Article adapted from episode content.
Friends, welcome. It’s always a pleasure to delve into these crucial discussions regarding the sanctity of human life. Today, I want to address a matter of significant importance for those of us who advocate for the unborn: the way in which we articulate our pro-life stance. It has come to my attention, through various interactions and even a recent clip by a respected Christian author, Eric Mataxis, that certain arguments, while seemingly persuasive on the surface, can actually undermine the very foundation of our position. Therefore, I felt compelled to share some concerns and offer a more robust framework for making the case for life.
Recently, I encountered a clip featuring Eric Mataxis, highlighting the remarkable life of Susanna Wesley, the mother of John and Charles Wesley. The point of the anecdote was to illustrate the potential loss to the world had Susanna Wesley, the 25th of 25 children, not been born. Her existence undeniably shaped history, leading to the Wesleyan revival and influencing figures like Wilberforce in the abolition of the slave trade. The implication, a seemingly powerful “punchline” as Mataxis termed it, is that abortion could rob the world of similarly impactful individuals.
While I acknowledge the emotional resonance of such stories – the “heart tug” they create – I must express a significant concern. The pro-life argument is not, and should never be, predicated on the notion that abortion is wrong because it kills future gifted people. To argue this way is to fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the core of our conviction.
Our argument rests on a far more profound and universally applicable truth, encapsulated in a simple syllogism: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong. This foundational principle holds true regardless of the potential future contributions or perceived value of the individual whose life is ended.
We must emphatically state that abortion is wrong even if it ends the life of a future homeless person, just as wrong as if it ends the life of a future Steve Jobs or a future Wilberforce or a future Wesley. The wrongness of abortion does not stem from the deprivation of potential benefits to society but from the intentional termination of an innocent human life, irrespective of their stage of development or future potential.
My unease with arguments focusing on lost potential is further amplified by the frequent encounters I have where individuals claim that I have neglected the “most powerful pro-life argument” by not mentioning the possibility of aborting a doctor who could have cured cancer or a musician like the next Beethoven. These well-intentioned individuals miss the crucial point: we are not arguing that abortion is wrong because it deprives us of future benefits from people who are a loss to abortion; rather, our argument is that abortion is wrong because it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, and that is what abortion does. What an individual might become in the future is entirely irrelevant to the fundamental claim we are making.
There are two primary reasons why this line of argumentation troubles me. Firstly, as I have outlined, it distorts the very essence of the pro-life argument. Secondly, and perhaps more subtly, it often confuses intrinsic dignity with attributed dignity, a distinction that many Christians do not clearly delineate.
Let’s unpack this crucial difference. Consider a “beach bum” whose life appears unproductive by conventional standards and a highly accomplished university scholar, a renowned physician who has developed cures for numerous diseases. We would rightly attribute a certain dignity to the professor based on their achievements, their hard work, and the positive impact they have on society. This is attributed dignity: the honor and respect we give to individuals in virtue of the positions they have achieved through merit and effort, their contribution to human flourishing. If we were making a hiring decision for a medical school, the choice between the beach bum and the distinguished professor would be clear. However, the rationale for this decision lies in attributed dignity, not intrinsic dignity.
Intrinsic dignity, on the other hand, is the inherent value and worth that every human being possesses simply by virtue of being human, created in the image of their Maker. The beach bum and the university professor possess equal intrinsic dignity. Each is valuable not for what they do or what they have achieved but because of the kind of being they are – a human being bearing the Imago Dei.
The danger arises when we begin to argue against abortion by highlighting the potential loss of “gifted” individuals. This subtly shifts the focus from intrinsic worth to potential attributed worth. It suggests that some lives are more valuable than others based on future contributions, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of human equality. Abortion is not wrong because it deprives us of something in the future; it is wrong because it intentionally kills a human being who has equal intrinsic dignity to every other human, regardless of their economic status, academic achievements, or professional success.
This distinction is sometimes deliberately blurred by those on the academic and cultural left who might argue that pro-lifers’ emphasis on dignity is inconsistent with their support for economic inequalities. They might question why a CEO earns significantly more than a janitor if all humans possess inherent dignity. However, this critique conflates attributed and intrinsic dignity. The janitor and the company CEO have equal intrinsic dignity in virtue of being human beings who equally bear the image of God. They are valuable for what they are intrinsically, not what they do functionally. While their economic value to the company may differ significantly based on their roles and contributions – the CEO bears far greater responsibilities and likely invested more in acquiring their skills – their inherent worth as human beings remains the same.
Furthermore, focusing on potential future achievements when arguing against abortion can lead us down a precarious path regarding the concept of the Imago Dei, the image of God in humanity. Scripture clearly teaches that all humans have value because they bear the image of God. The danger lies in attempting to define what constitutes this image beyond this fundamental declaration. Some try to link the Imago Dei to specific traits like rational thought, the ability to reason, a moral compass, or the capacity to commune with God. However, scripture does not provide such a specific list.
