Recent events including a column posted on this site and comments made during a 
vice-presidential debate have once again questioned the legitimacy of pro-life beliefs and their place in the public square.Recent events including a column posted on this site and comments made during a 
vice-presidential debate have once again questioned the legitimacy of pro-life beliefs and their place in the public square. For that reason, though I’ve written on this topic before, this time I’ll attempt to explain on a more fundamental level the basis for the pro-life beliefs that myself and others hold.

It’s important to note that this is not necessarily a religious issue. Many different people are pro-life for a variety of different reasons, and I don’t presume to speak for them all, simply to draw out what I see as the common denominator 
between them.

This issue hinges on the way in which we view the ontological, moral and legal status of 
pre-born human life. But in order to assess the moral and legal questions, we must first begin with the ontological one; we must know “what is” before we can determine how we should relate to it.

Science has quite a bit to say on this subject. Human life, 
science teaches us, begins at the time of fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm cell. Upon fertilization the two cells combine their DNA, creating a zygote with a complete set of DNA and the unique capacity to create a new human embryo, a process that begins immediately following fertilization. This newly created zygote will, dependent upon a series of 
successive events including that all of the necessary conditions for life are met, result in a new human child entering the world for the first time.

This new life is also undoubtedly human. Human life, properly understood, refers to life that belongs to the species Homo sapiens. This is the scientific classification system employed by scientists for all types of life, meaning that any and all procreative life coming from within the species Homo sapiens will have the DNA of the species and is therefore also human. For this reason, a human zygote, bearing the complete set of unique DNA of a new human being, is an 
individual human life.

This principle, that life is defined by its type and not its function, is crucially important. It’s the pro-life position that by the sole virtue of being human life, regardless of stage of development, all humans are 
inherently valuable and deserve protection under the law as such. This understanding is crucial to our society’s own humanity and treatment of its members.

Function, on the other hand, refers to the degree to which the human body functions, and this principle is central to the pro-choice position on abortion, which attempts to define personhood in terms of some sort of functionality, where an embryo may indeed be human life, but still does not merit legal protection until it becomes a “person,” “person” being defined as a human life that has reached a certain level of functionality, whether anatomical, physiological, or psychological.

If something smells fishy here, it’s because it is. This view is problematic for many reasons. One of which is the confusion of the distinction between what something is and what something does. The fact that human beings typically engage in certain behaviors or display certain abilities by no means establishes that those behaviors or abilities are necessary conditions for being human. For example, humans routinely engage in rational thought, possess consciousness, and exercise various sensory faculties. However none of us would, in coming across an irrational and unconscious man, pronounce him not to be a person, or value him less than we would a rational, conscious man. Not even the lack of the most important bodily functions, heart and brain activity, disqualify people being kept alive by artificial means from being considered persons. This is because we understand personhood and value to be distinct from function. People are people because of what they are, not because of what they do. To regress from this notion and ascribe value on the basis of the presence or quality of ability is to do violence against equality itself. The most consistent, honest and dignified position is to declare all human life in every stage of development to be equally worthy of respect and protection.

While much more could be said on this topic, there’s one other subject to consider, that of how this belief should intersect with the public square. At this point the skeptic may be thinking along the lines of, “Ok, I can see at least why you believe what you believe, but who are you to tell other people how to act?” This question sounds rather reasonable, but upon closer inspection it seems as if there’s a double standard uniquely imposed upon the pro-life belief that we don’t apply elsewhere either in morality or law.

For example, we can probably all agree that it would be at the very least an unusual position to hold to say something along the lines of, “I’m personally opposed to racism, but I don’t believe in imposing that belief upon others.” Or, “I’m personally opposed to drunk driving, but I don’t believe in imposing that belief upon others.” And that’s because we all agree that there’s a level at which other people should be prevented from doing things that they may not believe are wrong. That threshold is usually set at the point at which one person’s actions begin to harm another person. For this reason, pro-lifers believe, pre-born human lives likewise deserve protection under the law from harm that would be done to them by other people. If in fact a pre-born human life is a person (as I have hopefully convinced you that it’s reasonable to think), and if in fact there are egregious harms being done to those persons by others, then it’s not only morally acceptable but morally necessary to advocate on their behalf. It’s the same logic that is rightfully employed against victims of racism, assault and discrimination. It doesn’t matter that the majority may think otherwise, history testifies to the fact that the majority view cannot be the sole determinate of moral permissibility.

It’s easy and commonplace to dismiss these arguments with the rhetoric of “hating women” or “wanting to control women’s bodies,” though it’s admittedly confusing given the fact that around half of women consistently self-identify as pro-life. And while valid points may be made that pro-lifers often fall short of applying these principles of dignity and worth equally to all people after birth, I nonetheless urge you to give pro-lifers the same benefit of the doubt that you yourself would like to be given, as we all better learn to love and care for one another as neighbors and co-inhabitants of this planet.

Will Leathers is a junior majoring in management information systems. His column runs biweekly.