Are Frozen Embryos Less Human? A Biblical Response to a Common Pro-Choice Argument

Also Available on:

Hello, friends. Today's podcast question says: "My daughter and I recently heard an argument against the pro-life movement that actually gave us pause. The argument is, if a hospital were on fire and you could only save the born babies in the nursery or the embryos in the freezer, everyone would obviously save the babies in the nursery. What is the biblical response?"

This is a really good question, because we are going to face arguments against things that we know and believe to be true. Figuring out how to logically, critically, and biblically evaluate and respond to such arguments is important. That is what we are going to dive into today on the Foundation Worldview Podcast, where we seek to answer your questions so that you can equip the children God has placed in your care to carefully evaluate every idea they encounter and understand the truth of the Christian worldview. I'm your host, Elizabeth Urbanowicz, and I'm thrilled that you've joined me for another episode today.

When an Argument Catches You Off Guard

Whenever we hear an argument like this that goes against something very clear in the Christian worldview, it can feel discouraging in the moment. I know that when I face new arguments or objections and I feel unprepared, I usually feel down for a little while, thinking, "Oh, God, I failed you. I failed the Christian worldview." That is so not true. None of us can be prepared for every single objection we are going to face. Rather than being discouraged, we need to turn that discouragement on its head and look at these new arguments or objections as an exciting opportunity for growth.

We as humans typically dive more deeply into topics where we have a personal investment. So when we hear an objection to something we believe, we are usually more passionate about finding an answer. I know that in my own study of apologetics, the topics I became most passionate about were not just abstract philosophical concepts. When I used to live just outside of Chicago, I was part of a ministry called Coffee and Conversation. Several men from my church, including our pastor, and then myself, would host a meetup every other Saturday at the Barnes and Noble in our city. People who considered themselves spiritual but not religious, or atheist, or agnostic, or from some other worldview would come, and we would talk about a certain topic. The purpose was to get people to think critically about their own worldview, to develop relationships with non-believers, and to share the gospel with them.

So many times in those discussions, I would say something I wholeheartedly believed was true from a Christian worldview, and someone from another worldview would give an argument against it. Sometimes I knew how to respond. Other times I would think, "Hmm, I've never heard that before. I have no idea how to respond." In the moment, I hated that feeling. But that feeling would lead me to dive in and look for the answer to the objection. I learned so much during that time, simply because my thoughts and beliefs were really tested by fire in that open ground.

So if you are facing this argument, which I'm going to respond to specifically, or any other objection to Christianity that you just don't know how to answer, there are three things we can do to help us evaluate an objection that gives us pause. These are also three things we can train our children to do:

One, figure out what the argument is. Two, ask whether the argument is sound. Three, figure out how to wisely respond to the argument.

What Age Is This For?

This type of training, for ourselves and our children, usually works best when children are ages nine and above. When children are eight and below, we can introduce some of this, but depending on their development, it is going to be more difficult. So I really recommend these three steps for ourselves and for children ages nine and up.

If you have children eight and under, you can still build the foundation for this type of training. I highly recommend our picture book, What Is Truth? It lays the foundation for the objective nature of truth and how we as humans can seek out what is true. So if you don't yet have a copy, I highly recommend you check it out. And if you already have a copy of What Is Truth? and have not yet reviewed it on Amazon, could you do me a huge favor and invest the three seconds it takes to leave a review? It really helps us get these truths into the hands of more Christian parents.

Step One: Figure Out What the Argument Is

Now let's walk through these three steps with the argument from the question. Step one is to figure out what the argument actually is. As I looked at this argument, I found two premises and a conclusion.

Premise one: When given the option between saving babies or saving embryos, everyone would choose to save the babies.

Premise two: This reveals that embryos are not of equal value to babies outside of the womb.

Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

So now we've identified the argument: two premises and a conclusion.

Step Two: Is the Argument Sound?

Step two is to ask ourselves whether this argument is sound. Let's look at each premise and then the conclusion.

First, is premise one true? Let's ask the question directly: when given the option between saving babies or saving embryos, would everyone choose to save the babies?

