Proving the humanity of the unborn child is crucial when attempting to convince people of the need to outlaw abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Yet, this is hard to do, especially when discussing human development in the earliest stages. Luckily, an organization called Stand to Reason has developed a tool called the S.L.E.D. test, which offers a way to refute the most common arguments against the humanity of the unborn. Below is my paraphrased version of the test. For the original version, visit www.str.org.

SIZE

Common claim: The embryo (or blastocyst, or fetus) can’t be fully human. It’s so much smaller than we are.

Response: Size doesn’t determine whether or not something is human, does it? If it did, then someone who is seven feet tall would be more human than someone who is only five feet tall.

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT

Common claim: The embryo (blastocyst, fetus) can’t be fully human. It can’t think like a human.

Response: So, is a teenager more “human” than a toddler because the teen can do algebra? No, they each have different abilities because they are at different (but normal) stages of their human development. Abilities don’t determine worth. All human life has value.

ENVIRONMENT

Common claim: The embryo (blastocyst, fetus) can’t be fully human because it’s not in the outside world as we are.

Response: This claim erroneously suggests that the specific physical location of a person determines his or her worth.

DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY

Common claim: The unborn child is not self-sufficient as we are. It’s extremely dependent upon its mother.

Response: Again, the pro-abortion argument relies on abilities to determine value or worth. Isn’t a person with serious health issues extremely dependent upon her caregivers? Does that make her less human than someone who can feed or dress herself? While it may mean that she has fewer capabilities, it doesn’t make her any more or less human (or valuable) than someone who is more independent.

For more information on the S.L.E.D. test, visit www.str.org.