There is a difference between how we should define certain things. Some things are defined functionally and some things are defined essentially. To define something functionally is to say that this thing is what it does. For example, consider what a spoon “is.” Strictly speaking, a spoon is what it does. A spoon “is” a thing that spoons. Artifacts are this way. They are only what they do. They do not have essences. In contradistinction, consider a human being. A human being is not merely what a human being does. Humans cannot be defined functionally. Instead, a human being has an essence. Philosophers might call it “human nature” or “human-ness.” Theologians call it the “soul.” The confusion of whether a human being ought to be defined functionally or essentially is part of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Many pro-choicers insist on defining humans functionally. They say things like, “It isn’t a human being (or person) until it has self-consciousness.” or “It’s not human until it has a level of moral awareness.” or any number of other functions. This is wrong. A human being is a thing that possesses a human nature. It possesses that nature irrespective of whether it has particular functions or not. To be sure, functions may be flags at to what the nature of a thing is. We might be able to tell whether something is a human because of certain functions. But it is not the functions that give rise to the nature. Rather, it is the nature that gives rise to the functions. This is true of all things that have natures. This is certainly true of human beings. Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is the killing of innocent human beings. Abortion is immoral. This Supreme Court decision needs to be overturned. The laws need to change to protect the unborn. They are human beings.