know they are loved and valued, regardless of the decision they made. Our role as the body of Christ is not to shame or condemn, but to offer care and guidance. This means listening without judgment, understanding their pain, and helping them find healing, no matter where they are on their journey.
For those who struggle with regret, we can gently remind them of God’s boundless grace and forgiveness. For those who feel isolated, we can be a community that welcomes them with understanding. And for those who carry heavy burdens, we can be companions, offering comfort, counsel, and a reminder of their dignity as beloved children of God.
Healing Through Love and Community
Our churches and Christian communities must be places where individuals feel safe to seek help, find comfort, and share their stories without fear of condemnation. Resources like counseling, support groups, and spiritual guidance should be accessible, helping them walk a path toward healing. We are called to be the arms of Christ, embracing them in their pain and helping them rediscover peace and hope.
Ultimately, our response to those who have undergone an abortion must be one of love. We do not know the full extent of the burdens they carry, but we can commit to walking alongside them. In doing so, we live out Christ’s call to love and serve others, embodying his mercy, and providing the compassion needed to heal hearts and restore lives.
As Christians, we are deeply committed to upholding the dignity of life, but equally committed to caring for those who find themselves in difficult situations. We want young mothers in crisis to know they are seen, valued, and loved, and that they have a community standing behind them. This means being willing to journey alongside them, to encourage them, and to help them see their own value.
Ultimately, while we do not condone the act of taking an innocent life, our response to those who have undergone an abortion or are facing an unplanned pregnancy must be one of love. We may not know the full extent of the burdens they carry, but we should be willing to offer every possible support, sharing God’s grace and helping them find hope. In this way, we live out Christ’s call to love and serve others, embodying his mercy and compassion.
