Is There Any Science Against Abortion?

I’ve been somewhat following the ongoing battles here about whether a moral person can vote for a Democrat. As always, progressives talk about how Democrats help the poor, promote peace and care for the environment, while conservatives repeat “abortion is murder” over and over, albeit in different ways.

I’m not going to complain about that because when all is said and done, the idea that abortion is murder, while it is the only objection that can be made against abortion, it is the only one that needs to be made.

I am pro-life. But I also believe that science, logic and rational thought are gifts from God that should be used, and sometimes I have trouble reconciling my pro-life views with rational thought.

I realize it’s beyond dispute that abortion kills…something. But until a fairly late stage, the fetus does not resemble a human, cannot think, cannot feel pain. Religions disagree about when a baby becomes a human person. Even the Catholic Church held different views until fairly recently. So, is there anything, anything at all (although preferably something a non-Catholic might consider solid) behind the idea that abortion is murder? I know this has been asked before, but I’m wondering if I’ve missed something recent. Thank you for reading.

If the human life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? That’s the question.


If the case is "we just don’t know’ then… Allow me to use an analogy.

You are driving along at night, and you see something large and alive moving in the road in front of you. Do you speed up and run over it? I would assume not. You would stop the car, get out, and see what it is. If it’s a human, you help them however you can.

Shouldn’t the unborn be given the same benefit of the doubt?


Even a fertilized egg is a human. It’s got its own set of human DNA. It’s not a pig, it’s not a goat, it’s not a snake. It is definitely scientifically human. It is not near as developed as the rest of us humans who have been born and have grown, but it is human.

I think that even if one doesn’t believe the embryo is a human life until, for example, when there are detectable brain waves, then the argument could be made that it’s still murder because what would be a human life is being stolen away. I often see the argument made by pro-choicers that a tree and a seed are not the same things. “Look at this seed,” they say. “Is it a tree? No!” And they’re right… sort of. It’s a tree by its DNA, but it’s not a developed tree yet. So technically they’re right. So if we go by that logic, then an embryo is technically not a human (I disagree with this, but I’m trying to explain it from a pro-choicer’s point of view). But it would be in the future if left alone.

Even if one doesn’t believe that an embryo is a human being yet, they still must admit that, if they leave the embryo alone, and assuming it doesn’t die on its own first, it will be a human being. Abortion prevents that human being from coming into existence. Does that not seem wrong?


Yes there is tons of science against abortion. There are also several secular pro life activists that I follow on Instagram but I gave up social media for lent or I would link them to you.

At my university there is a pro life group that solely uses scientific and secular arguments because that alone is sufficient to convince people (despite the majority of the members being Christian) and they are fairly successful at helping people understand the prolife position. I recommend you study the stages of development in the womb and you might be surprised at how early the baby begins to feel pain and develop it’s body.

The unborn baby is most certainly a human and has its own unique genetic makeup that is different from that of the mothers, and therefore the whole ‘my body my choice’ argument doesn’t hold up as the DNA of the mothers body and baby’s body is different.
Since the child is most certainly human, the issue that most people run into is his/her dependency on the mother for life. But it is not fair to discrimate and murder a helpless child just because they are young/dependent. We don’t do this to other individuals who have a level of dependency on others to live (disabled, elderly, toddlers, newborns, etc), so it isn’t any different to do so to a human in the womb.
Also just because someone can’t feel pain, still doesn’t give anyone a right to kill them. Some people aren’t born with fully developed nervous systems and we wouldn’t ever think about killing them.

If you google ‘can unborn babies feel pain’, ‘secular arguments against abortion’, ‘scientific prolife facts’ etc I’m sure you will find many results. I’m on my cell phone so I can’t really link too many things right now but here are two links


Respectfully, if it isn’t a human being, what is it? :slightly_smiling_face:

Also, it isn’t accurate that the developing baby doesn’t look like a human being until “fairly late.”
According to, at only ten weeks, the baby already has fingernails and looks like a baby


Unfortunately what gets put on our plate is not always what we want. I’m generally pro-life, but I’m concerned about hard line prohibitions on medically necessary abortions. I’m also concerned that some pro-life people see their cause as a positive body count without finding a way to the source of the problem and/or shaming the women who seek abortion because it takes two to make a baby and the men shouldn’t get out of this. I also have yet to see a way to completely halt abortions. They will happen no matter the law and outlawing them simply sends things to a seedy underground. I have no issue with a person being a person at conception; but it’s the human factors around it that are the issue, not the science.

