Fetus. Baby. Clump of cells. Preborn. Unborn.
In the abortion debate, there are a number of different ways people refer to the entity in the womb, and they all come with different baggage.
It probably won’t surprise you that there are disagreements between pro-choice and pro-life advocates as far as which terms to use, but it doesn’t stop there! For years, it’s even been a debate amongst pro-lifers. After all, language can matter an awful lot when it comes to perception and psychology. It’s only natural for us to push for terms that we believe are most effective in helping our society understand the value of the human in the womb.
At ERI, we often get questions about the words we choose to use and the scenarios we use them in. I’d like to take this opportunity to give you not just an approved word bank, but also a look into our thought process.
Photo by Lunarcaustic
Estimated reading time: 10 minutes
Language Has Limits
If you’ve been around ERI for long enough, it won’t surprise you to hear that we believe labels often have limited usefulness. For example, a person who identifies with the label “pro-choice” could hold a wide range of beliefs, and you have no idea what “pro-choice” means to that individual unless you ask them. Similarly, many pro-life advocates can’t even agree on the definition of abortion. (Secular Pro-Life has done some amazing work on this, if you’re interested in learning more.)
All this to say, the terminology we use for the human in the womb is only useful if it facilitates meaningful conversation. If you spend your entire dialogue trying to convince your pro-choice friend to use the word “baby” instead of “fetus,” you’ve not actually moved them on the core issue. Similarly, if pro-life jargon such as “preborn” confuses or distracts your dialogue partner, they’ll have a harder time hearing your arguments against abortion.
A Review of Different Terms
Let’s continue with a straightforward analysis of common terms found in the abortion debate. This list is just in alphabetical order, so please don’t take the order as a value judgement.
Baby – In many contexts, “baby” is a perfectly legitimate term for the in-utero human. It’s the term used most commonly by people celebrating a new addition to their family, and apps that help parents track development during pregnancy cheerfully list every fruit and vegetable that “Baby” compares to in size. It’s silly to pretend that this isn’t a widely agreed-upon word outside of the abortion debate.
Within the abortion debate, however, it may not be the best place to start. If you’re debating the philosophy of what precisely the entity killed in abortion is and whether it has value, then using the word “baby” could understandably be seen as begging the question—as using language that assumes that it’s shared background for the conversation that fetuses are people, when actually whether fetuses are people is exactly what’s being contested in the conversation. If you want to keep the focus on your argument and avoid accusations of cheating, this term can be a bit too loaded with connotations of personhood and value.
Clump of Cells – Even if we don’t generally encourage folks to get in the weeds arguing about terminology, there are some instances where it’s worth redirecting your dialogue partner. If the word “baby” tips the scales towards the pro-life side, then the phrase “clump of cells” slams a heavy stone on the pro-choice side with its derogatory implications.
You can redirect in a friendly, disarming way by confessing that you don’t exactly get the warm fuzzies looking at a three-day-old blastocyst or joking about how you’re just a really big clump of cells at the end of the day. Then, ask if you both could stick to neutral terms so that you can focus on the main disagreements.
Fetus (or ZEF) – Okay, I’m cheating a little here by placing multiple words together, but these all have pretty much the same use case. Scientific words like zygote, embryo, and fetus (commonly referred to as ZEF) simply note the stage of life a developing human progresses through. In that sense, they’re largely neutral. It’s like referring to a teenager as an “adolescent” or a newborn as an “infant.”
Developmental terms like this can also provide some clarity about what stage you’re discussing. For example, a pro-choice person might have more reservations about abortions during the fetal stage than they do about abortions that kill very early embryos.
It’s possible that your dialogue partner might use these terms in an intentionally dehumanizing or derogatory way (as Josh once described it, maybe they’re “using the word ‘fetus’ with stank on it”), in which case you can gently point that out and remind them that it’s really just a neutral stage of development, like born humans have. But I believe in most cases, a pro-choice person is using these terms as part of a good-faith effort at scientific accuracy. There’s no need to die on the hill of opposing scientific terms in the vast majority of cases.
Preborn – I’ll start by saying that I have no ill will towards the many pro-life activists who have been pushing for the use of the word “preborn.” If you’re so invested in the rights of tiny humans that you’re coming up with or using whole new words to try to humanize them, then I have to appreciate that level of investment. It’s great to try creative new approaches for communicating our message or influencing the culture.
However, I have to be honest and say that the pro-life movement has failed to “make fetch happen” here. This is a word that only hardcore pro-life activists use on a regular basis, and it’s usually just off-putting and distracting to the people we’re trying to reach. It communicates to your average pro-choice person that you’re so deep into the opposing side that you’re adopting niche lingo, and it often grates against them like a terminally online teenager’s slang grates against their exhausted parents.
I truly wish the effort to use words like “preborn” to influence culture was a successful project. But given that it’s pushing away the people we’re trying to reach more than it’s pulling them in, we’d suggest avoiding this one.
