The Nonexistent Distinction Between Humans and Persons

         While the abortion debate is often highly emotionally charged, it need not be a complicated issue if thought through scientifically, philosophically, and biblically. Due to the overwhelming scientific consensus that human life begins at conception, the question is now a philosophical one: is human life a human person? The moral question of inherent value is at the heart of the debate, as it is persons who have innate dignity and ought to be treated as such. However, history has shown that when specific human groups are not seen as valuable persons, there are dire consequences, and if we are not familiar with history we are “condemned to repeat it.”[1] The different issues involved within the abortion debate range from women’s “healthcare rights” to the question of personhood, but if there is one thing that can be agreed on is that it is a debate. Each viewpoint in a debate must provide more than baseless assertions, as an assertion is just a claim to something. A genuine debate includes arguments, which are justified claims to something, meaning there are convincing reasons why their view should be taken seriously. Defining terms is of primary importance in any debate, and this one is certainly no exception. While the terms will be discussed in further detail below, for now abortion can be understood as the “deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.”[2] Before one terminates anything, one must know what it is. Considering what it is, is the central question of the debate, and as Greg Koukl points out in his book Street Smarts, “If the unborn is not a (valuable) human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is a (valuable) human being, then no justification is adequate.”[3] In examining such a crucial ethical issue critically and logically, it becomes quite evident that there is no real difference between human life and personhood. In fact, they are one in the same. A living human being is a personal kind of being because that is precisely what it means to be a human, and therefore ought to be treated with dignity regardless of the size, the level of development, the environment, or the degree of dependency.

Life and Personhood: Is there a difference?

         The first type of consideration in answering the question of “what is the unborn” is a scientific one: when does life begin? While many abortion advocates will answer this in a variety of ways, or have no answer at all, it is of primary importance. Again, before terminating anything, one must have a reasonably good idea of what that thing is. If while hunting in the woods, the hunter hears some ruffling in the bush near him, is he justified in shooting without having a clue of what is in the bush? It could be a deer, or it could be Uncle John who has made his way from the cabin to the tree stand!

         In their book, Legislating Morality, Frank Turek and Norman Geisler look to world renowned scientists and geneticists who have made some controversial, yet scientifically simple, claims about the beginning of life.[4] Testifying before Congress that life begins at conception, Dr. Micheline M. Matthew-Roth said, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism produced by sexual reproduction begins at conception, or fertilization.” World famous French geneticist Jerome LeJeune is quoted as saying, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to the old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”[5] What these testimonies, and many others like it, make clear is that embryology demonstrates that the unborn, from conception, is living, distinct, and human.

         While the question of when life begins is a biological one, the question of personhood is a philosophical one. As Paul B. Fowler correctly observes, “Everything in the abortion debate hinges on whether or not the unborn are viewed as persons.”[6] Because the scientific conclusion of human life beginning at conception is so solid, the abortion-choice advocates attempt to make a distinction between unborn humans and valuable human beings, called persons. Although the assertions that attempt to justify this distinction will be discussed in further detail below, an apparent question needs to be asked when this distinction is being attempted; what exactly is the difference between humans and persons? If there is a difference, it would seem to be quite arbitrary with no real standard by which to measure “personhood” from. In examining several abortion advocates on their logic, Fowler summarizes their reasoning as two premises.[7] The first is that life is a process, or a continuum, meaning that it takes a duration of time for a fetus to develop into a human being or person. In other words, there is no real demarcation between life and personhood’s beginning. The second premise is that a fetus is only a potential person, and actual personhood is achieved only after certain quality of life criteria (discussed below) are acquired. In contrast to this pro-abortion logic, the pro-life stance views biological development as irrelevant to the question of personhood, as a person is more than their genes.[8] Finally, the question of “who defines whom?” needs to be considered. The implicit assumption of most pro-abortion advocates is that the answer to this question is adult human beings, which is an attitude of humanistic elitism. However, if there is an objective moral law that exists, it would seem human beings are not the ultimate authority on issues such as this.

         In considering what Scripture says on these matters, the Bible is more than clear that human beings are valuable simply in light of their nature. From the early chapters of the Genesis account of creation it is recorded that God made human beings in “his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:27, ESV) The doctrine of human beings made in the imago Dei is at the heart of what it means to be human, and provides a foundation for inherent value, dignity, and worth. One of the purposes of the majority of Old Testament law was to protect the unjustified taking, and any mistreatment of, human life. Psalm 139 sheds light on the fact that life is a gift from God, and it is owed to Him that humans are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. One of the clearest examples of humans having a personal identity from the moment of conception comes from the incarnation of Christ himself. The account of the birth of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Luke tells us that and angel appeared to Mary telling her, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Lk 1:31) What is not said is that Mary would conceive a potential son named Jesus. If this is not convincing enough, it becomes more apparent when Mary visits her relative, Elizabeth, who was six months pregnant with John. It is recorded that when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, who would have been in the early stages of her pregnancy, “the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (vv. 41-43) The language of Elizabeth here has no hint of potential personhood as she recognizes the actual identity of Jesus in Mary’s womb. If Mary would have aborted the fetus in her womb at this point, she would have aborted an actual and distinct person; namely, the second person of the trinity.

