Submitted by Lyndsay Sullivan
I am a person who places a lot of stake in science. If I am able to prove something came from something else, then I believe it. The science of life is not any different for me, and I see science as a source of truth.
I used to believe in the idea of a woman’s choice to have an abortion, but that was before I put two and two together. I know from science that the zygote is a combination of the DNA, making it a unique set of cells that are distinct from any other set of cells in the world. This set of cells develops into a fetus, which then develops into an infant. Pro-abortion advocates would attempt to distinguish these cells as simply a clump of cells that can be discarded, which is the basis of the woman’s right to choose.
This bothered me because now I faced a dilemma: How does someone have the choice to end someone else’s life? If I believe in a woman’s choice, in her ability to abort a fetus, and I believe that
science is a viable source for truth stating that a fetus is a unique set of cells that develops into a real human infant, then I am at an impasse. I didn’t have a way to explain how two statements of fact can contradict one another. Pro-abortion advocates told me that a fetus is not a baby, when science clearly would negate that statement. In the end, it just didn’t add up.
The other thing that bothered me about the pro-choice movement was that I realized that one of the people in the abortion situation has no choice. From the time of conception to birth, the developing child has no choice as to its living or dying conditions. The evidence was too strong for me to not become pro-life. It was not a political issue; it was a truth that I couldn’t deny. Science and truth cannot contradict one another; they actually fulfill one another.










