Why Size Doesn't Determine Human Worth: Debunking the Pro-Abortion Size Argument and Grounding Rights in Human Nature

The Flawed Size Argument Against Fetal Rights

One of the most common arguments in favor of abortion claims that because a fetus is so small, it possesses little moral worth and therefore doesn't warrant protection. This reasoning, however, collapses under basic logical scrutiny. Consider the relationship between men and women: men are generally larger than women, yet this size difference confers no additional rights to men. Shaquille O'Neal, despite his considerable physical stature, doesn't have more rights than Barbra Streisand. Our dignity and rights simply don't derive from our size.

How Pro-Abortion Arguments Inject Moral Value Into Differences

The pattern in pro-abortion reasoning consistently follows a specific formula: identify a difference between the unborn and the born, then inject or insert moral value into those differences. These differences typically fall into four categories: size, level of development, environment or location, and degree of dependency. The underlying assumption is that these differences justify treating the unborn as less than fully human or unworthy of protection.

What's particularly noteworthy about contemporary pro-abortion advocacy is a significant shift in argumentation. Most pro-abortion advocates today will not argue that the unborn is not biologically human—that's an argument that hearkens back about 30 years. Modern advocates don't really make those arguments anymore and are fully willing to admit that the unborn is a human being. However, they pivot to a different claim: that the unborn is so different from us that it doesn't warrant the same protections.

The Historical Parallel to Past Atrocities

From a broader perspective, this argumentative framework is no different than the arguments historically used to justify killing Jews and Black men in this country. The logic was identical: they're so different than us, therefore they don't deserve the same rights and protections. This should serve as a sobering reminder of where arguments based on human differences inevitably lead.

Where Human Rights Actually Come From

Our dignity and rights don't come from our cognitive abilities, our accidental properties, or our functions. They come from our human nature. This is the only stable foundation for human rights. If you don't ground human rights in the only thing we all have in common—that we're all human beings—you leave it to the political class and the elite class to define which categories or cognitive abilities must be met to meet their litmus test for personhood.

Once rights become dependent on meeting certain criteria beyond simply being human, we create a dangerous system where those in power determine who qualifies as a person worthy of protection. History has repeatedly demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of such thinking.