Dear Mrs So and So,

In a recent Facebook post on the topic of abortion, a young woman responded to my ardent support for life with the following counterclaim.

Now, because I think that this conversation is vitally important, and because I think this could be instructive for others who are thinking through how to provide an answer, I am providing my response below.

May the Lord richly bless you as you fight for life, combat demonic ideologies, and use whatever means you can to save as many lives as you can.

Dear Mrs So and So,

I would simply ask you to define what you mean by "person". If you mean sentience and survivability, then I would ask you to apply the same standard to others. For instance, what about people in a coma (lacking signs of sentience and the ability to survive independent of a machine)? Or what about people in a vegetated state, or men and women in nursing homes with dementia or Alzheimers, etc? If they do not meet the standard of personhood, then wouldn't euthanasia (abortion for the adult) be an acceptable practice to deal with members of the human community, who are not deemed to have adequate displays of personhood, sentience, or independent survivability?

If you go that route, you must also understand that the 24-week-old preemie, also cannot survive outside the womb, without an adult and medical intervention. There is nothing qualitatively different between the preemie and the person in the coma in that sense. Neither are fully sentient and neither can survive without massive intrusive medical aid.

The same is true for newborn baby, who cannot survive outside the womb without adult intervention. They do not understand the sentences we speak and they have no ability to keep themselves alive. Even a two-year-old, would likely not survive without adult intervention because they are vulnerable and totally reliant upon loving members of the community to help them until they can do it themselves.

What do all of these real human examples have in common, from the 24-week-old preemie to the 24-month-old toddler? First, they are all fully human and have a complete set of unique fully formed DNA. Second, while they are at different points on the continuum of development, their humanity remains equal and constant.

For this reason, I can be rigidly consistent in saying that all human life has value and that all human life should be protected. My standard, since human life beings at conception, is consistent.

But when you make the argument about personhood (which is an amalgam of sentience and survivability) you have to create an external standard beyond biology and genetics by which to judge the qualitative value of a life. Instead of rooting your rationality in something hard or fixed, like DNA, you would have to judge a life on whether they are big enough, smart enough, old enough, or developed enough to be granted human rights? And then, how big must that be? If it is 21 weeks why not 20? Then why not 19? And then, where do you draw the line and wouldn't that standard devolve into subjectivity and opinion? And let me just ask you honestly, do we really want to risk being wrong on a topic like this, when life or death would be in the balance?

For me, I am not willing to let the debate lie in the realm of opinion, which is why I base it on observable evidence.

Here is a helpful argument that will demonstrate my position. It is called the S.L.E.D test.

1. SIZE - The size of a human does not determine its value. If that were the case taller and fatter humans would be more valuable than shorter and more slender people. Size does not matter when it comes to the value and dignity of human life.

2. LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT - A human's level of development does not determine its intrinsic moral value either. If it did, older people, who are at the end of the developmental chart, would be the most valuable people, rather than younger people who are less developed. Teenagers would then be more valuable and worthy of legal protection than toddlers, and so on. I believe that all human beings have equal value, regardless of their level of development.

3. ENVIRONMENT - The location of a human life also does not define its dignity, worth, or value. If that were the case, people in one location would have more value than people in another. Regardless of where a human is located, be that in the womb, in a house, or in a hospital, that human has dignity, value, and worth and should be protected.

4. DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY - A human's dependency also does not determine its value. If it did, infants, nursing home patients, mentally handicapped, and other less independent people would have markedly less value, dignity, and worth as more able body humans. This is preposterous!

SUMMARY.

When we think about this objectively, rationally, and scientifically, we see that a human being has value no matter how big it is, no matter how developed it is, no matter what environment it is in, and no matter how dependent it is.

If we cannot see that, then we must become either wildly inconsistent in how we apply our standards, or moral monsters that pull plugs in hospitals, physician-assisted suiciding the elderly, and allowing children to be abused because they are not as developed as the adults. My appeal is for people to be consistent on this issue and to care for everyone equally, especially those who are vulnerable.

About the topic of legislation and body parts, it really is not about your uterus. All of our bodies fall under various kinds of legislation. For instance, the government has legislated that my hand cannot pick up a gun and kill someone. I do not say to the government, "you have no right to tell me what to do with my hand". That would be silly. The same is true of my sexual organs. The government has legislated that men must not go around displaying their sexual organs in public... (a good law)! Why? Because doing so violates the rights of others.

My point is this, is that good laws allow us to have freedom, so long as our freedom does not infringe upon the freedoms of others. When that happens, limits are rightly applied in order to increase human flourishing. I am commanded not to drink and drive so that my freedoms do not crash into someone else's and harm them. Literally!

Now... Here is the point, as a woman, you have freedom over your body, so long as your freedom does not impinge upon the rights of another human life. When it does, and the murder of an innocent human life in the womb (again, that is a scientific fact of genetics) certainly qualifies, then your rights must be limited, to protect the rights of another. Whether you like that or not, that is a sound moral argument.

Again, I am challenging you and others to think about the issue rationally and consistently. I think my answer reflects both.