Prenatal – The phrase “prenatal human” is one of our favorite alternatives to “preborn.” It gets at the same concept that “preborn” does—if pregnancy is allowed to continue, the human in the womb will naturally grow into their next stage of development. It’s not the most common term, but it’s also not completely unfamiliar or jarring to a pro-choice audience, who have probably heard phrases like “prenatal vitamins” used in everyday conversation.
It also has the strength of naturally allowing you to insert the word “human” into the term. If your dialogue partner objects to your use of the word “human,” you can easily explain that it’s appropriate, since prenatal humans are uncontroversially part of the species homo sapiens.
Unborn – This is another less scientific and precise corollary to terms like zygote, embryo, and fetus. It’s a good neutral word, and just about everybody knows what it means.
“Unborn” has two advantages over “prenatal.” First, it’s arguably the most common word used to refer to the prenatal human. Secondly, it can be more naturally used as shorthand. If you say “the unborn,” most people understand that you’re referring to the category of humans at issue in the abortion debate, whereas the phrase “the prenatal” doesn’t have the same easy familiarity. Of course, you’re always able to use phrases like “the unborn human” to lean into the humanity of the creature killed in abortion, but having an easy shorthand can help the flow of the conversation.
Let’s Talk About Pronouns
Don’t worry, we’re not taking a massive swerve into unrelated culture war topics. But just like the terms we use for prenatal humans, the pronouns we use for them can have subtle humanizing or dehumanizing effects, so it’s worth considering as part of this topic.
Something I’ve observed that is surprisingly common, even in life affirming circles, is the use of it/its pronouns for humans in the womb. I’ve even seen born babies be called “it” if they belong to a stranger and the gender is unknown. I can understand the use in some cases, namely in an abortion dialogue where the pro-life person is taking great pains to remove barriers to the conversation so that they have a better chance of convincing their pro-choice friend. However, on the whole, I’d really love for all of us to get out of the habit of using it/its pronouns for babies of all ages. They aren’t objects, after all.
This leaves you with a couple options: you can use “they/them” or “he or she.” Ultimately it’s none of my business which set you’re most comfortable using, and I don’t want to open an unrelated pandora’s box with this topic. I personally use they/them pronouns when referring to any person, born or unborn, whose gender is unknown or irrelevant. It feels less clunky than “he or she,” can refer to both individuals and groups, and has a minor fun bonus of sometimes surprising a liberal pro-choice person who probably expects that I shrivel away from singular “they/them” like a vampire in the sun. However, if “he or she” is more natural to you, I want you to go with what’s comfortable.
The Practical Application
Now that we’ve reviewed the terms, here’s how I’d suggest pro-life advocates practically utilize them in conversations about abortion.
Step One: Start Neutral
At the beginning of a conversation, the pro-choice person is probably still confused or mistaken about the humanity, personhood, or value of the unborn, so it’s best to start with neutral terms. Put yourself in their shoes, and avoid words that will be distracting. If they’re being transparently derogatory, kindly redirect them.
Step Two: Make Your Argument and Build Rapport
As the conversation progresses, you can probably (hopefully!) convince them that you’re a reasonable person who isn’t trying to trick them with word games. In some cases, you can even convince them on personhood and move to another topic, like bodily rights. Even if you can’t fully convince them of your argument, a good conversation can lead to them being less hung up on specific word choices.
Step Three: Transition Into Less Neutral Language
An important thing to emphasize is that this step is optional. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with sticking to neutral terms, and it might work better for you to stick with one set if you need to break a pro-life jargon habit or find the transition unnatural.
That said, once you’ve built rapport or made a strong personhood argument, there may well be an opportunity for you to emphasize your pro-life position with non-neutral terminology. I have very good pro-choice friends whom I’ve earned the ability to switch terms with. I haven’t fully convinced them of my position, but we’ve done the work to bring down the barriers around terminology. I can emphasize that I think abortion violently kills babies, and they can truly hear me and consider the view seriously, without distractions and hangups. It just took time and trust to get there.
Arguments Are Stronger Than Vocabulary
As our former staff member Rachel Crawford once said, “if you’re trying to influence someone psychologically with [a term], you should just use an argument.”
After all, dialogue isn’t about playing Jedi mind tricks on the person we’re talking to; it’s about seeking mutual understanding! One word alone cannot make your entire argument for you. At the same time, a single word isn’t likely to tank your entire interaction as long as you’re being thoughtful and intentional.
You may well disagree with me on some of the above assessments and recommendations, and that’s okay! What matters more to me is your posture when choosing your vocabulary. The way you treat your dialogue partner and respond to their concerns and discomfort is ultimately the most vital part of your conversation. Find the words that best help the person in front of you, and use them in love.
The post What Should We Call Them? originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.”