So in the end I’m not a single issue voter by any means. I don’t see the situation changing anytime soon nor do I see a good solution to my reservations above. My politics are informed by many issues and the quality of the candidates available.

1 Like

Hello :slightly_smiling_face: what medically necessary abortion would you be ok with supporting? I used to struggle with the idea of making abortions illegal because they will happen anyway, so what’s the point? However, I heard Trent Horn on Catholic Answers say something along the lines of “should rape and theft be legal and regulated then, because they happen anyway so with that logic there’s no point in having laws to restrict or make evil acts illegal.” He also says there is no safe abortion, because every time, someone dies. Anyway, those are some thoughts I had reading your reply.


Considering double effect and all, I wouldn’t even consider abortion for mother’s life true abortion, if you get my meaning.


An individual human life begins at conception. It is human because it has human DNA. It is actually a human, not merely containing human DNA, because it develops into a mature member of the species. It is living because it is undergoing cellular reproduction (as is any other living thing).

1 Like

Yes, it kills a new and unique human being.

1 Like

As I said previously, I buy the unique DNA argument. However the argument against ‘my body my choice’ doesn’t really exist in the sense that no one has a good answer for what society is willing to do to support unwanted births. There was never a Garden of Eden before Roe V Wade in which abortions never happened. The my body part comes from not being subjected to having an abortion by crude methods in seedy conditions. If abortion can be regulated we get an opportunity to at least control the methods used. Also, do we have a system in place that can find good homes for these babies? Are we willing to put our social support dollars into supporting poor mothers trying to raise these babies?

The issue and solution is not scientific it is social, so any solution involves what resources we are willing to put behind our values and truly make an effort to understand the root causes. Maybe it’s just being first generation Dutch, but when it comes to solving an intractable social problem, sometimes the best solution is the least bad one.

Other than the roughly 1% of children conceived via rape, all of these mothers chose to have sex.

If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. Humans aren’t alley cats- we can control our desires.


Making theft illegal is an easy one, we live in a society based on possessions and resources. People are greedy or tribal by nature making a Utopian culture nearly impossible. However in a Utopian culture I could see making abortion completely illegal, unless medically necessary, as in theory the mother and child would get enough resources to thrive on. The sin of abortion is rooted in materialism as I see it.

Rape, murder, assault, etc. are just evils no one should be subjected to period.


As far as I know double effect can, when necessary, cover cases where the “abortion” is indirect, i.e. a procedure that kills the baby as a foreseen side effect.

If it’s direct though it can’t be permissible, because the act itself is inherently evil (even though as a means to a good end).


I agree that the solution to the problem is social too, I answered with a more scientific outlook because the poster asked for science against abortion.
Of course I hope everyone would be more than happy to put social support dollars into helping mothers and their babies. I’m all for that :slight_smile:
But it is my personal thought that if something is morally wrong like killing someone, it is always wrong regardless of if support programs are currently in place.


I think the sin of abortion would more accurately be described as the direct killing of an innocent. And I’m having a hard time coming up with when that would be permissible. Can you? :slightly_smiling_face:


That’s actually untrue.

Unless you can give a definition what you mean by “resembling a human.”

Thank you

I don’t understand why some people do all sorts of gymnastics to try to say a human life and a human person are different.

Life begins at conception and abortion from that moment on is murder!!


I think people try to diminish value and respect to a human being, especially the unborn, because it is the Great Depression Era thinking. In fact, Margaret Sanger and those who espouse eugenics use poverty as the reason to espouse the solution of abortion. So it is for population control because of limited resources. And, many of the back-alley abortions Margaret Sanger and company continue to impress, circle around the time of the Great Depression or wherever impovershed circumstances prevailed. I’d say that is the reason why they try to distinguish a person apart from a being. But, in law, especially in this country, there’s no requirement to whether or not a person has rights due to personhood. it’s based on the fact they are human and afforded them. Because they are self evident. Endowed by a Creator. Inalienable rights. So it has nothing to do with personhood, but that it is human. And that suffices enough to say abortion should end. And it is murder. It’s a violation of the right’s of the unborn human being. If you have poverty? Change it. Fix it. Tell the government to stop being a pest to the population. And stop making life hard. Yes, we don’t need socialist system for sure. But we need to have a mandate to get our acts together and help the poor. Surely as a Good Samaritan rule would be. There’s plenty of resources. And yes, we can grow things, build upon things, and increase live stock. God’s people did it in Gershon. We can too. We just need to get over our stingy pride, and tell the government “we the people” afford them being there. The government does not afford us. If government stands in the way of the people. Then the people can pull everything and boycott the government. It’s easy, then they will listen.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit