Abortion: Only One Question

Introduction

Though conversations about abortion can quickly branch into numerous issues, there is really only one question that matters the most—what is the preborn? While topics such as women’s rights, instances of rape and incest, and others must not be taken lightly, the status of the preborn will dictate how one approaches each issue. This is because whether it is moral to kill something depends on what it is in the first place—its value is tied to its inherent nature. A syllogism against abortion can be presented as follows: (1) It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being intentionally, (2) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being, (3) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. The underlying assumption throughout this syllogism is the humanity and value of the preborn. Modern science has repeatedly shown that a distinct human being is formed from the moment of conception.

In response, some pro-abortionists have accepted this fact but have attempted to distinguish between being a human being and a human person of value—claiming the preborn is merely a “potential person.” They point to physical and cognitive characteristics the preborn lacks to discredit personhood. However, such characteristics can be shown to be inadequate measures of personhood since they can be shown to apply to those who have been born as well. The argument by pro-abortionists that the preborn might be human beings but not persons is fundamentally flawed, as personhood is an inherent attribute of being human, affirming that the preborn possesses the same value as humans already born.

Overview of the Abortion Debate

Anti-abortionists typically argue that the preborn are human beings at the moment of conception, which means intentionally killing them through abortion is morally wrong.[1] In response, pro-abortionists attempt to devalue the preborn as “less than” compared to those who are already born. Some pro-abortionists will grant the preborn a human being but not yet a person with value. The question, then, is whether the preborn human being is a person and just as valuable as those who have already been born. Before addressing this question, it is best to provide an overview of why being pro-life matters and why the abortion debate comes down to one question.

Why Does Being Pro-Life Matter?

Pro-abortionist Katha Pollitt said this about the personhood of the preborn, “it’s hard to see how a fertilized egg qualifies as [a person]…They are potential persons, yes, but that is not the same thing as actually being one, any more than my being a potential seventy-year-old means I am one now.”[2] As mentioned above, tensions are typically high when abortion is brought up in conversation. Since conversations about abortion can (and usually do) spiral into numerous directions, it is best to stick to the syllogism presented above: (1) It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being intentionally, (2) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being, (3) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.[3] Following this argument to its logical conclusion, if the preborn are part of the human family, deserving of equal value as all other already-born humans, abortion is wrong. If, however, it can be shown that the preborn are not human beings, then no justification is necessary for abortion.[4] 

The following statistics are unsettling if the preborn are truly human. During the time of Roe v. Wade, 62 million preborn human beings were legally killed in the United States—this is the Holocaust times ten and equivalent to Yankee Stadium being filled 1,143 times over.[5] Globally, however, the numbers are just as gut-wrenching. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 73 million abortions take place every year.[6] This equates to about 200,000 abortions occurring globally per day. If the preborn are human persons equally as valuable as other persons in the human family, then the numbers above represent innocent individuals who have been murdered in the womb. Feminist Naomi Wolf said that abortion involves a “real death” and that to claim otherwise cheapens how human life is viewed.[7]

It is often easy to criticize those alive during the Holocaust and question why nobody had done something sooner to stop Hitler and his tyrannical reign, leading to the death of six million Jews. As mentioned above, the number of preborn human persons who have been murdered through abortion is ten times the causalities of the Holocaust. Therefore, the same question can be asked of humans across the globe today: why haven’t more people stood up to fight against the genocide of the preborn? Of course, the relevance of such a question depends on one question—what is the preborn? This is precisely what will be addressed below.

Only One Question: What is the Preborn?

Imagine a child (named Brandon for illustration purposes) goes up to his father one Wednesday afternoon and screams, “Daddy, daddy, I killed it! I killed it!” What is the first question the father will ask? Indeed, he will ask, “What was it that you killed?” This is because whether it is right or wrong to kill something solely depends on what it is in the first place.

When discussing the status of the preborn with a pro-abortionist, they will often point to differences between an adult human being and an embryo to show that the preborn is either not a human being or not yet a human person. These points may include size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependence. Stephen Schwarz suggests an acronym, SLED, for remembering and countering such popular points to show they are nonessential differences—often called the SLED test.[8] First, though one is smaller as an embryo than an adult, body size does not determine value. Larger humans are not more valuable than smaller ones. Second, just as embryos are less developed than adults, so are six-month-old infants less developed than teenagers physically and mentally, but that does not justify killing the former, for both carry equal value as human persons. Third, where one resides does not determine what or who someone is. Being eight inches down the birth canal does not change the nature of the preborn from someone without value who can be killed to someone who is valuable and has a right to life. Lastly, though the preborn depends on the mother for survival, dependence does not justify the right to kill. Conjoined twins depend on each other, but that does not mean they can be killed. Also, all humans are dependent on others in some capacity, especially newborns, but this does not justify killing them.