         It has been shown scientifically, philosophically, and biblically that human beings are personal beings, but are they inherently valuable? And if so, do they deserve the same right to life that all born humans deserve?

A Case for Inherent Value: Worldview Considerations

         While the abortion debate is of primary importance in modern cultural ethics, it is the underlying issue of worldview that must be considered if one is to make any sense of reality, including a real right and a real wrong. The prevailing worldview of humanistic materialism over the past few centuries in the West has taken deep root amongst many, and its effects are evident when it comes to ethical issues such as abortion. However, before arguing for whether the unborn is inherently valuable or not, the question of whether any human being has objective value needs to be considered. According to the materialistic worldview, there is no personal God. There is no real Purpose or Meaning to life. The universe, human beings included, is simply the result of “blind physical forces and genetic replication” and therefore is at bottom “nothing but pitiless indifference.”[9] However depressing this may sound, it is consistent with a view of reality without God. In fact, if there is no personal God, nothing beyond the natural world, then life is both meaningless and terrifying.[10] While space does not allow for a full, in-depth, examination of the materialistic worldview, what becomes clear is that if this is the correct worldview, objective and inherent human value is relative, and ultimately meaningless. Moral relativism is all that this view is left with, which turns out to not only be self-refuting, but dangerous. Those who choose to define right and wrong according to their “own concept of existence and meaning” endanger themselves, as well as the rest of society.[11] Although this concept of morality might be appealing at times when it suits our self-interests, it cannot be consistently lived out. Concerning the value of human life, if there is such a thing, it must come from an outside source if it is to be inherent. Just as life does not come from non-life, value never comes from valuelessness, but from value.[12] Materialism fails to account for human dignity and objective morality. What is the alternative?

         If value must come from value, and life must come from life, it would seem that only a theistic view of reality could provide an adequate explanation for the origin and inherent value of human beings. On this view, there is also a justified explanation for objective morality which provides the basis for real right and real wrong. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently observed in his work Mere Christianity, “there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real—a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.”[13] There is a real right and wrong that is external to ourselves because we do not determine it, we discover it. The moral law written on our hearts, as well as plain observation, tells us that there is something unique about human beings that distinguishes us from every other form of life, and the unjustified mistreatment of these human beings is wrong, not a matter of simple dislike. Again, only a theistic understanding of the nature of reality can account for such observations.

         A systematic theology of Scripture reveals that the God of the Bible has certain communicable and incommunicable attributes, those He shares with us and those that are unique to him. Along with certain communicable attributes such as justice, love, mercy, and wisdom, human beings are made in the image of God and therefore share the attribute of life and value. On this view, the unjustified taking of human life is absolutely wrong as it is a direct affront to the Creator. Abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life. Therefore, abortion is absolutely wrong. The biblical worldview provides the best explanation for the inherent value and worth of all human beings, as well as a justification for the immoral action of abortion.

Common Pro-Abortion Objections/Assertions to Personhood

         The first objection has already been mentioned several times, that of the unborn being potential human life. This objection sees the unborn as lacking certain qualities of life (mentioned below) and therefore is not to be viewed as a full person. While this assertion has certain misleading notions, it should be noted that this is a slippery slope. If we applied this logic out to born humans, newborns could be considered as potential adults and therefore seen as less valuable. It would seem that if life is a “process or continuum”, then so is value. Instead of viewing the unborn as potential human life, a more accurate description would be the unborn as human life with potential. This view recognizes the full humanity and personhood of the unborn, while also recognizing it does not yet have certain capabilities that more developed humans may have.

         A second pro-abortion assertion has to do with the size of the unborn, especially at earlier stages of development. While the unborn are clearly smaller than a born human, it’s hard to reason how such an irrelevant difference such as size disqualifies someone from being a person.[14] Toddlers are smaller than teenagers, and teenagers are typically smaller than adults. Would it be justified to kill the toddler or teenager simply because of this fact? The seemingly obvious answer is no, because the value of a human is not based on their size. Therefore, the “argument” from size is an absurd and inadequate justification for abortion.

         A third assertion of pro-abortion advocates, while similar to the size assertion, has to do with the level of development of the unborn. The logic seems to be the unborn is not fully human because they are less developed that a born human being. However, in applying this flawed logic out to born humans, it becomes apparent that this is an absurd notion. Alan Shlemon points out that a four-year-old girl cannot bear children because her reproductive system is less developed than a fourteen-year-old girl, but this does not disqualify her from personhood.[15] The four-year-old is equally valuable as the child-bearing teenager. The issue of consciousness is usually brought up under this assertion, as the unborn are not yet fully aware of their existence. However, unlike life, consciousness is more of a spectrum than a dividing line. Someone who is asleep, or in a coma, is not less valuable than someone who is awake. In fact, the “argument” of level of development proves to help the pro-life position in that if something is growing, it must be alive. And if it alive, it is a human. Therefore, the level of development assertion does not work as a reason for abortion.

