That unborn children have souls—and thereby have all the rights of those who are born—is indisputable in light of Scripture.
Prior to the conception of John the Baptist, his father was told by an angel that John “will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15b)
One must have a soul to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Neither do those without souls leap for joy within the womb, as John the Baptist did:
“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.’” (Luke 1:39-44)
This brings us to another point: There are those who justify abortion by attempting to distinguish between being a human being and being a person. (A distinction that we reject.)
In this view, being a human being is not enough to have a right to live; one must be a “person” as well. Therefore, they claim, unborn children have no right to live, since they supposedly do not possess “personhood.” According to these pro-abortionists, one of the criteria for being a person is the ability to experience emotion.
But as the example of John the Baptist shows, John the Baptist experienced emotion in the womb—he “leaped for joy.”
Of course, neither the ability to experience emotion nor arbitrary definitions of personhood are the standards for whether someone should have human rights. The standard is whether someone is human, period.
That the unborn have souls is proof enough that they are human, and deserve protection.
