In the ongoing debate of the topic abortion, two sides have been formulated. The Pro-Choice side fights for rights of the woman and the individual mother while convincing others the mother's body is hers to do as she pleases. The Pro-Life side of the dichotomy argues that the termination of a developing fetus is murder, as it is a human in the making. The question which arises from these two sides of the issue is "Is it really human life?" This question has been answered from scientific research, but yet the question still remains. Society today seems to force me to ask the question; does it really matter if it's human life? 

I personally have never thought too much into this conversation on whether abortion is ethical or not. This topic has never been a debate in my eyes, as I was certain that abortion is morally wrong in every circumstance. After an abundance of research, it became evident how I was clearly the minority group concerning this topic as most people seemed to support abortion and a "woman's right" to her body. Many people who are on the Pro-Choice side of the argument support abortion, under most (if not all) circumstances. Those who are on the Pro-Life side argue that when a sperm meets the egg and fertilizes (conception), a human life begins. A human life which is alive, unique, and individual (Robertson). It was to my knowledge that this was known to everyone, that human life does indeed begin at conception. After conception, all the developing embryo needs is time and nourishment, and eventually this embryo will develop into a baby. Many people who are Pro-Choice may argue that a sperm or an egg individually has the potential for life, so why is the zygote any different? An individual sperm or egg does indeed have potential to form a human life, but only until conditions have been met (fertilization of egg via sperm). A zygote and developing embryo has already met those conditions, and is already undergoing the process of maturation (Aist).

Even though there is countless scientific research to support the fact that human life begins at conception, why do people still remain Pro-Choice? Many people who remain Pro-Choice argue that since the individual is within the woman's body, it is their right to choose what the outcome is, whether the baby is terminated or allowed to live. When supporting abortion, people view the right to a woman's choice to be greater than the right to a human's existence. The right to life should always be the most thought of, when thinking of humane rights. But sadly in the developed world (USA in particular), the right to a woman's choice outweighs the right to a humans life. Keep in mind the word human, pertains to an individual within the species Homo sapiens. There is an unwritten hierarchy of ethics engraved into society and even within our legal systems. This is evident in cases relating to murder (excluding abortion), as there can be 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and manslaughter. Relating this hierarchy of how we perceive events and ethics to the abortion debate, the right to human life should inevitably be placed higher than the right to one's choice not to be pregnant. 

It is also a worthy note that pregnancy is temporary, abortion if forever. A typical pregnancy generally takes up to 9 months for the embryo to become viable, that is, able to live outside the mother's womb on its own. By living on its own, I simply mean that the child no longer requires the mother's amniotic fluid and nutrients to be transferred via the placenta. The baby will however, require certain essential nutrients and immunoglobulins to continue to be transferred from breast milk (Dhameja). A mother will have to continue to support her child throughout the early years but the child will mature and be ready for the world on his/her own in roughly 18 years' time. Raising a child may be expensive, but it ultimately should be well worth the cost. Luckily, governments (US Government) do have financial aid programs in place to help families who cannot afford basic necessities such as food for their kids. For mothers who argue that they have to receive abortions because of financial reasons, you probably shouldn't of risked having a baby in the first place. Aside from that, programs are in place to ensure that basic necessities of life are in place to keep you and your child alive. 

Today we live in a world of increasingly violent crimes. It seems common for nowadays for terrorist attacks to occur and shootings to break out. Society as a whole may be beginning to grow dull to this information from overexposure to it. Anyone who watches the news should understand what I am talking about here. We live in a country that kill roughly 700,000 babies annually. This equates to about 210 abortions per 1000 live births in the United States (Abortion Surveillance). Statistics show that 36% of Americans believe that abortion can be legal but only in a select few circumstances (McDonald). The circumstances which are referred to include situations in which the mother's life is at stake, situations in which the mother was raped, or situations in which the developing baby may experience terminal illness for the remainder of his/her life. These circumstances are by far the hardest topic within this debate, but in reality, even these circumstances should be no exception to the future law against abortion. But this may be too big of a step to first take in the pro-life spectrum. Society will undoubtedly be unready to take this step but a step which remains very possible is one to outlaw abortion with these listed exceptions. 