Therefore, the SLED test shows that humans are equal not by function but by nature. Though humans may differ drastically in function and appearance throughout the various stages of life, they are equal because of a commonly shared human nature that has been had since the beginning of each person’s existence. However, this leads to the following question: when does life begin? From the scientific data, it will be shown that human life begins at conception, leading to the philosophical question of whether human beings are persons with value rather than “potential persons.”

The Science: What is the Preborn? 

While science cannot assign value and meaning to something, it can show what it is, what it is not, and whether it is functioning as expected. Therefore, briefly examining the scientific data on the preborn helps establish humanity at all stages of life. This successfully rules out the preborn as anything but human, which warrants further philosophical discussion about human value and whether the preborn has the same human rights as those already born.

Distinct Human DNA at Conception

The phrase “my body, my choice” implies that the preborn is nothing more than something that is part of the mother’s party. If the preborn were merely an organ such as a lung or liver, pro-abortionists may have a point. However, modern science has consistently shown this to be false. As one of the leading embryology textbooks writes, “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”[9] Embryologists Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller said, “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”[10] Space does not permit additional expert testimonies, but the point should be clear: human life begins at conception.

Even more than that, however, at the moment of conception, the zygote is formed, which consists of unique genetic material (DNA) from both the mother (oocyte) and the father (sperm). A distinctive DNA makeup from both parents distinguishes the preborn from the mother’s body. Therefore, modern science has established two facts about the preborn: (1) it is a living being distinct from the parents, and (2) it is a human being. Even pro-abortionists, such as Peter Singer, grant the humanity of the preborn, “There is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence, an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”[11] Likewise, pro-abortionist David Boonin said, “A human fetus, after all, is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.”[12] The main issue, however, is not the humanity of the preborn but rather personhood and value. While this type of inquiry is better addressed philosophically (as will be done later), there is more that science can contribute to this point.

Biological Functionality

Pro-abortionists hold firmly to the idea that preborn human beings are not human persons with value because they do not possess specific characteristics or functionalities that others who are already born do, such as consciousness, brain activity, and self-awareness, among others. However, who arbitrarily decides what specific stage constitutes personhood and the ability to inherit human rights? Also, this approach implies that the preborn lacks something that prevents them from receiving personhood. Yet, biologically speaking, this could not be further from the truth. At every stage of life, human beings function as they should at their current stage.

Speaking on the appearance of human beings (countering the argument that the embryo does not look human and thus should not be granted personhood), Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen write, "For the five-day-old embryo looks exactly like what human beings look like at five days old. Each of us looked like that during the embryonic stage of our lives. The biologically relevant consideration is not appearance; it is the fact that from the beginning, the embryo possesses the active capacity for self-directed growth and mutation through the various stages of a human life. We all started off small. But that just means that we exist as temporal creatures who grow and mature through time."[13]

The same point can be made regarding cognitive function. Of course, the human embryo does not have brain activity; a brain has not yet been developed, which is how it should be. Just as nobody devalues the three-month-old infant because she cannot yet walk on her own or solve complex problems compared to adults who can do such things relatively easily, the embryo should not be held liable for lacking such characteristics that are not expected at such early stages of development. Not only is the preborn functioning precisely as it should be at its stage, but it is also continuously developing and growing. This addresses the mistaken claim by pro-abortionists that the preborn are not alive, for dead things do not grow. As Greg Koukl said, “Life does not begin at some stage of development; the unborn is alive at every stage. The fact that the fetus is growing biologically proves that it’s alive, and biological growth is evident immediately upon conception.”[14]

Since functionality varies throughout the various stages of life (for all living things), what constitutes personhood should be independent of functionality specific to more mature stages of life. Instead, it should be asked of all living beings independent of the various stages of life it is at, “What kind of being is it?” As seen above, the preborn is human, like the 1-year-old and the 60-year-old. Much more can be said about what constitutes personhood and whether the preborn are merely “potential persons” or not. This, however, will require going beyond science and into the philosophical arena.

Philosophy: Human Person or Potential Human Person?

As already mentioned, although science cannot determine the meaning or value of something, philosophical inquiry can be used for such purposes. Scientifically, it has been established that the preborn are human beings. However, the question remains whether such human beings are of equal value to humans already born. In other words, do the preborn human beings have inherent value, or are they merely potential human persons? Further philosophical inquiry shows that human beings have inherent value because personhood is an attribute of human nature.

