In my first paper on Abortion, I melted the debate over this controversial issue to one argument, is the baby alive or not. If the baby is alive before birth then abortion is murder, but if it is not alive until after birth, then I will agree that abortion is fine and sensible. So let us take a look at the arguments revolving around 'the quickening' and see if we can discover the answer behind this dilemma logically. I think it would be best to discuss it in order of the arguments set forth for abortion by its proponents.

The most common argument used is probably viability. This argument suggests that the baby is not a human until it can live outside the womb. Not surprisingly, this argument is also used to support euthanasia. However, how do you define viable, and at what point is a baby viable? If you define viable as able to live without assistance, then babies are not viable until around 4 or 5 when they can make their own food and shelter themselves. If you mean simply able to breath on their own and carry on bodily processes outside the womb, then we need to find a bright-line.

The fact is, there is no true bright-line (line of separation) between viable and non-viable. Every time science brings about new technology that assists new babies, the age of viability moves back a few days, weeks and sometimes months. In the 1800's, viability was a good two months after the defined age today. Besides, when given the option, abortion rights activists did not support a ban on partial birth abortion which occurs long after a baby is viable outside the womb. The fact is, viability is not a reliable argument for the life-condition of an unborn baby because it is so unclear and abstract, not to mention it can be argued that babies already born are not viable.

The next argument often used is the life processes, or at least it was. Up until about the early 1980's people argued that the unborn child is not human because it does not carry on life processes. However, once again, as technology progresses so does our ability to see more and more how human babies are. It turns out that all life processes are carried out shortly after conception (a matter of days). The embryo consumes food, reproduces, responds to stimuli and so on. By the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the baby has already begun to develop muscles, bones, eyes and blood vessels.

The final argument is usually the last ditch effort used by abortion rights activists. They claim that since you can't define the point at which a baby becomes a human, then birth is the easiest way to define it. However logical that statement may seem to those who are looking for excuses, the logical fallacy of the beard says 'you can't do it that way'. Perhaps the reason you can't find a bright line before birth is because the bright line exists at conception. Perhaps it is a human the second it gets all 26 chromosomes in place and begins to split.

This presents a very simple view of the seemingly complex issue of abortion. Arguments like rape and insect, birth defects and mutations no longer stand up to usable fodder because if it is a human, it deserves life, even if it were conceived through a criminal act, or even was terminally deformed. We wouldn't kill a little child because they were deformed, or had been rapped. If it is a human, protect its innocent life. If someone needs to be punished for bringing this baby into the world, punish the ones who perpetrated the crimes or irresponsible behavior, not the innocent child.

Once you've discovered that abortion is wrong, however, the argument does not end there. Why do people back abortion with all this knowledge in mind? Read my first Abortion paper to see more.