A case for LIFE


When does life begin? Should it be within the power of government to legislate on this matter? What about extreme cases? These are all pressing questions on the pro-life, pro-choice debate. As we continue to near the mid-term elections at the end of the year, more attention will be turned to this very topic. The conservative right has been on a mission to protect the right to life for a while now, and this election may give them the numbers they need to press forward on the issue. As the Democrats are consequentially in fear of women losing their right to choose, they are going to have to fight hard to preserve Roe v. Wade and keep abortion legal.



Prior to the Trump administration, no president had ever done so much work and made such development for the pro-life movement. He made countless measures to ensure taxpayer funding to planned parenthood organizations domestic and abroad was stopped, fought pro-abortion policies from the affordable care act, and appointed 187 federal court judges, including 2 pro-life Supreme Court Justices. While Biden has since reversed much of Trump's progress after he took office in 2021, he has also passed the $1.9 trillion reconciliation package which has made billions of dollars available for tax-payer-funded abortions. From one extreme to the next, the current attention on this matter is high. This election will be a major factor to determine whether actions towards either the pro-life or pro-choice movement will be supported

for the remainder of President Biden's term.


As it is an undeniable fact that all life matters (regardless of age), the first question we must ask is when life begins.


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaption to the environment originating from within the organism.

2022 Merriam-Webster

The ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks.

Scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. The joining of male and female gametes. Also known as fertilization, in the first week turns into a zygote and your DNA is then determined as you become a fully functioning organism. According to the definition, conception is a textbook example of what life constitutes.



If we are not to go by the literal definition of what life is and when it begins, where do we draw the line? When is it deemed ‘ok’ to abort the development of life? Some main points argued by the opposed are as follows.


Location. Whether the baby is in the womb or outside the womb.


Dependency. If one cannot live on their own and therefore require dependency on the mother, some say that individual is not ‘living’. However, every infant is ‘dependent’ until they can fend for themselves. Some individuals are dependent their whole lives.


Heartbeat. Why (to some) this constitutes life is unclear. It is one of the many other developments that come along with the process.


No argument can deny that life, The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms, begins at conception. Sometimes unforeseen cases happen, and the baby dies from natural causes, but again, that happens naturally. When an individual knowingly aborts, they are deliberately ending the life of another human. Because of their age and stage of development, they justify them as not ‘living’, and our society has deemed it legal. Furthermore, if a mother knowingly drinks and does drugs when she knows she is pregnant, how is that not a crime? Drinking and driving is. If a mother is knowingly putting their child at risk through such activities, how does it go unpunished?


It is such a naïve and heavily selfish decision. The main reasoning I hear from pro-choice individuals is ‘It would change my life, and be horrible for the child.’ The thing is, if one doesn't wish to have a child, they should'nt be engaging in activities that are designed for that very thing. There comes a point of self-responsibility. Intercourse is truly meant for the sole purpose of reproduction, but given the feeling of pleasure and flatter from the activity, it has become such a desire and crave. For it is so dominant and normalized in our modern pop culture. People seem to forget how a seemingly harmless decision can have such a permanent effect. Though instead of taking responsibility, it is now so easy to just ‘abort’ as if nothing happened. In fact, some groups have even begun to praise such decisions.


Now the inevitable question that comes up repeatedly, is what if it wasn't their decision? What if the individual was raped? Unfortunately, that is a horrible act and the perpetrator should pay serious consequences. However, the result is still a life. When do two wrongs make a right? Why should an innocent life be taken away because of the evil decision of another?

After all, all human life is living. It should be within any government's duty to protect that. They make it a crime to harm eagle, snake, and turtle eggs. Why not babies in the womb?