Parts and Wholes

Another common objection to the personhood (and subsequent attributed value) of the preborn is that they may appear different than a more developed human being. However, there are serious flaws with this position. Some things become entirely different if parts are added or removed. For instance, removing the legs from a table makes it no longer a table, and scraping the writing on a ruler leaves one with merely a letter opener. Does this same principle apply to living things, and specifically human beings? Upon further reflection, this is not the case.

Removing the tail of a dog, the claws from a cat, or the trunk of an elephant does not make the animals listed above any different or lesser than what they are—dogs, cats, and elephants. For living things, the parts themselves do not determine what type of being it is. Instead, the being determines what parts it will have or should have.[15] In the same way, the preborn appears different from an adult human, which does not make them any less of a person with value than the adult. These illustrations above regarding other living creatures show that though creatures can be identified by specific physical characteristics (such as an elephant with a trunk), they are not equated with such parts. There is something more profound than mere physical characteristics that grounds the being of a living thing, which will be discussed further below. Beforehand, however, it is important to discuss another common objection to the personhood of the preborn: that they lack cognitive functionality compared to a more mature human being. Thus, they are not yet persons.

Pro-abortionist Mary Anne Warren described what she thinks constitutes a human person: (1) self-awareness, (2) the ability to reason and solve complex problems, (3) consciousness and awareness of pain, (4) self-motivated activity, and (5) capacity to communicate.[16] The person may not need to possess all five, but he is not a person if he fails to have any of the characteristics. However, many problems arise with this “cognitive performance” view of personhood. First, who is to say these characteristics make up a human person, and when do they begin? Many of the attempts by pro-abortionists to establish requirements for personhood based on cognitive traits fail to provide supporting reasons but merely make assertions.[17] Who decides which traits constitute human personhood? Suppose personhood is separate from the living human body. In that case, it becomes arbitrary and ultimately comes down to “might makes right”—certain people with power and influence decide what qualifies human beings as valuable persons.

Second, such cognitive faculties are shown to be illegitimate requirements for personhood when adults can also be shown to lack them, yet they are viewed as valuable human persons.[18] One can imagine a scenario where someone is badly injured in a motorcycle accident and enters into a two-year coma, which results in the loss of all cognitive faculties—unable to communicate, recall core memories (such as his family), and has to relearn everything from scratch as if he were a toddler.[19] Indeed, this does not serve as adequate justification for killing the injured man based on him “no longer being a person,” given he no longer possesses the cognitive faculties allegedly required for personhood. One may object by saying the man had them before, which means he was a person before his injury and must be cared for as one afterward. However, as mentioned above, the preborn should not be expected to possess certain functionality beyond its stage of development, no more than it should be expected of a one-year-old to function mentally as an adult. This also would rule out the personhood of the mentally disabled from birth, those born with Down-Syndrome and other genetic defects. Are they not persons because their cognitive faculties are not as “strong” as others? Moreover, human embryos possess the essential underlying capacity for apparent self-awareness; they just cannot immediately exercise it as adults can—this also goes for newborn infants.[20]

It would be wise for society today to learn from mistakes made by humans throughout history when it comes to determining human worth. Hitler deemed the Jews and those with genetic defects as less human. He then used such a belief as justification for committing genocide on the Jewish people for the sake of the human race. Indeed, many (if not all) would say Hitler was mistaken in not seeing the Jewish people as valuable as any other human being. Similarly, white slave owners arbitrarily decided that black people were less human because of their race. Therefore, that served as justification for them to enslave and lynch them, treating them as less valuable human beings—it is no different when it comes to the preborn. Pro-abortionists have tried to arbitrarily set requirements for what is required for human beings to be considered human persons, serving as justification for the murder of the preborn in what is supposed to be the safest place for them: the womb. However, it is not the functionality of a living thing that gives it value; it is the nature of the being. As Pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf said, "First, fetuses have the same natural capacity in virtue of the kind of thing they are. It just so happens that due to their age, they cannot immediately exercise it. Second, the essential nature of a thing, not its capacity for certain functions, determines its value.”[21]

It is worth noting that human rights in the United States are not called “person-with-certain-characteristics rights” but “human rights” to include all human beings despite any differences and deficiencies. The Declaration of Independence makes a universal claim to inherent human rights rooted in a transcendent source, “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[22] Such rights cannot be given or earned, such as the right to drive or drink alcohol. Instead, the right to life and the subsequent protection from unjustly being killed is a natural right that flows inherently from the humanity of the person.[23] In other words, personhood is an inherent attribute of being a human being, as it is universal among humans. Such universal value is rooted in something all humans possess: the soul. The soul is a central point of contention between pro- and anti-abortionists. Thus, it is worth exploring further.

