The Anti-Science of Pro-Choice

As a Christian, I love science. I know Christians are supposed to be ignorant, flat-earthers, but most followers of Christ are not. I believe science is simply the discovery of the God I serve. I believe science is actually the best argument against the pro-choice stance. A member of our church sent me an article he wrote applying the scientific method to abortion.

I wanted to share it with anyone who is genuinely interested in discovering the truth.

A word to women who have had an abortion

This is not meant to heap on guilt or to make you feel bad about your decision. You faced some difficult challenges and you were presented with a solution.  If you come to an understanding that your abortion was wrong, it’s okay. It’s vital that you understand that God loves you. He offers you his love and grace. He wants to heal your wounds and refresh your soul.

The author

First, a little bit about the author. Eric Mckee is a volunteer at my church and a science enthusiast. In his spare time, he studies logic and Christian apologetics. Simply put, he is a Christian who likes to think. With that, I’ll let Eric take it from here.

The Anti-Science of Pro-choice

The science most people trust and use in other arguments goes out the window for some when it comes to the life of a child in utero.

Applying the Baconian scientific method would have you make observations, form a hypothesis, devise tests of the hypothesis and its predictive power, then during testing make observations based on the observed test results affirm or reject the hypothesis.

Observation: I observe that a fetus in utero displays many characteristics of what we call a living human.

Hypothesis: If the fetus meets the social, legal, and scientific characteristics commonly used to identify a human being and to determine that a human is alive, then the fetus is a living human.

Tests and observations:

• Test that the fetus resembles a living human is featured through a morphological examination of fetal features compared to the accepted standard human features: body shape, head, arms, legs, eyes, and ears.
• Test that the fetus resembles a living human in action: breathing, movements, sleep cycles, and playing.
• Test that the fetus responds to stimuli as a living human does: pain, sounds, temperature, and threats.
• Test that the fetus resembles a living human in structure by examining the relative placement of body parts, internal organs, heart, lungs, brain, kidneys, uterus and other reproductive organs; relative size and shape of internal body parts; cellular structures, genetic code, and genetic compatibility with other humans.
• Test that the fetus resembles a living human in its electrical, chemical and other physically measurable activity: brain waves, heart rhythm, breathing, nutrient consumption, excretion of waste, circulatory motion, endocrine functions, and drug interactions.
• Test that the fetus has identifiable characteristics unique from any other human: genetic code, fingerprints, footprints, and facial features.

From my personal observation of children before and after birth including medical monitors, ultrasounds, x-rays, medical records, genetic testing, and personal observation I would affirm the hypotheses above. A fetus meets the tests for characteristics commonly used socially, legally and scientifically to determine that an organism is an identifiable living human.

The alternative to the above is that the fetus is not a living human before it leaves its mother’s womb and is a living human after it does. The only significant observable change in the fetus during that event is that the fetus is squeezed through a birth canal.  While birth is an amazing process, to believe that this passage converts the fetus from tissue into a living human is not scientific, and would be more akin to magic, a magic where some unmeasurable change happens as the fetus moves through a 7 inch canal, and is transformed from disposable tissue into a living human being.

If you accept that the child in utero is a living human being, then as such it should be understood that it has legal protections similar to any other living human.

In the above, I don’t believe I appeal to religion, emotion, anecdote, feelings, analogies, authority, or use philosophically unsound arguments. I do attempt to make a direct science-based conclusion, using real observation, research and commonly accepted scientific methods. The tests I describe are regularly used by medical professionals and law enforcement to determine the vitality and identity of people. I don’t think I broke any new ground with these specific tests or the conclusions drawn from them. If you see some error or omission in my logic, hypothesis, observations or conclusions I would genuinely like to know.

Honestly, in some ways, I would like to be wrong.  I would like to know that we, as a nation, have not been allowing thousands of children to die each day for 40 years.  I would find that a comfort.