This essay presents a pro-life moral argument against abortion, contending that human life begins at the moment of fertilization and that the unborn child possesses an independent right to life. Drawing on the views of embryologist Fritz Baumgartner and Pope John Paul II, the paper challenges the position that a woman's bodily autonomy justifies terminating a pregnancy. It also engages with John Finnis's argument that the unborn child's body is distinct from the mother's. The essay further critiques pro-choice rhetoric, arguing that language such as "fetus" and "choice" obscures the moral reality of abortion, and that Roe v. Wade validates what the author considers a morally indefensible act.
Abortion is a morally serious act — one that, in my view, takes the life of another human being. The conviction of Scott Roeder serves as a stark reminder of how passionately people on both sides of this debate hold their convictions. Roeder was a staunch believer in the pro-life cause, and while his methods were wrong, his core belief in the value of human life reflects a position I share. Just because an unborn child cannot be seen or cannot speak up for itself does not mean it has no right to live. The baby is alive — if it were not, there would be no need to end its life. This debate is ultimately a moral one, not merely a legal one.
I believe that life begins at conception — not at three months or six months into a pregnancy. Dr. Fritz Baumgartner supports this view, stating: "There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human 'human' than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment" (Baumgartner). Former Pope John Paul II also affirms this position, writing that no one could be imagined as "more absolutely innocent" than the unborn (Giovanni). He further describes unborn babies as defenseless, "even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defense" (Giovanni).
Life is sacred, and it begins with the union of sperm and egg. Pro-abortion advocates prefer to use clinical terms such as "fetus" or "viable tissue," but the organism in question is nonetheless alive. If every person has rights, then the unborn baby must have the same right to life as the mother who carries it.
I believe the baby — born or unborn — has rights. Pro-abortion supporters often rely on the argument that a woman's body belongs to no one but herself. That is true; her body does belong to her. However, that fact does not give her the right to end the life of another body growing inside her. As philosopher John Finnis argues, the baby in the womb possesses its own body — it is "the child's body and not the woman's" (Finnis). That body may depend on the mother's body for protection and growth, but it does not belong to her.
Finnis further argues that pro-abortion positions amount to "mere (understandable) bias, mere (understandable) self-interested refusal to listen to the very same claim ('This body is my body') when it is made by or on behalf of another person" (Finnis). In other words, the "my body, my choice" argument ultimately undermines itself: the mother owns her body, not the baby's. The pro-abortion position borrows the language of bodily autonomy only when it is convenient, while ignoring the unborn child's equally valid claim to its own body.
Abortion kills, plain and simple. If abortion were truly acceptable, why do pro-choice supporters not call themselves pro-abortion? The word "abortion" carries a moral weight that its advocates appear unwilling to bear openly, which is why the movement relies on softer language that avoids naming what actually occurs. They claim that abortion is a choice — but so is choosing life. In that sense, pro-life supporters are also pro-choice. The difference is that pro-life advocates are willing to name what they stand for.
Pro-abortion supporters use terms like "fetus" and "choice" because they cannot comfortably defend what happens during an abortion. The very existence of fierce debate over the procedure implies that something significant — something living — is at stake. I believe pro-choice supporters fear the moral obligation that would follow from acknowledging that reality, and so they retreat to Roe v. Wade as legal validation for what is, at its core, a morally wrong act.
The abortion debate is fundamentally a moral question, not a legal one. Laws can permit what morality condemns. Whether one relies on the science of embryology, the philosophy of bodily rights, or a basic moral intuition about the value of innocent life, the conclusion remains the same: the unborn child is a human being with a right to live, and abortion denies that right.
"Pro-choice language obscures moral reality of abortion"
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.