My intention in this article is to make recourse to the most pertinent scientific research to show that the following pro-abortion claims are, for some reason or other, fallacious.

1.                   the foetus is not “autonomous” from the mother’s body; therefore the foetus falls under of the “jurisdiction” of the mother.

Is the foetus autonomous from the mother? Or is the foetus more like an “organ” that forms an essential part of the mother? Scientific evidence shows us that the foetus is essentially autonomous from the mother. The most salient piece of evidence which shows us this is DNA. The DNA of the embryo, from its moment of conception, is different from the mothers’ DNA. Each embryo has a full human genetic code, one which is distinct, unique and unrepeatable (Dr LeJeune).  Moreover, sometimes the embryo even has a different sex and/or race from the mother. If one were to claim that the foetus/embryo was part of the mother, they would have to consequently argue that, for the whole nine months of pregnancy, part of the mother’s body has a completely different DNA—and in some cases a different sex and race – a position which is scientifically untenable. Simply because the foetus depends upon the mother for nourishment and shelter; it does not follow that the foetus is not autonomous. After all, as ‘birthed’ humans, we depend upon the environment, food, shelter, etc., however, we do not regard this ‘dependence’ as depriving us from our individual autonomy.

2.                   the foetus is not “human” yet, it is more like a “bunch of cells” and hence,  human rights (i.e. the right to life particularly) don’t apply to ‘it’.

Is the foetus not “human”? What of its DNA?

Science shows us that from the moment of fertilisation, the embryo in fact receives human DNA. This means that the embryo forms part of the specie Homo Sapiens. Dr Carter Snead, a renowned bioethics expert, writes: “every embryology textbook that is used today acknowledges that the human organism that emerges from fertilisation is a living member of the human species”. He observes that the embryo “directs herself along the developmental trajectory that is specie specific”. Indeed, and the reason why Snead uses the pronoun “her” is purposeful. It is not only the “specie” that is determined since fertilisation, but also the “sex” (i.e. as can in fact be determined in the context of IVF). Thus, evidence shows that embryos form part of the human species and also have a “sex”. Embryos and foetuses are not just “a bunch of cells”. Nevertheless, here, a very pertinent question remains – are embryos just a “bunch of human cells?”.

3.                   Is the embryo just a “bunch of human cells”?

The clearest proof that the human embryo is actually an “organism”, not a “bunch of human cells”, is highlighted by Dr Maureen Condic. She clarifies that: “human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behaviour that is unlike the behaviours of mere human cells”. The point here is that:

 “the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life” (A Scientific View of When Life Begins. Maureen Condic).

This “coordinated behaviour” directed autonomously, Dr Condic concludes, is “the defining characteristic of a human organism” – a human organism which is living:

“the conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence … moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos” (A Scientific View of When Life Begins)

Thus, that the embryo is a ‘living human organism’ is a fact that precedes both politics and religion!

In light of the fact that embryos and foetuses are in fact “living human organisms”, the question pertaining to the nature of human rights presents itself. If they are human, why shouldn’t they be eligible to the same rights which even the most vulnerable, dependent, and biologically impaired humans in our society are? A “human” is not eligible to rights because of the environment they find themselves in: i.e. because they are either in or outside the womb. Rather, “rights” first and foremost depend upon the nature of the specie – in this case the human species. For a ‘claimed right” to qualify as a ‘right’, the only criterion which needs to be ticked is the criterion of humanity, not the criterion of whether the lungs or the heart have formed, or whether the human can think or speak. In fact, we uncontestably ascribe “rights” to humans who can’t speak, think, who are brain-dead, etc. Ultimately here, the point made is that, scientifically, the embryo should be described as a human that is simply developing: just as a toddler is a human despite still developing!

“Foetus” is a term that marks a stage in human development – it does not mark a stage of an organism that is yet to become human

As to those pro-abortionists who concede that the embryo is a human organism, some go on to argue that although the embryo is a “living human”, they are not a “person”: and therefore should not be allowed "equal" rights as the woman (i.e. here the assumption is that human rights depend upon personhood, not humanity – it is also assumed (yet scientifically unprovable) that there is a difference between the two). The problem with this framework is that it brings with it questions which science, by nature, is unable to address – questions such as: “when does personhood begin”? This is a philosophical question.

Ultimately, it is also appropriate to note that progressing isn't about ignoring the rights of one human (in this case the foetus) for another (for the woman). If the foetus is a living human organism, being against abortion would not be equivalent to being, as some would have it, a "dinosaur", or as being “anti-equality”. It would simply be about protecting the basic human right to 'life'. It is about protecting those who can't protect themselves. The great feminists of the past, such as Alice Paul (who helped draft the Equal Rights Amendment), in fact believed that abortion was the “ultimate exploitation of women”:

We believe in a woman's right to control her body, and she deserves this right no matter where she lives, even if she's still living inside her mother's womb.

Pro-choice arguments which make reference to the trauma that the mother might possibly experience fail to see that, even when one's life is made very difficult, terminating human life doesn't suddenly and unequivocally become "right". None would justify killing for such a reason after birth, why should we before?

Certainly justifiable is the extreme case when the woman's life is at risk – here, safe and painless abortion may be practiced. Since this is ultimately a matter of safeguarding the basic right to ‘life’, whenever the right to ‘life’ is threatened for the woman, it is justifiable to save the life. Still, exceptions are not the rule. And to enact a ‘law’ is to enact a 'rule'.