My question back is, how could we possibly determine this? The person in the argument said everyone would obviously save the babies in the nursery. How could we prove that everyone would? How do we know a lab tech wouldn't grab a freezer full of embryos on the way out of a fire? I honestly can't ever picture the exact situation arising, but if I were in the lab when it was on fire, I certainly hope I would be willing to risk my life to save the embryos in the freezer.

So it is really impossible to determine that everyone would obviously save the babies. That makes premise one impossible to establish as true, because we simply cannot know that everyone would choose the babies in the nursery over the embryos.

As a side note: if, as I was talking through that, you noticed yourself thinking, "Yeah, those embryos wouldn't be worth saving, I should clearly save the babies," then I would encourage you to evaluate whether you have bought into our culture's lie that embryos aren't human.

A human's unique genetic code, one that belongs to only them, is created the moment an egg is fertilized. The moment a sperm meets an egg, that unique genetic code is created, whether fertilization happens inside a female body or in a lab. And being human is not dependent on a human's size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. That unique genetic code is fully formed. The embryo is not fully formed as a person yet, but the genetic code already is.

Let me walk through each of those.

Size. A human with dwarfism is not less human because they are shorter than I am. Size doesn't determine humanness.

Level of development. My two-year-old nephew is not less human because he isn't as fully developed as I am.

Environment. A woman in Senegal, West Africa, is not less human than I am because she is in a different location or environment.

Degree of dependency. My neighbor, who is disabled and requires a caregiver to bathe her and care for her, is not less human because she is more dependent on others than I am.

So the only real differences between us and an embryo are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, and none of these things make us less human. Embryos in a Petri dish or in a freezer at an IVF clinic are fully human and are known by God. They are in no way less human than we are.

That covers premise one: it is impossible to know that everyone would obviously save the babies in the nursery rather than the embryos in the freezer.

Now look at premise two. Is it true? Premise two says that everyone choosing the babies would reveal that embryos are not of equal value to babies outside the womb. So even if premise one were true, even if it were true that everyone would leave the embryos to burn, would that prove they are not of equal value to babies outside the womb?

An easier way to think about this is to use an analogy for morality and how we determine the value of something. For example, if every German citizen in 1944 would have sent Jews to the gas chamber to make their economy stronger, would that have proven that Jews were less valuable than non-Jews? Of course not. The people of Germany didn't get to decide whether Jews were valuable.

Or, if every Southern plantation owner would have enslaved every African they knew in order to become wealthier on the backs of slave labor, would that have proven that every human of African descent was less valuable? Of course not. The plantation owners' actions didn't determine the value of the people they enslaved. Similarly, what the Germans in Nazi Germany did to the Jewish people did not determine the value of Jewish people.

It is the same in this situation. Someone's actions toward embryos in a freezer do not prove that those embryos are less valuable.

Flipping the Script

As another side note: anytime you are talking with someone arguing from a pro-choice standpoint, it is really helpful to flip the script and apply their reasoning to slavery.

Several years ago I was having a conversation with a young man who actually claimed to be a Christian. He told me he had voted for a certain person who was a very strong abortion proponent. I asked, "Why would you choose to put someone in office who is actively promoting the murder of innocent babies in the womb?" He said, "Well, I'm against abortion. I would never be in favor of abortion, but who am I to tell somebody else that they can't get an abortion?"

I said, "That's an interesting perspective. Let's rewind 200 years, when the conversation of the day wasn't abortion but slavery. Would you have that same opinion? Would you say, 'I would never own a slave, but who am I to tell someone else they can't own a slave'?" He very quickly said, "Oh, no, no, no. I would have told others that slavery was wrong." And I said, "Well, how is that any different? In one situation it's the mistreatment of another through slavery, and in the other it's the mistreatment of another through murder. How can we look back and say we should have told everyone slavery was wrong, but treat abortion, which we recognize as murder, as something we're not supposed to tell other people not to do?"

So in those situations, using slavery as an analogy can be very helpful.

Is the Conclusion True?

