The abortion debate has defined American politics for generations, but public discussion usually reduces it to the assumption that Republicans reject abortion and Democrats defend it. That oversimplification hides the core issue. Every claim—whether moral, legal, philosophical, or scientific—ultimately depends on one factual question that both sides consider decisive: when human life begins.
No reasonable person believes that intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally acceptable. The disagreement lies in whether the unborn child qualifies as a human life at the moment an abortion takes place. That single distinction determines whether abortion is a medical procedure or the deliberate ending of a human being’s life. Because of that, debates about rape, incest, financial hardship, or personal autonomy never resolve the core issue.
The circumstances surrounding conception do not alter the biological identity of the organism created at fertilization. A child conceived through violence is not biologically different from a child conceived in ideal conditions.
The world’s leading research institutions—Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Oxford, and the National Institutes of Health—define conception as the beginning of biological human life. At fertilization, a new organism with its own DNA sequence comes into existence. It is not “potential life,” but a human organism at the earliest stage of development. The variables of size, dependency, or location do not determine its identity. Biology does.
Society cannot function when the definition of human life shifts according to personal preference, cultural background, or political ideology. Legal systems require consistent terminology. A society cannot maintain equal protection when its foundation rests on individualized interpretations of when life begins.
Recommended
If the definition of life becomes subjective, then there is no limit on where someone can draw the line. One person may choose heartbeat, another viability, another birth, another early childhood, and another adulthood. Nothing in a subjective definition prevents someone from arguing, however irrationally, that human life begins at age 36 and that anyone younger lacks legal protection. Once the standard moves away from biology toward personal philosophy, the law loses the ability to guarantee rights for anyone. Rights become conditional privileges determined by whichever view temporarily holds power.
Objective definitions protect societies from that outcome. The biological definition of life provides a fixed point every constitutional system requires. If human life begins at conception as a matter of scientific fact, the law must reflect that reality regardless of differing individual views. Citizens may disagree on policy, but the legal system cannot operate with hundreds of competing definitions of what a human being is.
Pro-choicers often claim that outlawing abortion would not prevent illegal abortions. That argument contradicts the logic of law. Murder is illegal, yet homicide still occurs. Theft is illegal, yet people steal. Crimes persist despite prohibition, but that does not justify legalizing them. The purpose of law is to set standards that protect life and uphold justice.
Another argument asserts that abortion is the private decision of a woman to make. American society has never treated the protection of children as a fully private matter. If a toddler were harmed by a parent, the entire community would bear responsibility for intervening. If the unborn child is a human life, the same principle applies. Legal protection of children has never depended on parental preference.
Arguments about rape and incest, though deeply emotional, account for fewer than 1 percent of abortions nationwide. These situations are tragic, but they do not resolve the central question. If the unborn child is a human life, then its value does not change based on the condition of conception. Human rights do not depend on how wanted or unwanted a child is.
As a Jew whose moral framework is shaped by Jewish law, I turn to the Old Testament to clarify when an abortion is considered permissible. Exodus 21:22–23 outlines liability when a pregnant woman is injured and differentiates between harm to the fetus and death of the mother.
From this, halacha (Jewish law) develops the category of the rodef—the “pursuer.” When a fetus creates an immediate, direct threat to the mother’s life, the fetus is treated as a pursuer even without intent. In that narrow case, terminating the pregnancy can be permitted to save the mother. The reasoning is not that the fetus lacks value, but that two human lives are in unavoidable conflict, and the life threatened in the moment takes precedence.
Modern medicine has substantially reduced how often this situation occurs. Conditions that historically endangered pregnant women can now often be addressed through early delivery or emergency C-section, allowing both lives to be preserved. Current maternal-care practice overwhelmingly favors delivery over late-term abortion in emergencies.
Once the scientific foundation is acknowledged, the logic of the pro-choice position collapses. Abortion ends a human life at its earliest stage, and no rhetorical reframing changes that fact. When human life is understood as beginning at conception, abortion ceases to be a matter of personal preference or private autonomy, but a question of whether society will recognize and protect its most vulnerable human beings.
Finally, location cannot determine legal personhood. A newborn is the same human organism minutes before birth as it is minutes after. No other right in American law depends on a physical transition of inches. A system that treats a child as a full human being after birth but not moments earlier relies on an arbitrary distinction unsupported by science or logic.
A nation’s morality is measured by how it safeguards those who cannot defend themselves. The unborn child has no capacity to assert rights or speak on its own behalf. If science confirms that human life begins at conception, society carries the obligation—not the option—to extend protection to that life. The pro-choice argument ultimately asks Americans to ignore biological reality, redefine fundamental terms, and accept contradictions that cannot withstand serious analysis.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member