In the field of science, we consider a living creature to be something that responds to stimuli, is made of one or more cells, can grow and continue to develop, can obtain energy and use it, adapt to their environment and has the ability to reproduce.
In the case of an embryo, the unborn child fulfills at least five of the six requirements, to reproduce is something that any human being is not able to do until after going through puberty.
If we were to look at the biological side of this issue, we have to consider a human zygote to at least be a living thing capable of growth.
We must also look at the cognitive development that a fetus undergoes during gestation. The brain, after the sixth to seventh week of pregnancy, begins to mediate arousal, breathing and heart rate.
Thus, fetal cognitive motor activity, which includes auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake–sleep cycle and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem, which also appears capable of learning-related activity.
Can we truly say that a fetus is merely a clump of cells?
Earlier last week, a lawsuit between Sofia Vergara and her ex-fiance was made public over a pair of frozen embryos the two had created during the four years in which they dated.
New sources state that Vergara’s former fiance, Nick Loeb, refuses to allow Sofia to dispose of either of the embryos because he believes that life begins at conception.
According to CNN, Loeb is not looking for financial assistance from Vergara. Instead he has been quoted saying he is willing to allow Vergara the option of being involved in the unborn children’s life if she chooses to do so in the future.
Because in this particular case Vergara is not carrying these unborn fetuses, we cannot say that it is her decision whether the unborn fetus live or die.
If the father of these children is willing to take responsibility for them, then he should be given custody. If it was Vergara, who was demanding custody over the embryos, this topic would not be receiving as much attention as it is now.
Law experts say that this case brings up many “interesting and new issues,” such as “when does life begin?” or “can we consider an unborn fetus a human being?” Having a lawyer trying to argue biological and philosophical ideas is like having a chef try to land a rocket on the moon.
Those who advocate for the rights of an unborn child, and those who advocate for the rights of an abortion have been fighting over the ethics of human life for decades.
In the revised code of Washington 9A. 32. 060, if someone were to hit a pregnant woman and cause the death of both her and her unborn child, we consider that to be double homicide.
In this hypothetical case a person guilty of such crimes could be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Yet, in the case of an abortion, in which a girl over the age of 14 can obtain without parental consent, we consider it to be a legal act.
In the case of rape or incest, which are both violent and terrible situations, the women who experienced either act should and ought to receive the necessary help and support from both their family and surrounding community.
Those responsible for either act should be held accountable and kept to justice, but do we take the penalty for that crime committed on the innocent third party, the unborn child in the victim’s womb.
To undergo a horrific and traumatic experience such as rape and then undergo another stressful situation like abortion would only cause more harm towards the victimized woman.
Abortion in itself is an act of murder, which takes the life of an innocent child.
In our modern day, where society is trying to become more feminist, we must acknowledge that to be pro-women is to be pro children. One cannot exist without the other.