[On Abortion: A Thought]

In culture, decisions and laws are built primarily upon the fulfillment of the needs of the general public. These decisions, however, do not always take into account an underlying moral code. Secular beliefs permeate the internal clockwork of the nation, influencing the overall decisions that our elected representatives make “for the good of the country.” A problem is presented, then, when attempts are made to clearly decipher what is good and bad in a situation that requires a choice that will positively impact the greater good. One example of this is abortion. People with all different worldviews banter back and forth with each other on their stances, trying futilely to convince the other whether or not it is acceptable to terminate the life of an unborn child. Some argue that life does not begin until a child has a heartbeat or in some extreme perspectives, until it emerges from the mother’s womb. This raises a question, then, of whether the value of human life is based on one’s own personal convictions or circumstances or, rather, a precious, valuable gift that transcends our own definitions and therefore must be treated with the utmost care and decency.
It can be sufficiently stated that men believe in the idea that some things are un-arguably true. It is not an easy task for anyone to argue that a glass of milk is not white, or sandpaper is not scratchy, because we are all born with an innate sense that some things merely are what they are, without question. Philosophical issues, however, provide more controversy because they cannot be explained by use of our senses. Because of this, we settle for assumptions based on the ideas of people more qualified then we are. However, it is important to understand that when we agree to one truth, we are in essence agreeing to the proposition of truth in general. When we argue with someone that a pillow is striped instead of solid, we are conceding that there is a standard rule that differentiates between falsehood and truth. Should truth not be present in matters concerning morality as well?
Since the beginning of time, human life has been recognized as something exquisitely valuable. Murder is universally recognized as a capital crime, punishable by death or, at best, imprisonment. This only goes to prove that people understand, inside of themselves, that murder is wrong. It is their conscious speaking to them, screaming loudly that killing is evil.
It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception: an egg is fertilized by a sperm, and then continues to evolve until it becomes a fully developed fetus. The controversy does not lie in this definition, but rather in the question of when that living organism becomes a person. This is where a broader worldview begins to evolve. If someone believes that they can determine for themselves when this occurs, then everything becomes arbitrary. The possibilities are endless, and truth becomes relative, once again, to the individual. People’s accepted opinions become more and more broadminded until they digress to a point of total depravity.
Human logic is flawed, and lest we forget this, we see evidence of it in history and even current events. Medieval doctors were convinced that the human body functioned on four types of humors: black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood, and an unbalanced amount of these caused physical illness. Early philosophers believed that the earth was the center of the universe, and slavery was believed to be morally and culturally acceptable all the way until the 19th century. For almost eighty years, scientists believed that Pluto was a planet, until they later realized it was merely a ball of ice and rock in the Kuiper Belt. These are just some of many examples that further prove that scientists and philosophers, although they may like to believe so, do not know all the answers.
There are things that are simply beyond our comprehension, and the beginning of life is one of them. However when we accept this as an unexplainable mystery we must be careful not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” or completely dismiss the whole argument. Instead of focusing on the details we must step back and view it as a larger issue of morality instead of factual differentiation. Abortion should not be an issue of when personhood does or does not begin, but of what is right and what is wrong. We should not even dabble with the idea that we are important enough to determine the beginning of a human, and by no means think we are justified in taking life.
In conclusion, the cost of life should not be decided based of someone’s perspective but on a moral code. When people believe that they are qualified enough to decide truth for themselves, nothing but chaos can ensue. Abortion is not an issue of a person’s speculation of factual ideals, but one of over-ruling morality. It is not ok for an individual to believe they have the power to decide right and wrong, so one must be careful to base their assumptions not on specific details, but on a moral system.