The Soul: Substance Dualism (SD) vs Body-Self Dualism (BSD)

Indeed, most would agree that adults are the same person they were when they were newborns, though they cannot remember that time and have experienced immense physical and cognitive change since. However, if humans were merely physical beings, such drastic changes over time would result in becoming new persons with each change. Since this is not the case, a deeper immaterial source must make a person the same person through all stages of life, from the moment of coming into existence—the soul. Pro- and anti-abortionists disagree over the nature of the soul, which has significant implications for how one views the preborn and whether they are persons with value throughout the life cycle. 

Pro-abortionists, for instance, assume body-self dualism (BSD) by asserting the human embryo is a human being but not yet a person. According to BSD, the “real” person has nothing to do with the physical body, which is viewed as mere matter in motion.[24] The “real” person is found in the numerous cognitive functionalities mentioned above that are arbitrarily listed as prerequisites for personhood. Before gaining these traits, even if they are lost at some point, the “real” person does not exist, although the physical body does. Therefore, the pro-abortion view, assuming BSD, holds that the embryo is not the same person that it eventually would develop to be in adulthood—serving as justification for killing the preborn, given they are not yet a “person.”

Anti-abortionists, on the other hand, hold that the human embryo is the same person throughout all stages of life. This view assumes what is known as the substance view or substance dualism (SD)—that a substantial immaterial self exists that is not identical to the body.[25] Substances are living organisms that maintain identity through physical change throughout their life cycle. An immaterial underlying nature or essence must be the source of retaining its identity over time. As a substance (living organism) grows, it matures according to its kind rather than becoming more of its kind.[26] Therefore, from the SD view, the value of the preborn does not come from parts or functionality but from human nature, whose personhood is rooted in the human soul, which comes into existence at the beginning of life. For example, one can reflect on whether they are the same person throughout their life from newborn to adulthood. If so, there is no reason to think personhood changes when one is inches away in their mother’s womb. Nor does personhood change if functionality or physical characteristics are defected or lost due to injury. In all cases, the person does not stop being the same person.

The BSD view has a few critical issues that are worth mentioning. For instance, this view forces one to say that one's body existed before the “real him or her” did or that one was merely physical matter until one's cognitive functionalities turned on. Moreover, psychologists should no longer seek to cure multiple personality disorders, for that would be equivalent to mass murder on this view by eliminating the distinct centers of consciousness (which would be considered “real” separate persons on the BSD view) that one has with this disorder.[27] Lastly, this view justifies intentionally killing human beings outside of the womb as well. For what is stopping an “actual person” from overriding the rights of “potential persons” (such as newborns who possess barely any of the required cognitive characteristics) for their interests (i.e., organ donation) or killing the cognitively disabled to benefit others (as Hitler attempted)? On the personhood theory, humans who are cognitively disabled should be used for harvesting organs that help the “actual persons.”[28]

Lastly, out of how many of the characteristics constitute personhood? This seems to go unanswered, but if the lives of human beings are at stake, this should be addressed. The counterintuitive nature of the BSD view provides sufficient grounds for accepting the SD view. With all of this being said, it is worth concluding with a brief overview of what the Bible says about abortion and the worth of every human being, regardless of the stage of development.

The Bible on Abortion and the Human Person

Many have tried to justify abortion using the Bible. Most often, this comes in the form of asserting that since the Bible does not include the term “abortion,” then it does not condemn it. However, silence does not equal permission. The Bible also does not specifically condemn the rape and abuse of two-year-old children, though this is still wrong. Therefore, referring to the absence of the word “abortion” in the Bible is baseless. With this being said, the Bible makes it clear that all human beings are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and out of six things specified that God hates, one of them includes “hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6:17b ESV). Moreover, murder is forbidden, inclusive of all human beings (Exodus 20:13).

