'Potential life' requires potential abortion

I mentioned in the last post the common claim that the unborn human being is mere "potential life." This is false, of course, because something is either living or it's not -- and the unborn meets all the biololical criteria for life. Moreover, the unborn is a distinct, individual organism of the human species who is growing at a remarkably fast rate. Dead things don't grow.

I ran across this short commentary by Greg Koukl (to which I linked earlier). Koukl says it best.

A common way to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify abortion is to refer to pregnancy as "creating potential life." Calling an unborn child a "potential life" is just a clever rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as creating a "potential life."

Think about it. First, you could potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex there's potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, you could create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that's the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life.

It's like saying, "I just had a potential thought." What could that possibly mean, you just had a potential thought? You either had a thought or you didn't. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn't. But you never have a potential thought.

In the same way, pregnancy doesn't create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion is needed to end pregnancy and not a potential one, a real life must be involved, not a potential one.