Pro-life

The SLED Test is a reasoned argument supported by scientific facts, which shows that abortion kills an innocent human person and is morally wrong.

Since the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973, our nation has sacrificed over 63 million unborn children at the altar of “Choice.”

Even if the SCOTUS ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson case effectively overturns Roe, some states are already gearing up to make abortion-on-demand legal. While this will reduce the threat to the unborn, we will not eliminate it. Therefore, those of us who are pro-life and are oppose abortion-on-demand need to continue our defense of the unborn child. The SLED test is a logical, effective, and easy to master defense of the personhood of the child in the womb.

What’s Ahead

In this post, I will lay out enough scientific evidence to support the truth that the unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception (fertilization). Then, using the SLED test, establish the personhood of the unborn child.

Please note that the argument I am presenting makes no presuppositions about the religious beliefs of those with whom I am engaging in dialogue. Many of those we encounter will not have strong religious beliefs, and it’s counterproductive to introduce theological or biblical arguments. (This may even be the case with Christians who are pro-abortion.) Certainly, there are convincing arguments from the Scriptures in supporting of the pro-life position, but I’ve found those to be effective only when I am addressing people who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

The Main Question—What is the unborn child?

We can summarize the moral argument against abortion-on demand :

1. The intentional killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.

In response to this, abortion advocates argue this oversimplifies a complex issue. Certainly, the decision to abort one’s child is psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually challenging. But the moral issue is not complex.

When we remove all the rhetoric, emotion, and misinformation from the debate, we find there is only one question to answer.

If the second premise above is correct, and I believe it is, the unborn child is an innocent human being and abortion is morally wrong. If, however, the unborn is not a human being, is not a human person, abortion is simply a medical procedure and there is nothing to debate.

The abortion debate boils down to one question: What is the unborn child?

Before we employ the SLED test, we must answer this question, proving that the child in the womb is a human being.

When Does Human Life Begin?

Recently, asked this question, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s response is instructive.

For decades, science has confirmed that human life begins at conception. But that’s apparently shocking news to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court had absolutely no idea when human life begins when Senator John Kennedy asked the easy and obvious question of her during his questioning in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

SENATOR: “When does life begin, in your opinion?”

JACKSON: “Senator, um… I don’t know.”

This is a common response pro-abortion politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, so it’s no surprise Jackson would rely on this same dodge.

I don’t think they are stupid people. But they seem to be conveniently ignorant of the facts.

In fact, Medical experts and medical textbooks have confirmed for decades that human life begins at conception/fertilization.

Here is one example:

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

I won’t take up space with more quotes, but if you need more evidence, check out this article: 41 Quotes from Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception.

Here is more evidence of the scientific consensus that human life begins at conception: Survey Asked 5,577 Biologists When Human Life Begins. 96% Said Conception.

Abortion is wrong primarily because it kills a unique human being, an unborn baby before birth. And science clearly says that human life begins at conception.

Over the years, scientific textbooks have made it clear that human life begins at the point of fertilization, when human sperm meets human egg:

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Now that historic scientific consensus has been affirmed. A new survey asked over 5,500 biologists when human life begins and 96% of them agree that human life begins at the point of conception or fertilization.

Why Do All These Scientists Agree that Human Life Begins at Conception?

The unborn child is:

• Genetically complete: all the information it needs is there, and it simply needs time to grow.
• Unique: it is not a part of its mother but is genetically distinct from her.
• Living: it is growing, developing, undergoing metabolism, and responding to stimuli. For example, it’s heart beats at 5 weeks, and it feels pain at or before 20 weeks.
• Human: living things always produce after their own kind, so humans beget complete, unique human beings.

Questioning the Personhood of the Unborn—Set Up for the Step Test

While there are those who remain conveniently ignorant of the scientific facts, many abortion advocates accept the science and agree that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception. So, what do they do now?

Philosophers Scott Rae and J. P. Moreland write,

“Virtually all of the key arguments that justify the morality of abortion make critical assumptions about the personhood of the unborn.” (Body & Soul, 200, p.240)

According to Rae, the argument that the unborn is not a person follows a typical pattern.

First, no one knows for sure when personhood begins.

Second, science is not even clear on the matter.