In addition to forbidding the intentional murder of innocent image-bearers of God, the Bible also speaks of the value of the preborn. For instance, the psalmist in Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of himself as the same person as in the womb. Also, God says that He knows the preborn in the womb and before humans are conceived through the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5). Most notable may be the account of Jesus and John the Baptist in Luke 1. At just six months old in the womb, John the Baptist leaped for joy over the arrival of Jesus, his cousin, who was in the earliest stages of development (Luke 1:44). The mother of John the Baptist, Elizabeth, addressed Mary as “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43), not as the “future mother of my potential Lord.”[29] Therefore, the Bible not only forbids intentionally killing the preborn but also suggests a continuity of personhood and moral value between the prenatal and postnatal states, aligning with the scientific and philosophical data mentioned above. Before concluding this article, it may be beneficial to share my story with how abortion has impacted my life.

Personal Significance

The issue of abortion is very personal for me. When my mother was in her late twenties, she was 4 months pregnant and had intense pain while at the gym. Her friend drove her to the hospital, and they confirmed she had a miscarriage of the one child she was expecting. Right before they were going to perform the D&C, the doctor sprinted into the room and halted the procedure, saying my parents had sufficient health insurance to run one more ultrasound to confirm what had happened. They were able to confirm the miscarriage, but little did they know there was another healthy baby—that baby was me. The D&C procedure would have killed me if they had not done that last-minute ultrasound.

When my mother was 8 months pregnant with me, the doctors told my parents that I would have spina bifida and recommended that they abort. After hours of contemplation, by the grace of God, they did not decide to proceed with an abortion and chose to deal with whatever health complications that I would have. One month later, I was born with no health issues, and 29 years later today, I have had no spinal issues; I even played sports my entire life and collegiate baseball. It was a false positive, but the heartbreaking part of it all is that there are parents who go through with the abortion when given an option, despite the chance of the baby being healthy. Even more importantly, that baby in the womb was the same “me” writing this article. The option to abort should never have been offered, for even if I had to live with that condition, every human being has a right to life.

Conclusion

Therefore, preborn human beings are not merely “potential human persons.” They are valuable members of the human family based on their nature from conception. Given what has been established above, the syllogism stated in the introduction can be built upon in the following way:

(1) All human beings have inherent dignity and the right to life, regardless of age, stage of development, physical and cognitive characteristics, or dependency.

(2) From the moment of conception, the preborn child is a human being with unique DNA and a distinct, continuous biological development.

(3) It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being intentionally.

(4) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

(5) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

While there is forgiveness in Christ for those who have already had abortions, the preborn should be treated and protected just as those already born, for they are just as valuable and matter just as much to God, being made in His image.

 

Footnotes

[1] See the "Personal Significance" section for the personal significance of the debate over abortion after the Bibliography at the end of the article.

[2] Katha Pollitt, Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights (New York: Picador, 2014), 69.

[3] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 12.

[4] Greg Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons (Singal Hill, CA: Stand to Reason Press, 1997), 1.

[5] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 44.

[6] “Abortions,” World Health Organization, May 17, 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion. 

[7] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 15.

[8] Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1990), 15-17.

[9] Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 11th ed. (Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020), 11.

[10] Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8, 29.

[11] Peter Singer, Writings on an Ethical Life (New York: Ecco Press, 2000), 127.

[12] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 20.

[13] Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Princeton, NJ: Witherspoon Institute, 2011), 157

[14] Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, 11.

[15] Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, 26.

[16] Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” Monist 57, no. 4 (1973).

[17] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 97.

[18] Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 56-57.

[19] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 135-136.

[20] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 87.

[21] Ibid., 101.

[22] “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” National Archives, August 27, 2024, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.

[23] Hadley Arkes, First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 366.

[24] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 79.

[25] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 253.

[26] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 82.

[27] Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice, 18-19.

[28] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 86.

[29] Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 374.

Bibliography

Arkes, Hadley. First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Beckwith, Francis J. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Boonin, David. A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

George, Robert P., and Christopher Tollefsen. Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. Princeton, NJ: Witherspoon Institute, 2011.

Kaczor, Christopher. The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life. Second Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023.

Koukl, Greg. Precious Unborn Human Persons. Singal Hill, CA: Stand to Reason Press, 1977.

McQuilkin, Robertson and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom. 3rd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Moore, Keith L., T.V.N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 11th Edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020.

Moreland, J.P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2017.

National Archives. “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” August 27, 2024. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.

O’Rahilly, Ronan and Fabiola Müller. Human Embryology and Teratology. 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996.

Pollitt, Katha. Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights. New York: Picador, 2014.

Schwarz, Stephen. The Moral Questions of Abortion. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1990.

Singer, Peter. Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: Ecco Press, 2000.

Warren, Mary Anne. “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” Monist 57, no. 4 (1973).

World Health Organization. “Abortions.” May 17, 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion.