Abortion advocates have lost the battle deciding whether fetuses are human beings. Biology is just too clear. A fetal life has 46 chromosomes, a full set of human DNA, metabolism, cell reproduction, growth, and reaction to stimuli. All these traits together make a human being. A person has these immediately at fertilization.
This is so clear that abortion advocates have had to come up with another, more confusing argument to distract from the straightforwardness of the facts. “Of course it’s a human,” they say, “what else would it be? But it’s not a person.”
Let’s be honest. Let’s look at the facts. If they are biologically human, they are also persons. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a need to question this because nowhere do we see other examples of a human who is not also a person.
Just to indulge this ridiculous notion, let’s think: what is the difference between a human person and a “human non-person?” Is it self-awareness? Viability out of the womb? Use of the senses? If so, prove it. Who said it? Who decides it? On what grounds? Are abortion advocates picking out qualities that unborn children haven’t yet developed to say “they’re not persons?”
Since when have we even needed to use that word to distinguish between a human and a person? The words themselves are synonymous! Miriam-Webster’s definitions of the word “person” are:
- A human.
- A member of the human race.
If a person is a member of the human race, then a member of the human race is also a person. A zygote, from conception, is a human and member of a human race, therefore, he is also a person.
The only times we even question whether human beings are persons (or “truly” human) are during exploitation and injustice. During the Holocaust, in support of slavery, and to spread eugenics, for example, we have questioned whether the people exploited or abused are really, truly human. To me, that’s powerful.
Do you agree or disagree? Do you see any differences between a human and a person? What defines each?