Third, this is essentially a religious and philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Therefore, since we cannot prove conclusively when personhood begins, it should be the individual’s decision. (Moral Choices, 2000, p.138)

In making this argument, the pro-abortion advocate grants the unborn is alive and, if pressed, that it is human life. But will remain adamant there is an essential difference between the unborn being a human life and it being a person. This, however, is an arbitrary distinction because the nature or essence of the child does not change from conception to adulthood and the SLED test supports this truth.

What is a Human Person?

For the abortion, advocate personhood is the crucial difference between a fetus and an infant. In fact, some hold that the infant doesn’t become a person for some time after birth, opening the door to legalized infanticide. We see this in recent proposed legislation in Maryland and California.

Pro-aborts have varying definitions of personhood. A common one is the functional definition of personhood, which states that a person has:

• Consciousness
• A developed capacity for reasoning
• Self-motivated activity
• The capacity to communicate, and
• The presence of self-awareness

Following Moral philosopher and former presidential advisor Scott Rae, I hold that the unborn child is fully a person from the time of conception. We can state the argument this way.

1. An adult human being results from continuous growth of the organism from conception.
2. From conception to adulthood, there are no breaks in the development relative to the essential nature of the unborn child.
3. Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward.

This is a useful foundation for understanding personhood. However, it is unlikely that this framework alone will be enough to convince the abortion advocate. We need to add concrete examples to show the personhood of the unborn.

Enter the Sled test.

The SLED Test

SLED is an acronym that represents Size, Level of development, Environment (location), and Degree of dependency.

Size. The unborn are smaller than newborns, toddlers, adolescents, or adults. But when did size become determinant of people’s rights? Is Kansas City Chiefs’s tight end Travis Kelce more of a person than kicker Harrison Butker. He is much bigger? Am I more of a person than my wife Marsha because I am taller and heavier? Size does not disqualify the unborn from being a person.

Level of Development. The unborn are less developed than newborns, but this is morally irrelevant. The newborn is less developed than a toddler, a toddler less developed than an adolescent, an adolescent is less developed than an adult. Yet they are all spoken of and considered equally human. Should we be able to kill a disabled person because his or her brain function is less developed than that of a normal person? Of course, the answer is no because level of development does not differentiate a person from a non-person.

Environment (location). The unborn is in a different place than the newborn. But the question here is, how does a change in location change one from being a non-person to being a person? Did your personhood change when you walked from your car into church on Sunday morning? No, you are the same person now that you were when you were outside the church door. Your environment or location does not determine your personhood. Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is.

Degree of Dependency. The abortion advocate argues that the unborn depends on the mother for its survival. But it doesn’t take a great deal of thought to identify others who are similarly dependent. The dialysis patient depends on the kidney machine. Many people depend on heart pacemakers. Diabetics depend on insulin. Clearly, if dependency is the crucial difference, then all these people are non-persons for the same reasons. In fact, there is little difference between an unborn child connected to and dependent upon its mother and the patient undergoing heart bypass surgery plugged into an artificial heart during the procedure. We would not consider the heart patient a non-person and neither should we consider the unborn a non-person.

The SLED Test Summarized

We all agree that toddlers are valuable human beings with rights. Yet the unborn differs from toddlers in only four ways: Size, Level of Development. Environment, and Degree of Dependency.

First, the unborn is smaller than the toddler. But toddlers are smaller than adults.

Second, the unborn is less developed than the toddler, but toddlers are less developed than elementary school kids.

Third, the unborn is in a different location than the toddler, but toddlers can change environments without changing their value.

Finally, the unborn is more dependent than a toddler. But toddlers arc more dependent than adolescents (even if some parents would deny this). And other people depend on medications, caregivers, and spacesuits to sustain their lives. They are more dependent than those who don’t need these things.

So, there are only four ways the unborn differ from toddlers, but many toddlers and other born humans differ in the same ways. So how can we justify killing the unborn on these grounds, when we protect born humans who have the same deficiencies?

Final Thoughts

Abortion is the Holocaust of our day. Unborn children are being slaughtered every day. Furthermore, the Biden administration is the most pro-abortion presidency in the history of the United States.

Please join with me in taking a stand defending the unborn. And check out my weekly Culture of Death update post for more information on the continuing battle for life from conception to natural death.

Remember and heed God’s warning to those who refuse to defend those being led to slaughter.

¹¹ Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. ¹² If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done? (Proverbs 24:11–12 ESV)