         A fourth, though less common, pro-abortion assertion is that the unborn is located in a different environment than a born human. The seemingly obvious question that should be asked of this claim is how does one’s location alter one’s value? The answer is it does not. Where you are has absolutely no bearing on who you are.[16] Astronauts in space, scuba divers at the bottom of the ocean, and cave divers are all in very different locations, yet no one would ever use this as a justification to eliminate them. It is unclear how a 7-inch journey through the birth canal can suddenly alter one’s status as a person. Therefore, this flawed argument for abortion falls embarrassingly short.

         A fifth, and more popular, justification for abortion has to do with the degree of dependency, or viability, of the unborn. The unborn is wholly dependent on the mother’s body for nutrition and a proper environment, and therefore cannot survive on its own outside the womb. However, no baby is “viable” in this sense, since all depend on an adult caretaker to provide for its fundamental needs.[17] The degree of dependency logic applied to all humans would mean that anyone who depends on another human, or machine, to survive are somehow less valuable. If total self-reliance is the determinate for value, then no human being would qualify, as all humans rely on external factors for survival. Contrary to the prevailing individualistic and autonomous mentality, there is no such thing as total independency for human beings. Therefore, the viability “argument” is an inadequate one for the termination of a pregnancy.

         A sixth pro-abortion assertion is the slogan “my body, my choice.” While this autonomous sentiment resonates with many, it is simply rhetorical sleight-of-hand. The question that never seems to be raised when this claim is used, is “choose what”? This is similar to saying one has the right to do. “Choice” in this sense is a noun to describe the act of choosing, but it must be followed with a specific action that one is choosing. In the abortion case, it is the choice to “terminate a pregnancy.” However, the question of what is being terminated remains. This brings us back to Koukl’s observation that if the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary. But if the unborn is a human being, then no justification is adequate. As has been shown, since the unborn is indeed a distinct, growing, and human being, bodily autonomy is an insufficient justification for the termination of a life.

         The last objection that will be considered to the pro-life stance is the cases of rape and incest. While these situations are traumatic, and therefore ought to be handled with care, there is a problem with arguing from the rare exceptions. Turek and Geisler point out that these cases account for far less than one percent of the total number of abortions.[18] Emotionally charged circumstances such as these do not always lead us to the most accurate conclusions and are often used as a smokescreen by pro-abortion advocates to “compensate for their inability to justify their real position by the facts.”[19] In every situation of a women being raped, the guilty party should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. However, punishing the unborn child for the sins of the father is treating trauma with more trauma. If the unborn is indeed a distinct human life, then it has inherent value and should be treated as such. There are many other solutions to helping the mother during extremely difficult times such as this, but terminating the product of the crime is not one of them.

Conclusion

         Contrary to the ever-increasing cultural obsession with individualism and personal autonomy, the right to choose is not the foundational right of human beings; life is. Because all human beings are made in the image of God, they have inherent value, dignity, and worth. This fundamental value provides adequate and sufficient justification for all human beings, born and unborn, to have the right to life, for from it flow all other rights. The pro-life position argues that it is this right to life that the unborn victims of abortion are being denied and is therefore an atrocious act of injustice. The claim that there is a difference between humans and personhood based upon arbitrary quality of life criteria fails to recognize the scientific, philosophical, and theological fact that humans are persons. A living human being is a personal kind of being because that is precisely what it means to be a human, and therefore ought to be treated with dignity regardless of the size, the level of development, the environment, or the degree of dependency. There is no adequate justification for elective abortions done in the name of convenience, comfortability, or personal autonomy.

[1] George Santayana, The Life of Reason (New York: Dover Publications, 1980).

[2] Meriam-Webster, s.v. “Abortion,” accessed December 8, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion.

[3] Gregory Koukl, Street Smarts: Using Questions to Answer Christianity’s Toughest Challenges (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2023), 227.

[4] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible? (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 155.

[5] U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Smoking and Health, “Cigarette Smoking-Related Morality,” Document #461123, April 24, 1996, 1.

[6] Paul B. Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus (Portland, Or: Multnomah Press, 1987), 31.

[7] Ibid., 46.

[8] Ibid., 47.

[9] Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (Prince Frederick: Recorded Books, Inc, 2018), 133.

[10] Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (S.l.: CROSSWAY BOOKS, 2021), 80.

[11] “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. V. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).” 2019. Cornell.edu. 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html.

[12] J. Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 180.

[13] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Jerusalem: Dolphin, 1969), 29.

[14] Alan Shlemon, “Navigation,” The S.L.E.D. Test, accessed December 8, 2024, https://www.str.org/w/the-sled-test.

[15] Alan Shlemon, “Navigation,” The S.L.E.D. Test, accessed December 8, 2024, https://www.str.org/w/the-sled-test.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Gregory Koukl, Street Smarts: Using Questions to Answer Christianity’s Toughest Challenges (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2023), 242.

[18] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible? (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 168.

[19] Ibid., 167.