Babies are Living ThingsIf you guys read my last post, then you have become aware of the mechanism by which scientists decide if something is a living thing or not. There are six principles, and if a specimen exhibits qualities in each principle, then that is determined to be a living thing. Living things are made of cells, obtain and use energy, grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimulus and their environment, and they adapt to their environment. Babies in their mother’s womb arguably exhibit these qualities, with the exception of course of reproduction. However, if reproductive ability is a quality of a living being, then humans who are infertile would be considered non-living by this standard, as well as humans in pre-puberty stages of development. Therefore, this is not a valid measurement of a living thing.
Humans should be defined by DNAHumans can subjectively be defined by stages of development. In which the argument persists that babies in the first trimester are not human. This argument is justified because people argue that the baby is completely dependent on her mother’s health, and that it could not survive on its own. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a separate entity. I would then ask if conjoined twins are considered separate entities? Because they can be conjoined at an area where they completely rely on each other’s health to survive. So, are conjoined twins considered separate entities? By this standard, we could very well justify that conjoined twins are not two separate people. We could then justify that if one conjoined twin was completely dependent on the other twin for life, then the other twin could have the dependent conjoined twin killed. By this same standard, you could literally justify the murder of a full-grown adult who is conjoined to their twin. This argument is insane, yet when applied to babies we just accept it?
Justification for something as intense as abortion should be held to the same standard as any other perspective in our society. In America, we hold companies to the fire if they say anything that isn’t politically correct; however, when our governmental body justifies abortion with perspectives like this we just accept it?
As you breakdown the argument of stages of development, you begin to recognize that it is completely subjective to opinion. Perhaps I believe a human isn’t a human until it is in the third trimester. I could then justify that argument by the fact that these babies have a chance of surviving outside of their mother’s wombs. Then, I can feel good about my view because I have some bizarre reason for justification. Or perhaps I believe a human isn’t a human until it has a heartbeat, or until it has fingers. Every argument for stages of development is weak and subjective. I propose a new argument.
A human should be defined as a human by its DNA. We can classify organisms by their DNA, and place them somewhere in the “tree of life”—for example, we place fungi close to humans because they are strikingly similar to us, as far as DNA is concerned. So, why don’t we classify the baby in the mother’s womb as human based on its DNA. Otherwise, all we can do is subjectively look at its stages of development—which anybody can have an opinion about. However, when we look at DNA, then we can have an objective argument for human life.
The First Cell of New LifeYou cannot argue that the first cell of new life contains genetic information completely unique to that cell. It contains a beautiful mix of DNA from its parents. Half from its mother, and half from its father. This single cell, after conception, is a human being. It is a human being based on its DNA. It is the only cell (human) that has ever existed with its perfectly unique arrangement of human genes. And from conception, until birth, this is a living human with a soul. Therefore, it contains all the inalienable rights endowed to it by our Creator, and the Constitution of The United States of America. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When that baby is aborted, then you are murdering a human being, and you are not giving that human being its inalienable rights.
Arguments against Defining Humans by DNA1.What about a person’s skin cells? Would each of that person’s skin cells be individual humans? The problem with this questions is a misunderstanding of meiosis, conception, and what constitutes ending a human life. Each human cell, except for red blood cells, contains essentially the same DNA that that human had when it was conceived. The same 46 chromosomes that code for every protein in its body. Meiosis is a type of cell division unique to sexually reproducing organisms. The process results in four haploid cells, where each haploid cell is genetically unique and distinct from the parent cell that produced them. Therefore, from this process we achieve a genetic shuffling. This happens in the production of sperm and egg cells. Then, when the sperm fertilizes the egg, the 46-chromosome number is restored, and we have a completely unique human being.
So, this argument is irrelevant because it doesn’t recognize the genetic differences between the offspring and the parent. There is a massive amount of genetic shuffling that takes place in order to create a genetically unique individual.
Also, killing cells on the human body that do not end the life of the organism as a whole, obviously is not murder. Cells are dying in my body as we speak, and are also being replaced. So, when each of these replaceable cells die, it doesn’t end my life as a human being, so it is not murder to kill cells on my body that do not kill my life and well-being as a whole.
Also, with a basis of life that is justified by DNA at conception, then it would be deemed unethical to experiment with cloning—which is currently deemed unethical. However, with an understanding based on stages of development, people may justify cloning that can be aborted before the third trimester.
Bible Verses On AbortionJeremiah 1:4-5 “Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Job 31:14-15 “What then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?
The most powerful to me is this verse (Luke 1:15): the verse states that John the Baptists will be “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” This indicates that the baby in the womb must have a soul if the Holy Spirit is going to fill it. If the baby in the womb is not a human being and not an independent person, then the Holy Spirit would not be invading it. But because babies in their mother’s wombs are humans, the Holy Spirit invaded it and dwelt in John.
In conclusion, here are some Biblical and scientific arguments against abortion that I hope you will consider when forming your opinion on this topic. This is not a political issue; this is not about what politicians believe about abortion; this is simply an explanation of the scientific and Biblical facts that you should be made aware of.
Cite: Faucett, D. (2017). Defining Life by DNA Analysis. Faucett Journal. Retrieved from http://www.faucettjournal.com/articles/defining-life-by-dna-analysis