top of page
Writer's picturerevealedapologetic

In Defense of Life


By: Eli Ayala


Introduction


When engaging in discussions about the morality of abortion, it’s important to be equipped with clear and logical arguments and strategies. No doubt this topic has proven difficult to navigate without arousing strong emotions and reactions. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us to provide arguments and answers regarding these issues.


Some years ago, I had the privilege of interviewing a friend of mine and fellow apologist Eric Hernandez on this very issue. The link to the full interview will be provided at the end of this article. My key takeaway from the discussion was Eric’s use of his SLED acronym. Each letter represents a focus point in how to address some of the key issues when engaging in discussion and debate over the morality of abortion. I hope that this brief article and the SLED acronym proves useful in helping you, the reader, better navigate similar discussions.


The acronym highlights key differences between an unborn child and a born human, illustrating why these differences do not justify abortion. SLED stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency. Lastly, common objections are addressed to provide at least at a minimal level, a response to pushback that often arises in these debates and discussions. Let’s break things down a bit:


Size


The first component of the SLED test addresses the argument that the size of the unborn child somehow diminishes its value. It's evident that an embryo or fetus is smaller than a born human. However, size is not a determinant of human value. For instance, men are generally larger than women, but this does not mean that men have more value than women. Similarly, a toddler is smaller than a teenager, but this does not justify terminating the toddler's life. Hence, the size of the unborn does not justify abortion.


Level of Development


Next is the level of development. The unborn are certainly less developed than a newborn or an adult, but this difference in development does not equate to a difference in value or personhood. A toddler is less developed than a teenager, and a teenager is less developed than an adult, yet at no point does this justify terminating the less developed individual. Some might argue that consciousness or the ability to feel pain marks the threshold of personhood. However, this perspective fails when applied consistently. Consider Gabby Gingras, a girl born with congenital insensitivity to pain, a rare condition that prevents her from feeling any pain. Despite her inability to feel pain, Gabby is undoubtedly a human being with intrinsic value. Developmental milestones should not determine one's right to life.


Environment


The environment, or location, of a human being also fails to justify abortion. The primary argument here is that because the unborn child is inside the womb, it can be terminated. Yet, consider the absurdity of claiming that a seven-inch journey through the birth canal transforms a non-human into a human. If we placed a baby in a mother's womb versus placing it in an incubator, would its location change its intrinsic value? Absolutely not. Location does not determine humanity or worth.


Degree of Dependency


Finally, the degree of dependency is often used to argue for abortion. The unborn child is dependent on the mother's body for survival, but this degree of dependency does not negate its value. Newborns and even older infants are also highly dependent on their parents for care and feeding. Moreover, individuals who rely on dialysis or other medical interventions for survival are equally dependent but not considered less human or less valuable. The argument that dependency justifies termination is not only flawed but dangerous when applied consistently.


Responding to Common Objections


What about cases of rape or incest?

Rape and incest are horrific crimes, and the trauma they cause is undeniable. However, the moral value of the unborn child conceived in such circumstances remains unchanged. We wouldn't justify killing a two-year-old child conceived through rape, so why would we justify killing the unborn? The focus should be on providing support and care for the mother, addressing the trauma, and ensuring that both lives are valued.

What if the unborn child has a deformity or disability?

Using disability as a criterion for abortion devalues the lives of those living with disabilities. If a child born with a disability is valued and protected, the same protection should extend to the unborn with similar conditions. The presence of a disability does not diminish the intrinsic worth of a human being.


What about the mother's health?

Cases where the mother's life is genuinely at risk are incredibly rare. In such scenarios, the intent is to save the mother's life, and if possible, the child's life too. The unfortunate necessity to act in a way that may endanger the unborn child is vastly different from intentionally terminating the pregnancy for convenience or non-life-threatening reasons.

Won't making abortion illegal lead to unsafe, back-alley abortions?

The argument that illegal abortions lead to unsafe procedures overlooks the core issue: the morality of abortion itself. Legalizing an immoral act to make it safer is not a sound ethical stance. The focus should instead be on providing comprehensive support and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies, ensuring they have viable alternatives to abortion.


Conclusion


The SLED test provides a clear framework for arguing against abortion by focusing on logical, consistent principles that uphold the value of human life at all stages of development. By addressing size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, we can demonstrate that none of these factors justify the termination of unborn human life. As we engage in these conversations, it's crucial to approach them with compassion, understanding, and a commitment to truth, providing a voice for the voiceless and advocating for the inherent dignity of every human being.


Here is the link to my interview with apologist Eric Hernandez. Highly recommend if the reader wants to go deeper into the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/live/diE54u1sXVE?si=_veSCIfg-78pbp03


Here are the highlights to Eric's Debate with Pro-abortionist: https://youtu.be/BSOLn25PmQo?si=tPCOzlA7ZfMy4XVR


0 comments

Comments


bottom of page