The Case Against Abortion: Science, Ethics, and Inherent Rights

An evidence-based examination of abortion, asserting that it constitutes the killing of an innocent human being and is logically, morally, and theologically indefensible.

Executive Summary

This document argues that elective abortion is the intentional termination of a unique, living human being and is therefore an act of homicide. The case is built on three pillars: 1) Biological Science, which confirms the humanity of the unborn from conception; 2) Moral Philosophy, which establishes that inherent human rights cannot be denied based on developmental stages; and 3) Theological Consistency, which highlights the stark contrast between the ethic of abortion and the core tenets of Christianity. The common arguments in favor of abortion are examined and rebutted, demonstrating that the “pro-choice” position relies on a failure to acknowledge the fundamental humanity of the unborn child.

1. The Scientific Foundation: The Unborn is a Living Human Organism

The question of “when life begins” is not a matter of religious belief or philosophical opinion, but of established embryology.

• From Conception, a New Human Life Exists: At the moment of fertilization, a new cell—the zygote—is formed, possessing a unique genetic code distinct from both the mother and father. This zygote is not a potential human life but a human life with immense potential. As leading embryologists Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud state, “Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” [1]
• A Continuous, Self-Directed Process: The development from zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn is a seamless, continuous biological process. There is no single, non-arbitrary point after conception where a distinct qualitative change occurs that confers “personhood.” The organism is the same entity, merely developing its inherent capacities. [2]

Conclusion of Science: Biologically, there is no debate. The entity destroyed in an abortion is a living, individual member of the species Homo sapiens.

2. The Logical and Moral Argument: The Right to Life is Inalienable

If the unborn is a living human being, then the moral framework we apply to all other humans must apply to them.

• The Personhood Fallacy: The pro-choice position often denies personhood to the unborn based on characteristics like size, level of development, environment (inside or outside the womb), or degree of dependency. However, we do not apply these criteria to born humans. A toddler is less developed than an adult; a person in a coma is dependent; a person on life support is in a different “environment.” We do not deny them their right to life. To be consistent, we must recognize that an unplanned child is not less entitled to their right to life than a planned child. [3]
• The Charge of Homicide: The intentional killing of an innocent human being is, by definition, homicide. Therefore, if one accepts the biological reality, the logical conclusion is that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. This is not hyperbole but a precise moral description. If you are not pro-life, you are pro-murder in the same logical sense that if you are not against theft, you are for it regarding the property rights of the unborn child.

3. The Theological Contradiction: The Gospel vs. The “Choice”

For Christians, the contradiction between the ethic of Christ and the ethic of abortion is irreconcilable.

• “My Body” vs. “My Body Given for You”: The slogan “My body, my choice” is a declaration of radical autonomy. In contrast, Jesus said, “This is my body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). The Christian ethic is one of self-donation and sacrifice for the other, not self-assertion at the cost of the other. [4]
• “You Must Die So I Can Live” vs. “I Die So You Can Live”: The underlying logic of an elective abortion is, “Your life is an obstacle to my flourishing; therefore, you must die so that I can live.” The logic of the Gospel is the inverse: Jesus, the innocent one, declares, “I die so that you, the guilty, may have eternal life.” Every abortion enacts a worldview directly opposed to the heart of the Gospel. [5]
• The Impossibility of a “Pro-Abortion Christian”: Given that Scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16-17) and identifies God as the defender of the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3-4), a “pro-abortion Christian” is a logical absurdity, equivalent to a “pro-adultery Christian” or a “pro-stealing Christian.” It represents a fundamental compromise of core Christian doctrine.

4. Rebutting Common Pro-Choice Arguments with Data

Claim 1: “Abortion is a Safe Medical Procedure.”

• Rebuttal: This claim is a dangerous half-truth that ignores the primary victim.
  • Physical Safety: The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization, itself notes that abortion restrictions are linked to later-term and potentially less-safe abortions, implicitly acknowledging that the procedure carries physical risks. [6]
  • Psychological Safety: Numerous studies point to a significant correlation between abortion and subsequent mental health issues, known as Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). A meta-analysis published in The British Journal of Psychiatry found that women who had an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. [7]

Claim 2: “A Woman Has a Right to Control Her Body.”

• Rebuttal: The principle of bodily autonomy is valid but not absolute. The unborn child is not merely a part of the woman’s body; it is a distinct human organism residing within her body. The right to autonomy cannot logically extend to the right to intentionally kill a separate human being. Abortion is as much of a ‘right’ as running someone over with your car. You have a right to drive, but no right to use your vehicle as a weapon.

Claim 3: “Most Americans Support Abortion Rights.”

• Rebuttal: Public opinion is complex and often misrepresented.
  • Pew Research Center Data: While a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, this support is highly conditional. The same Pew data shows that only a small minority (8%) believe it should be legal in all cases without exception. Most support significant restrictions, indicating public unease with abortion on demand. [8]
  • The “Why” Matters: Support plummets when the reason for abortion is elective (e.g., not wanting a child) rather than traumatic (rape, incest, or life of the mother). This suggests that intuitively, many people recognize the moral weight of ending a life for convenience.

Claim 4: “Reproductive Rights Include Abortion.”

• Rebuttal: This is a semantic distortion. Everyone has reproductive rights: you can choose to have sex or you can choose not to. These are choices about one’s own body and behavior. However, once reproduction has culminated in a new human life, the act of killing that life is not a “reproductive right”; it is a violation of that new individual’s most fundamental right—the right to life. No one has the right to murder.

5. Conclusion: A Call for Consistency and Compassion

The evidence is clear and compelling. Science confirms the humanity of the unborn. Logic demands we extend to them the basic right to life we grant all other humans. Theology reveals abortion to be a heartbreaking inversion of the self-sacrificial love of Christ.

To build a truly just and compassionate society, we must reject the false dichotomy of “woman vs. child” and embrace a framework that protects both. This means offering women in crisis pregnancies real choice—through comprehensive material support, counseling, and adoption services—rather than presenting violence as a solution. The ultimate goal is a culture that reflects the truth: Every child has the right not to be murdered in the womb, and our laws, our logic, and our lives should defend that truth without apology.

References

[1] Moore, Keith L., and T.V.N. Persaud. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 10th ed., Elsevier, 2015. p. 11.
[2] Condic, Maureen L. “When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective.” The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008.
[3] Beckwith, Francis J. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[4] Scripture quotation from Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV).
[5] Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options. 2nd ed., Baker Academic, 2010.
[6] Guttmacher Institute. “Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe.” https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe (Accessed October 2023).
[7] Coleman, Priscilla K. “Abortion and Mental Health: Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published 1995–2009.” The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 199, no. 3, 2011, pp. 180–186.
[8] Pew Research Center. “Public Opinion on Abortion.” https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ (Accessed October 2023).