Prof. Peters was questioned on the consistency of her views. (Image: Unsplash)
An Elon University professor (USA) has refused to confirm that unborn children are of the human species, claiming that such a statement requires a more 'nuanced' response.
Professor of Religious Studies, Rebecca Todd Peters recently justified her pro-abortion stance in an opinion piece reflecting on abortion from the Christian perspective. She stated: "If we truly value women we must accept that 'I do not want to have a baby' is an imminently appropriate reason to end a pregnancy."
Consistency?
This is a good illustration of how the abortion culture has damaged academia through the politicising of fundamental reasoning, evident in the words of some academics.
Student publication The College Fix, challenged Peters with various questions which scrutinised her pro-abortion views. Questions included whether Peters would consider unborn children to be members of the human species and if she thought it acceptable to euthanise ill infants.
Peters' chilling response stated: "The questions that you ask are very serious moral questions that require far more substantive reflection than I could possibly offer." Peters continued with a reference to her book: Trust Women A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice, claiming that this would provide a "more detailed and nuanced discussion of these questions than I could possible offer in an email."
Ignorance of Science
However, Peters appears to ignore scientific fact as the humanity of the unborn child is now widely recognised throughout embryological fields. Current advances in technology have now allowed us to connect with life inside the womb, providing insight to human development in the earliest of stages.
Scientifically it is confirmed that human life begins as a single cell formed from the fusion of sperm and egg in fertilisation. This fusion produces a completely new cell - the human embryo - which holds a new and unique set of genetic information including eye colour, hair colour, height, skin tone and body build. The embryo is a genetically distinct individual.
This evidence is extensively confirmed in scientific fields as Embryologist Keith L. Moore states: "The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human."
Biologically, it can be concluded that an embryo produced from human gametes and containing human chromosomes is undoubtedly human. Exhibiting growth, movement, sensitivity and respiration, a human embryo can only belong to the human species.
Philosophical questions of the unborn child's personhood have been answered as well. Philosopher Peter Kreeft clarifies, in his answer to "Is a foetus a person?":
"Well, is a teenager a person? Is an adult a person? These words—foetus, teenager, embryo, adult—are nouns that come from adjectives. Embryonic human: embryo. Foetal human: foetus. Infantile human: infant. Childish human: child. Teenaged human: [teenager]. These are stages of development of one entity."
A new effort to ensure facts and reason remain on the table for discussions around abortion in academia is desperately needed.
News in brief: