The Alabama Supreme Court recently made a significant ruling declaring that an embryo conceived through in vitro fertilization is considered an “unborn child.” The unanimous decision by all nine court members established that an unborn child, from the moment of fertilization, is recognized as a genetically unique human being whose life begins at that crucial stage. This ruling affirms that an unborn child is deemed a “human life,” a “human being,” or a “person” at every phase of development, irrespective of viability.
While this ruling may seem groundbreaking to some, the assertion that human life commences at conception is not merely a religious, political, or imposed belief; it is a well-established scientific fact supported by embryology, reproductive biology textbooks, and peer-reviewed scientific literature. The process of fertilization leads to the formation of a zygote with a distinct combination of chromosomes, rendering it a genetically separate human entity.
It is noteworthy that over 5,000 biologists from 1,000 institutions worldwide have reached a consensus, with 96% in agreement that human life indeed originates at conception. This scientific consensus underscores the reality of when human life truly begins. For those who argue that an embryo lacks the attributes of human life due to its inability to survive independently outside the uterus, one must consider the survival challenges even faced by newborns without adult assistance.
The definition of abortion according to Webster’s New World Dictionary involves any intentional procedure that eliminates a dead or living embryo or fetus, with the explicit aim of causing its demise. In essence, abortion is the deliberate act of ending a human life—a fundamental truth about this practice.
This fundamental truth permeates various euphemisms used in place of the term “abortion.”
For instance, the phrase “pro-choice” ultimately boils down to a decision between life and death for an unborn child.
Similarly, “my body, my choice” insinuates that an embryo or fetus is not an intrinsic part of a woman’s body akin to an appendix or a tooth that can be extracted. Rather, it is a distinct body of a genetically unique human being, emphasizing the choice between preserving or ending the life of this separate entity.
The term “reproductive health care” should ideally focus on maintaining a woman’s reproductive system to facilitate its natural purpose of conceiving and nurturing life. However, under Minnesota’s PRO Act, reproductive health care includes “terminating a pregnancy,” which contradicts the inherent purpose of the reproductive system and neglects the well-being of the unborn child. This practice cannot be classified as reproductive health care.
In the context of the proposed Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment, which aims to incorporate abortion rights, the term “reproductive freedom” essentially denotes the right to terminate a reproduction process that has already commenced—a process involving the inception of human life.
In the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that, concerning “civil rights,” an infant in ventre sa mere (in its mother’s womb) is recognized as a “person in being.” Therefore, if Minnesota’s proposed Equal Rights Amendment intends to ensure equality for all human lives in the state, including the termination of unborn lives would contradict this very objective.
Any advocacy for equality that excludes any member of the human family, whether born or unborn, inherently perpetuates discrimination and undermines the principle of equal civil rights for all individuals.