The Pro-Life Position

I thought I would take some time during the month of June to write about the pro-life position to which I hold. It is my hope that some on the “other side” would read this and think about it, so particularly in this first post I am going to lay out a foundational, logical case for being pro-life. Throughout the month I hope to write about my own pro-life experience and address some of the objections to the pro-life position. None of this is particularly original to me, but maybe this can be a primer of sorts.

The most potent case for being pro-life is in the syllogism below. Again, this is nothing original to me. In fact, this syllogism was used by Seth Dillon in his time on the Joe Rogan Experience. The way a syllogism like this works is that there is a major premise followed by a minor premise which leads to a conclusion. In this form of deductive reasoning, the conclusion must be true if both premises are true. So here is the pro-life syllogism.

Premise 1 – It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Premise 2 – Abortion kills an innocent human being.

Conclusion – Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Premise 1 – It is wrong to kill an innocent human life.

I think this is a pretty incontrovertible statement. Even those who, philosophically, don’t believe in absolute moral truth, still functionally want to live in a society where this holds true. None of us want to live in a world where we are subject to the violent animosity of others without the benefit of social/legal protection. Nor do we want our toddlers or tweens or teens or grandkids living in such a world.

But I think that beyond the practical, there is a deep-seated instinct within humanity that understands that the taking of an innocent human life is a moral evil. Because man has been made in the image of God, taking the life of a human being is a different moral event than taking the life of a beast. So enshrined in the moral law of God is a simple but profound prohibition: Thou shalt not kill.

The “exceptions” are excepted in the premise by qualifying the statement to include “innocent”. We understand that in warfare, for example, soldiers die. But we also understand that it is morally reprehensible to target, say, women and children, while engaging in warefare. Another exception would be those who support the death penalty, because in such cases there is guilt, not innocence.

I don’t know of anyone who would argue (or how they would go about arguing) that the unborn are not innocent. In fact, the unborn represent the group least able to defend themselves against attack. They are not only without any kind of moral culpability, they are also without defensive capability. As such, they are the most innocent among us.

Premise 2 – Abortion kills an innocent human being.

The first proof I would give in support of the humanity of the unborn baby would be scientific. In the last fifty years our understanding of the human body has increased dramatically. Terms like embryo, zygote or fetus are simply descriptions of a human being in a different stage of development, but the science clearly indicates that unborn babies are distinct human beings from the time of conception. If one wanted to believe that at some point an unborn baby received a soul or qualified for personhood, they could not appeal to science for evidence. To the contrary, modern ultrasounds and sonograms and echocardiograms have contributed to our understanding of how early in development unborn babies display their individuality.

The second proof I would offer is logical. Let’s say a child is born today, June 1, 2023. Was that child a human being yesterday? It is hard to affirm logically that this same child, barely different in appearance or development over the course of 24 hours, somehow crossed a threshold that qualifies her to be “human” overnight. So what about the day before? What about the week before? As you can see, we can actually do this all the way back to the place where your life actually began. There was a time when you didn’t exist, and then there was a time when you did. How then can we draw a distinction between when the unborn are human vs something else?

The third proof I would offer is biblical. This line of evidence will obviously not be definitive for an unbeliever, but all Christians should affirm the dignity of the unborn, and all unbelievers should be cautious in dismissing ancient wisdom like this:

Psalm 139:13,15: For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. … [M]y frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

Galatians 1:15: But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace…

Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Conclusion – Therefore, abortion is wrong.

This is the pro-life position in a nut-shell. It is true that none of this addresses the social complexities or legislative dilemmas surrounding this issue. But those are secondary to getting the heart of the issue right. Everyone who affirms that taking an innocent life is morally wrong and who acknowledges that the unborn are human beings must logically affirm that abortion is morally wrong.