The mainstream media has already forgotten this topic as of the writing of this blog post, but I wanted to take time to do research and collect my thoughts before I set this down into semi-permanent cyber-ink. I am, of course, talking about the leaked majority opinion at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regarding Roe v Wade, published by Politico on 2 May 2022.

As much as we Christians would like to say that this is a simple issue, it actually is not if we truly care about human life and and if we leave judgment at the door. I will discuss this issue with respect to three major topics: life, personhood, and legal inconsistency.

Life

First, let’s talk about life. When does life begin? Despite many pro-choice advocates claiming to be on the side of science, this is one subject where they are decidedly holding opposing views to the vast majority of scientists. Steven Andrew Jacobs’s 2018 study showed that 81% of Americans agreed that biologists are best qualified to determine when life begins, and that 95% of biologists maintain that life begins at fertilization. “Just a clump of cells,” indeed.

Of course, even the staunchest pro-choicer has to admit that the zygote/embryo/fetus is in some way, shape, or form alive. It possesses all the characteristics of life: it grows, it reproduces (cellularly), it metabolizes, and it responds to external stimuli. It has its own DNA, related to but distinct from both the father and the mother in whom it’s taken residence. In fact, saying it’s “just a clump of cells” is an acknowledgement of life, since the most basic single-celled organism is considered alive by 100% of biologists on the planet.

Consider this: if headlines on newspapers, tv screens, and Twitter feeds proclaimed “Bacteria Found on Mars!” we would all universally agree that we had found extraterrestrial life. If we could positively rule out that this was a hitchiker from Earth and instead was native to Mars, not only would we hail a new chapter in our search for life outside our planet, but we would likely begin taking painstaking steps toward ensuring we do not accidentally harm said life.

Also consider sea turtles. Sea turtles are an endangered species and enjoy certain protections under federal law, a designation that “makes it illegal to harm, harass or kill any sea turtles, hatchlings or their eggs.” (emphasis added) This means that sea turtle zygotes and embryos enjoy a higher protection status under US law than human zygotes and embryos.

Personhood

Being in the condition of being alive does not automatically confer personhood, however, and this is where some pro-choice advocates might think they have their gotcha point. However, while they would love to debate when personhood actually starts, this is again an instance where both biology and law conspire against them. A “natural person” is defined simply as “a living human being” in the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. (Note that there are also definitions for “legal person” and “artificial person” but these clearly refer to entities such as corporations and organizations, not individuals.)

The characteristics of life are present at fertilization, as well as the DNA that proves that this new life is human. Biology and law are clear that from the moment of fertilization, not only is the zygote alive, but it is also legally considered a person.

How, then, does a mother have the right to end this person’s life? Pro-choicers would argue here that the mother gets a veto because the zygote/embryo/fetus is fully dependent on her for life and would not be “viable” without the mother’s womb. This is, of course, true. But what is also true is that we have steadily pushed back the calendar on viability for preemies over the past century. The Guiness World Record holder for most premature baby to survive is Curtis Means, born at an astounding 21 weeks and 1 day of gestation. (Remember that 21 weeks, because we’re going to talk about that in the next section.) Also true is that the baby, once delivered from the womb, is still completely incapable of living on its own in any meaningful sense of the word for several years still.

This is all to illustrate that the development of human beings is continuous and that, to establish an artificial age or milestone that delineates a person from simply being alive is just that, artificial. And this brings me to…

Legal Inconsistency

I’ve already alluded to some of the legal inconsistencies that exist; a natural person is legally defined as a living human being (we’ve already established that science clearly shows that a woman’s fertilized egg both meets the criteria for life and is genetically human) yet is not protected from death at the hands of another human. Human zygotes and embryos also enjoy none of the protections that are offered to other species such as sea turtles, though the turtles do not meet any legal definition for personhood.

Again consulting Cornell Law, homicide is defined as “when one human being causes the death of another.” Note that not all homicide is murder. All that is required for a committing of homicide is that one human being causes another human being to die.

Not only is the complete disregard of the child’s right to live egregious, but we then have instances where the law contradicts itself. Take this story from earlier this year, in which a man is charged with double murder for killing his pregnant girlfriend. Note that the fetus was estimated to be at 18-20 weeks gestation. Also note that, currently in Tennessee (as of this writing, there is still no official decision from SCOTUS regarding Roe v Wade), abortions can be had up to 19 weeks and 6 days gestation. In Tennessee, the mother can commit homicide against her fetus, but another person is charged with murder for effectively doing the same.

Historically, there have been times when persons have been deemed, legally, to not be persons. What comes readily to mind is slavery, where whole populations of people were regarded as property and had no inherent rights of their own. But we’ve also at times applied less than full personhood to people who were differently abled, of different religions, and in general, simply “other” than us. We have progressively recognized the error in relegating any human being to some “less than” status, yet this progress remains out of reach for the tiniest and most helpless demographic among us. The legal system needs to continue to make progress toward expanding human rights to all humans, not reverse it.

Not a Black and White Issue

After spending a dozen paragraphs explaining why a fertalized egg is a human and abortion is homicide, how can I say that this is not a black and white issue? What can be gray about any of this?

First, we cannot lose sight of the mother for focus on the child. Criminalizing an action does not stop it from happening, as the War on Drugs, gang violence in Chicago, and drunk driving accidents so poignantly remind us almost daily. And so criminalizing abortion will not stop it from happening; it will simply push it back underground where it was for centuries before we established safe medical procedures for women to use. A return to back alley abortions means that we will still lose the unborn child, and we’ll likely lose the mother as well. This certainly paints a grim picture for us claiming to be pro-life.

Second, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there are times when abortion is a medical necessity for the mother. Before modern medicine was capable of diagnosing these problems in utero, sometimes pregnant women died, taking their unborn child with them. Now that we are able to detect and diagnose problems that could be harmful or fatal to the mother caused by the pregnancy, we have the opportunity to save lives rather than lose them arbitrarily. I have a friend whose child had severe medical issues detected on ultrasound and follow-up scans. The doctors gave the child a 100% chance of dying after the umbilical cord was cut. In addition, due to previous complications, there was an increased risk to my friend’s health if the baby was carried to term and delivered either vaginally or via c-section. It was a painful decision to make, but ultimately she decided to have an abortion to spare both her child’s suffering and her own. These sorts of procedures must be kept available for true medical needs.

Third, let us not let religious pride cloud our compassion, sympathy, understanding, and grace. Far too many people on the religious right look down their noses at a teenage mom seeking an abortion, decrying her as a harlot and chastising her for making poor decisions. As if each and every one of us has not sinned thousands upon thousands of times before and received the abundant Grace of God each time.

Pro-life cannot simply mean pro-birth. We cannot advocate for the abolition of abortion only to see these babies born into untenable situations. If this is the case, we are merely delaying the child’s death and suffering, not preventing it. If we truly want to see an end to abortion (except in dire medical need), then we must advocate for improvements to safe sex education, widespread access to safe contraception, streamlining of adoption processes, and affordable healthcare for babies and children.