The moment we start linking the Imago Dei to traits that none of us share equally and traits that may come and go in the course of our lifetimes, we are on dangerous ground. If value is contingent upon possessing certain traits to a greater degree, then those who possess more of these traits would, by implication, have greater fundamental rights and be more fully in the image of God than those who possess them to a lesser extent. This leads to savage inequality, a position utterly incompatible with the Christian worldview and the inherent dignity of every human being.
We must resist the urge to define the Imago Dei in a way that creates a hierarchy of human worth based on perceived abilities or functions. Scripture simply states that all humans have value because they bear the image of God. Period.. We err when we try to delineate what it is that grants us this image. Cognitive ability, for instance, cannot be the defining factor, as angels possess greater cognitive abilities than humans, yet scripture does not describe them as being made in God’s image in the same way.
Therefore, we must be cautious not to inadvertently adopt a performance view of human value in our pro-life arguments. This view suggests that our dignity and worth are derived from things we can immediately exercise, such as cognitive ability, rational thought, self-awareness, or immediately exercisable desires. While these capacities may be sufficient for recognizing personhood in a certain sense, they are not necessary for being a person with inherent dignity. A human being’s identity and value are grounded in the kind of thing they are – their nature – not solely on the functions they perform. Humans are equal by nature, not function. We are valuable for what we are, not what we do.
Consider the difference between an amoeba and an embryo. Neither is rational or self-aware in the same way an adult human is. However, an amoeba, by its very nature, lacks the capacity for self-awareness and self-consciousness. An embryo, on the other hand, possesses the inherent potential for these capacities; it simply hasn’t matured to the point where it can exercise them. The foundation for human equality lies in our shared nature, not in the varying functions we perform.
Arguments that hinge on functional abilities also lead to the problematic conclusion of savage inequality. If human value is grounded in traits that are not shared equally and can fluctuate throughout a person’s life – such as self-awareness, rationality, or the ability to interact with the environment – then our value becomes contingent and unequal. Individuals in comas, for example, may temporarily lose self-awareness, yet we still recognize their inherent value as human beings because their nature remains unchanged. Our value and identity are rooted in our nature, not in the functions that may vary from person to person or at different stages of life.
These flawed pro-life arguments often betray an underlying performance view of human value, which stands in stark contrast to the endowment view embraced by most pro-lifers. The endowment view asserts that humans are equal and valuable by their nature, not by their functional abilities. We are equal because we share a common human nature, which, from a Christian perspective, reflects the image of God within us. Even from a secular standpoint, one could argue that all humans are rational by nature, even if those faculties are not yet developed or have been impaired. An embryo, for instance, is rational by nature, the type of being that will develop rationality unless prevented by external factors. Their intrinsic value as image-bearers remains regardless of their current functional capacity.
The performance view, conversely, diminishes the significance of simply being human, emphasizing only immediately exercisable functional abilities like consciousness, self-awareness, or cognitive function. This clash between the endowment and performance views is at the heart of many contemporary debates, including abortion and doctor-assisted suicide.
The worldview underpinning performance-based accounts of human value is often body-self dualism. This philosophy posits that one’s true identity has nothing to do with their physical body, which is seen as mere matter to be manipulated according to one’s desires or cognitive self. The notion of being “a woman trapped in a man’s body” exemplifies this dualism. In the context of abortion, this view manifests in the argument that an embryo, while biologically human, lacks true identity until it possesses certain cognitive traits. The “real you” is divorced from the physical body and equated solely with cognitive function.
However, this body-self dualism is counterintuitive and clashes with a holistic understanding of human beings. Consider the simple act of hugging a loved one; we embrace a body, not abstract thoughts or desires. Our everyday experiences affirm that we are a dynamic union of body and soul. To assert that one’s body appeared before the “real me” is, frankly, absurd.
Every time we reduce human value to immediately exercisable traits, we implicitly adopt a view of the human person that denies their inherent worth based on their nature. We embrace a concept of identity rooted solely in cognitive processes, disregarding the intrinsic significance of the physical body, a perspective that is neither biblically sound nor logically coherent.
Therefore, as pro-lifers, we must be vigilant in ensuring that our arguments are grounded in the unshakeable truth of intrinsic human dignity. The most effective and ethically sound argument remains: it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings; abortion does this; therefore, it is wrong. We must resist the temptation to argue that abortion is wrong because it deprives us of potentially gifted individuals. This line of reasoning opens us up to the criticism that only the lives of those with perceived potential are truly valuable, a premise entirely antithetical to our core beliefs.
A critic could easily counter the “lost genius” argument by pointing out that most abortions do not involve individuals destined for greatness. If our argument hinges on this potential, it implies that the lives of those deemed less “gifted” are somehow less worthy of protection. We must not adopt the premises of our opponents but instead champion a consistent view of human equality, rooted in our shared nature as human beings. This is where the strength and coherence of the pro-life position truly lie, allowing us to make a compelling case for human value that even our secular critics will struggle to refute.
Thank you for joining me in this important reflection. Let us continue to advocate for the unborn with clarity, conviction, and unwavering adherence to the fundamental principle of intrinsic human dignity.