Human, Not Person
DRAFT — awaiting editorial review.
Course outline — lesson 3 of 5
The suspicion the letter is trying to topple
Part Two opens by borrowing an observation from Wilberforce: respectable Christians agree with every part of the faith, and yet when you listen to their hopes and fears you discover that their faith “scarcely finds herself a place” among those things.
The letter turns that on us. We say “life begins at conception”, and then live as though we did not believe it. Our images of “the unborn” rarely show anyone under eight weeks. We feel the weight of a late abortion — rightly — and feel almost nothing about an early one.
“If we are honest, part of us suspects that the newly conceived embryo is not yet really someone.” That suspicion, the letter says, is the belief everything else hinges on, and the belief the world has spent sixty years teaching. The rest of Part Two is an attempt to put it to the test.
Read this part in full in the letter →
Why the word “person” is refused
“We do not argue that the conceived child is a person. We argue that he is a human.”
The letter’s reasoning is that “person” is not a biological term at all. It is a word from philosophy and law, defined and redefined by whoever holds power, and made to rest on reason, self-awareness, independence or being wanted. Every one of those tests leaves somebody out — and the letter says that is not an accident.
It then shows the move is old. The Nuremberg Laws did not say Jews were not human beings; they stripped their standing under the law. Defenders of the slave trade did not usually deny that Africans were human; they refused them the protection a person is owed. In Dred Scott, Chief Justice Taney did not rule that the man before him was not a man — he ruled that he was not a citizen, of a class with no rights the law was bound to respect.
The letter is careful here: “We do not say these crimes are all the same. Each has its own weight.” What it says is that the tactical move underneath is the same — admit the victim is human, then make protection depend on some further quality.
Read this part in full in the letter →
What begins at conception, and who says so
Having refused a contested word, the letter stands on a fact it says cannot be redefined. At conception a new and separate human being begins: his own full set of DNA, his own sex, his own path of growth directed from within. He is not part of his mother’s body — no part of a body has its own DNA and its own sex.
The formulation the letter presses is this: “What he lacks is not humanity. What he lacks is maturity. And every one of us once lacked it, and gained it, by the same unbroken growth.”
Then it gives a source the reader is invited to weigh independently. In one survey, 5,577 biologists from more than a thousand universities were asked when a human life begins; 96% said fertilisation. The sample described itself as 85% pro-choice, 89% liberal and 63% non-religious. They were not making a moral claim — they were answering a question of scientific fact.
Check yourself
One set of questions per section above. Open each to check your answer.
After section 1: What does the letter identify as the belief everything else hinges on?
- That abortion is legal
- The suspicion that the newly conceived embryo is not yet really someone — correct
- That contraception is a private matter
- That the church has always taught this
It is the belief the letter is trying to topple. We say life begins at conception and then live as if we did not — our images of "the unborn" rarely show anyone under eight weeks.
After section 1: What does the letter borrow from Wilberforce at this point?
- His parliamentary strategy
- His observation that a respectable Christian’s faith "scarcely finds herself a place" among his real hopes and fears — correct
- His argument against the slave trade
- His conversion account
The point is self-examination, not history: the letter applies Wilberforce’s diagnosis of nominal belief to our own stated conviction that life begins at conception.
After section 2: Why does the letter decline to argue for the personhood of the conceived child?
- Because personhood is impossible to define
- Because "person" is a philosophical and legal word, redefined by those in power, and every proposed test excludes somebody — correct
- Because the science is unsettled
- Because Scripture never uses the word
Reason, self-awareness, independence, being wanted — each leaves someone out. The letter stands instead on humanity, which is a fact of nature rather than a status in someone’s gift.
After section 2: What did Chief Justice Taney actually rule in Dred Scott?
- That the man before him was not a man
- That slavery was biblically permitted
- That the man before him was not a citizen, of a class with no rights the law was bound to respect — correct
- That the case fell outside the court’s jurisdiction
That is the letter’s point precisely. Humanity was conceded; protection was withheld on another ground. The letter is explicit that it is not equating these crimes, only naming the shared move.
After section 3: What does the letter say the conceived child lacks?
- Humanity
- Maturity — correct
- Individuality
- A distinct genetic identity
"And every one of us once lacked it, and gained it, by the same unbroken growth." The distinction between lacking humanity and lacking maturity carries the whole argument.
After section 3: Why does the letter stress the survey sample’s own politics and religion?
- To discredit the respondents
- To show that the answer is not driven by the respondents’ moral commitments — 85% described themselves as pro-choice — correct
- To show the survey was small
- To argue that science settles moral questions
96% of 5,577 biologists said a human life begins at fertilisation. The letter is careful that this is a question of scientific fact, and that the moral claim it makes rests elsewhere — on Genesis 9:6.
After section 3: What reason does the letter give that the child is not part of his mother’s body?
- He is in a separate sac
- He has a heartbeat
- No part of a body has its own DNA and its own sex — correct
- He can survive outside the womb
A simple and checkable claim, and the one the letter rests on rather than on any appeal to appearance or stage of development.
Reflect
Your notes are saved on this device only — they never leave your browser.
Go deeper
Further material on this topic from allied abolitionist ministries (links open external sites):
- Abolitionists Rising — training and resources for abolitionist work (Abolitionists Rising)