Over the past quarter century, the debate over abortion has all but consumed our society. Many have given their lives, actively or passively, to further their cause. As a result, the debate over abortion cannot be viewed like many others. First, abortion is not only a moral issue, a debate over life and the taking of it, but a political one with political implications that cannot be nurtured in the vacuum of moral righteousness. Second, abortion concerns a very peculiar event, the birth of a human being: no other activity is comparable so connections to other rights through analogy or legal precedent are difficult if not misplaced.

For the purposes of absolute clarity in a very deep and confusing issue, I will outline the following argument. First, I believe the act of abortion is essentially the active taking of a human life and is therefore - reprehensible. Life is a basic building block of any society and such societies have consistently acted to preserve life or else a communal sensibility cannot exist. Second, I propose that the very fundamental principle by which our society can function must be the preservation of life under reasonable circumstances. Third, despite moral obligations to protect life, such preservation must be flexible to protect life as best as possible, when complete preservation is impossible.

Now we must analyze the first assertion: Abortion is indeed a taking of life and then, that such action is reprehensible. For abortion to be a taking of life, we must be clear on when life begins. Basically, this is the question of when life actually becomes life: At conception? At viability? At 6 years old? To a large extent, the debate seems to rest more upon what people will accept, rather than what is scientific reality or frankly, logical. Many claim that life must exist after birth because before then the child is not viable. The ambiguity of viability, however, is simply astounding. Randy Alcorn of Life Strategies asserts that, “Viability is an arbitrary concept. Why not associate personhood with heartbeat, brain waves, or something else?” He further contends, “The point of viability changes because it depends on technology…” i.e. some children can be born pre-mature and with the help of incubators and medical equipment can survive.

Unfortunately, as might be illustrated by the above refutations of the viability argument, scientific reality is not always used to come to certain pro-choice arguments. Alcorn contends, “Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.” However, there may still be some that find this claim dubious. Even so, logic would dictate that life begins at conception. After all, there is no certain evidence that life MUST begin after birth. In fact, much of the pro-choice argument rests on an uncertainty principle, that is, “we simply do not know if life begins at conception or not.” If this is true, that we cannot be certain of the exact moment of life’s beginnings, it would seem only logical to differ to the first possible moment it could begin, i.e. conception. For instance, if we are in a dark room with a loaded gun and we are uncertain if other people are in the room as well, we would differ to preserving life by not firing the gun. If not, the values on which life is based cease to have meaning.

But in order for this argument to have any sort of meaning, it must be put in context. As I hoped to prove by logic, life ought to begin at conception. It does not, however, begin before this. That is, an egg or sperm are not on their own independent life because both on their own are incomplete and will not alone develop as a human. A skin cell, or a heart cell or anything like that also is not like an embryo because on their own they do not become an independent human. Only an embryo can become an adult.

Now, we must evaluate whether or not this taking of life in abortion (in general) is in fact reprehensible or justifiable. Several arguments are advanced to mitigate abortion’s pernicious nature: The aborted fetus is not a full human; a woman’s right to choose issues of her own body; and that an unborn fetus’ life is less important than the woman’s rights.

The incomplete status of a fetus as an argument for its potential or justifiable termination has already been addressed. But to clarify, “incompleteness” or “in viability” are inappropriate standards not only due to their arbitrary nature, but also because the implicit comparison to which “incompleteness” is compared is a fully functioning adult human: In this case, children in general, the handicapped, or mentally disabled individuals would fall into the “incomplete” and therefore terminable forms of human life. Naturally, pro-choice activist do not generally support this position, but this appears to be the only logical extension of the “incompleteness” argument.

Next, we must evaluate the woman’s right over her own body. As I mentioned earlier, we are discussing pregnancy: There is no other human experience that relates to this one. Nothing a man or woman would ever do other than this would develop a human being. As a result, despite the fact that a fetus lies within a woman’s body, it cannot be categorized as anything else in her body. A fetus is not a kidney or a heart. No organ or bacteria or blood vessel will become a living, breathing human being. To argue that a fetus can be ruled by the same regulations as an appendix is simply irrational. In this position, I would argue that despite the discomfort, emotional complexities, and complications that would result, unless there is the death or realistic potential for death, a woman simply must grin and bear it.

I know this sounds as if I am attempting to write woman’s rights off. This is far from the case.  For instance, there are notable exceptions where abortion in the case losing the mother for whatever reason (child birth, etc..) we defer to the principle of preserving life: This means that if we cannot save both lives, an abortion would be justifiable since you are still preserving life – the mother’s. Furthermore, I ask the reader to think not in terms of emotion, but reason: Pregnancy is a wonderful moment in a woman’s life, it is frankly miraculous. And naturally, there are many women who do not want to be pregnant. That is their prerogative. However, once a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer a decision of inconvenience, this is a human life, plain and simple. And yes, it is unfortunate, inconvenient, and terribly trying. In some cases, even tragic. But the life within the womb is a life…to terminate a life for any reason other than to preserve another life is inconsistent with the principles of life which we claim to value in this society.

However, with these comments being made, politically, abortion must remain an option for some time. I propose that second- and third-trimester abortions be outlawed completely. Not only are they simply irresponsible but there is also evidence that the fetus can now feel pain, which is not only morally repulsive but cruel. Also, for first trimester abortions, there would be a strict formal process on abortion to prevent individuals from having too many or unsafe abortions, since this is frankly careless and unsafe to the mother. Also, there would be a massive education campaign around abortion that dispels myths and educates men and women as to the harms and realities of abortion.