We've now seen that premise one is not true: it would be impossible to prove that everyone would obviously save the babies over the embryos. And premise two is not true: people's actions do not show what is inherently valuable about another person. So we can ask, is the conclusion true? We already know both premises are false. We've seen that being human is not dependent on size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. This means that purposely ending the life of a preborn human, whether in the womb or in the freezer, is the taking of an innocent life.

I hope you saw that through those first two questions, we were able to identify the argument and then evaluate it.

If, listening to this first part of the podcast, you found yourself thinking, "Wow, I wish I could get better at evaluating ideas like this," I highly recommend our Careful Thinking curriculum here at Foundation Worldview. It is for children ages ten and up. In it, we systematically train kids to evaluate the ideas that come their way. We want to give them transferable skills they can take into any and every situation to carefully, logically, critically, and biblically evaluate every idea they encounter. For some reason I'm not entirely sure of, this is our least popular curriculum. Of all the curricula we sell each year, we sell the least of Careful Thinking. But I highly recommend that if you have a child ages ten and up, you dive into it and begin giving your child the transferable skills they need.

Step Three: How to Wisely Respond

Now for the third step: figuring out how to wisely respond to this argument. In your case, you and your daughter were both faced with this objection. I recommend you go through the first two steps with your daughter, and then talk together about circling back with this person. You might say, "You know what, we didn't really have an answer, and we weren't able to get into a good conversation. But the next time we're with them, we're going to circle back and try to talk about this."

So the next time you are with this person, circle back and say something like, "A few weeks ago we were talking about pro-life versus pro-choice, and you said that if a hospital were on fire and you could only save the born babies in the nursery or the embryos in the freezer, everyone would obviously save the babies. Can I ask you a few questions about this argument? I just want to make sure I'm understanding it well."

When you lead by asking a question and saying you want to understand the argument better, rather than saying, "Hey, I want to tell you how you're wrong," it is usually much more disarming and can make for a better conversation.

Then I recommend saying, "This really isn't a situation we would probably ever find ourselves in. IVF clinics typically aren't located anywhere near the labor and delivery wing of a hospital. But even if it were to happen, are you saying that if someone chose the babies in the nursery over the embryos in the freezer, that would prove the embryos are not valuable?" Just ask that, and ask clarifying questions.

After you've heard their thoughts, ask, "So is this how we determine a human's value, by who would choose to save them?" They will probably say no. You can say, "I would agree with you." Then give a parallel situation. For example: "If my daughter were on a ship that was going down, and the captain could only take one more person in a lifeboat, and he chose his own son rather than my daughter, would that prove my daughter is less valuable than his son? No. It doesn't prove she has less value. It only demonstrates where the captain places his value. It wouldn't reveal any intrinsic value, or lack of intrinsic value, in my daughter."

Then you can ask, "Similarly, do you see how, if humans chose to save the babies in the nursery over the embryos in the freezer, that would merely reveal what we humans subjectively value? It wouldn't add to or take away from the intrinsic value of those embryos."

Now, I imagine a conversation like this won't go 100% smoothly. There may be sidetracks and high emotions. I would just encourage you, and encourage us as we train our kids, to make sure our emotions are in check during these conversations, that we ask good questions, and that through those questions we help reveal what the person is really saying.

In our Careful Thinking curriculum, in the fifth unit (I believe it's the fifth, possibly the sixth), we have an entire unit on how to ask good questions and respond to others in truth and love. So if you want to train your children in this way, I highly recommend you check it out.

Just as a reminder, the three steps we covered in this podcast are: one, figure out what the argument is; two, ask whether the argument is sound; and three, figure out how to wisely respond to the argument.

Closing

Well, that's a wrap for this episode. If you have a question you would like me to answer on a future Foundation Worldview podcast, you can submit it at foundationworldview.com/podcast.

As we leave our time together, my prayer for you is that, no matter the situation in which you and the children God has placed in your care find yourselves, you would trust that God is working all things together for your good, using all things to conform you more into the image of his Son. I'll see you next time.