In most dictionaries, the term human being is defined as “a member of the human species”. Biologically, this definition is very satisfying and is, in fact, quite precise. The only term an average reader is likely to run into trouble with is “species”.
To be a member of any species requires that a male and female of that species join in some form of sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreating and produce some version of a fertilized egg. I use these rather general phrases because the variations on the theme of maleness, femaleness, sexual intercourse, and fertilized egg, because the variations on the themes are many indeed.
For bees, only the queen will mate while the vast majority of female workers are sterile. Male drones are produced as a result of “unfertilized” eggs and will mate with the single queen while in flight, only to die. The queen stores sperm transferred to her and can manipulate single sperm and egg cells individually to produce the female workers
Male frogs will clasp female frogs around the abdomen and assist in depositing eggs. As the eggs leave the ovipositor (egg-depositor), the male fertilizes the eggs
Even some bacteria have a version of sexual intercourse, male and femaleness. In ‘Escherichia Coli’, certain individuals carry an extra piece of genetic information.
At certain times, these individuals will pass this material through a “conjugal tube” to individuals lacking this genetic information. Of course, this is not a perfect example, but it demonstrates the diversity of mechanisms of species to beget others of their own nature
The same is true of humans. The difference here, in the biological sense, is that the female egg and the male sperm will meet inside the human female. (This is the case with most mammals except the duck-billed platypus and various marsupials – pouched animals).
What I have tried so far to demonstrate is that the laws of nature dictate the mechanics of procreating, and thus humans are the same as other animals in this sense. This means that humans deserve at least as much respect as animals, and obviously much more.
In this regard then, the unborn child deserves the same dignity afforded to a cat, or dog, or chimpanzee – and in all the world of science, a scientist when asked the time at which a cat becomes a cat, for example, he replies “at conception”. And so humans too, deserve at least that much.
Pro-abortionists, however, will attach various qualifiers to human beings, although these same people will call baby seals such from conception. Humans, they will state, must have a conscious life, or look human or be born or whatever to qualify. They have established their own definitions, qualifiers and philosophy of when life begins, and when a human is human.
The unfortunate truth for pro-abortionists, is that they are establishing norms against the order of natural laws, and whenever that occurs, nature replies in harsh tones. Examples of this idea are found in abundance: rabbits introduced to Australia have virtually wiped out whole crops; pesticides sprayed to contain insect invasions have merely created super resistant insects, while wiping whole species off the map.
This law of nature is akin to a principle of physical chemistry known as Le Chantelier’s Principle. This idea states that if in a chemical reaction, you introduce some form of external influence (pressure, temperature, radiation, etc.) the reaction will tend to favor the reactants (the chemicals producing the reaction) or the products. Adult men and women are reactants, babies are products, and pro-abortionists would favour reactants, until no more reactants exist, which is the logical result of preventing birth.