That question is frequently the 'prelude' to ascertaining whether or not the person is for or against abortion. [I refuse to use "pro-life" since almost every woman I counseled as they sought an abortion was "pro-life". Just not this life at this time!]
The person asking the question is, at best, disengenuous - and, more likely, dishonest!
Of course the fertilized ovum is human! What else would it be when one is referring to a pregnant woman? It is certainly not reptilian nor avian nor is it some critter normally found in a zoo. When a human female and a human male procreate, the fertilized ovum is human. Period.
The real question ought to be: "Under what, if any, circumstances might it be legitimate to take that life?"
- The 1973 Supreme Court ruled that during the 1st trimester the mother had absolute authority to determine the future of the pregnancy.
- Many States legalize the taking of life via Capital punishment for certain crimes - usually murder.
- The "Just War" theory allows a nation to enter war when there is sufficient danger to her citizens. In doing so, it recognizes that people will be killed who are non-combatants [so called collateral damage].
On the other "side", former Cardinal Joseph Bernardin said there was a "seamless garment" when one is "pro-life" and that means being against capital punishment, against war, and for a more equitable distribution of "wealth" so that the "least among us" does not starve to death or die from lack of medical attention. Many in the anti-abortion movement firmly and ludly rejected the idea of Cardinal Bernardin.
Framing this complex issue in terms of the "humanity" of the ovum is dishonest.
Recognizing that none of us are sinless, the ELCA recognizes the struggle and turmoil for those facing such an issue. While clearly stating it is to be avoided, if possible, it does not abandon the woman who believes she must choose to abort. It even goes further than just "not abandoning" her! It recognizes that she remains a child of God, deserving love and acceptance from the church community. She is not a pariah.
In the 1970s it was possible for people of faith to discuss the abortion issue; to identify those areas in which there could be agreement [greater education on contraception and sex; and the need for support programs for women who chose to abort]; and to work together towards creating a society in which every child - every person - is honored and treated with love and care.
We need to work towards renewing a society in which such conversations can be had so we can focus our energy on the even greater issues of hunger and poverty and violence.