The crimes committed against woman in the few select circumstances is horrible and unforgiving. Crimes like rape is one of the most serious crimes next to murder in my eyes and the rapist should be held to the highest extent of the law. But abortion just is not the road to healing. The victim of such a tragedy should be supported by her community and counselled to help cope with this crime, but the murder of an innocent is not the solution. When abortion is thought of as a solution to a crime like this, people are unconsciously thinking two wrongs make a right. Why should the baby be sentenced to their own form of capital punishment? The termination of this unwanted baby does not un-rape a woman, it only brings more violence into the equation. The other difficult issue to talk about is abortion of the baby if the mother's life is at stake. The fact is that there are only 14 deaths per 100,000 live births annually, meaning this is a very rare case (Pappas). But if this case was to occur, I just don't see the fairness in trading a life for a life. This is the most difficult issue for me, as I couldn't bear to lose my partner. Again, these are issues that are very real and should still not be exceptions, but these exceptions may be the only way that an anti-abortion law will ever be passed (in the near future).

One fundamental aspect of this debate is how little impact science truly has on formation of laws. The science does indeed tell us that life begins at conception, and that the human heart beats a few weeks (5-6 weeks) after conception. To go off on a tangent for a little bit, those who are pro-choice argue that a developing embryo is simply not a baby, plan and simple. They argue this point because the embryo lacks certain characteristics that a baby does. One video I recently watched (TheNotAdam) compared an embryo to a baby and described how it was not a human being. This video gave facts such as when the human heart beats and when certain fetal developmental stages take effect. And until these stages undergo their effects, the embryo is not yet a human being. I find it humorous (in an irritating way) how people overlook the fact that the embryo is in the process of maturation into a baby that we all know and love. It seems purely unfair to claim that the embryo is not human just because it hasn't been allowed enough time to develop and mature. Of course the heart doesn't beat until six weeks in, of course they have little to no nervous function in the early stages. Just because they are a few weeks shy of these human characteristics, does that mean we have all have the authority to kill them? Back to life beginning at conception, all of the medical and scientific evidence proves this to be true, but yet this common knowledge seems to make little impact in making it into the minds of politicians and law makers (Robertson). The argument at hand seems to be almost entirely on a social level as the scientific side of the argument seems to be settles and has come to a consensus. The question I ask about society is if even though it is a human life, does it really matter? Even though people know that life begins at conception, people then begin to argue that the baby cannot feel pain or that the baby should not yet be labelled or even thought of as a human being. Science, once again, shows us that the baby can feel pain in as little as 20 weeks. When science tells us one thing, and we see that politics decides another thing, it becomes evident that the culture of our society as a whole has been tainted. As a society we ignore the cries of the innocent and brainlessly slaughter our future generations; it seems that our society is shifting from a land of hope to the land of despair, from a culture of life to a culture of death. Ultimately it appears that there seems to be a degeneration of society at hand, and abortion is only one example. Just to mention ne other example of how society is being corrupted is how capital punishment remains to be legal; which is a whole other issue I am not going to address. 

Pro-abortion supporters appear to claim that since it is their body that it is their right to do whatever they please. This is an unalienably right; no one can, or should, dispute this fact. The problem with this belief is that even though it is your body, you should not have the right to deny someone else of their unalienably rights. A baby within the mother's uterus is a member of our species, and is born with the same rights that we all share today. Mothers in search for abortions across the country must understand that it is not only her body at stake here, but the babies as well. 

So what can be done? Our society needs to be awakened in light of the truth about abortion. There are truly only two sides to the argument, pro-life and pro-death. First what we need to do is insure that our politicians passes a basic level biology class so that they understand life begins at conception. These politicians and lawmakers additionally need to have the conscience to understand that a right to life is greater than a woman's "right to her body." There will be options which will still be available if an anti-abortion law were to be passed. If a parent was very unwilling to raise their child, then adoption may seem to be a very reasonable alternative. In order for the an anti-abortion law to become a possibility in the near future, a law must be passed which prohibits abortion except in certain circumstances such as rape, concern for the mother's life, and terminal illness of the child. As a society we need to outlaw rules and regulations which support murder, and work our best to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." 

 -- Blessed Mother Teresa

