Abortion has shaped American politics for half a century, yet public debate usually reduces it to a simple formula: Republicans oppose it, and Democrats defend it. That framing avoids the real question beneath every argument — moral, legal, scientific, or philosophical. Everything ultimately depends on one factual point: when does human life begin?

No coherent moral system permits intentionally ending an innocent human life. The disagreement appears only when people differ on whether the unborn child already qualifies as a human being at the moment of abortion. That single classification determines whether abortion is a routine medical procedure or the destruction of a distinct human life. Because of that, arguments about autonomy, poverty, or even the horrific circumstances of rape and incest never resolve the core dispute.

The manner of conception does not change the identity of the organism that results. A child conceived through violence is biologically indistinguishable from a child conceived under perfect conditions.

The world’s leading scientific institutions — Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxford, and the National Institutes of Health — consistently define fertilization as the beginning of human biological life. At that instant, a new organism with its own DNA sequence comes into existence. It is not “potential,” but rather a human life at its earliest stage. Size, dependency, or location do not alter what the organism is. Biology does.

Society cannot function when the definition of human life shifts according to personal preference or political ideology. Law requires consistency. Equal protection cannot survive when competing groups embrace different meanings of “human being.”

If life becomes subjective, there are no limits on where someone can draw the line. One person may choose heartbeat, another viability, another birth. Someone else could argue — however irrationally — that life begins in adolescence. Once biology is replaced by philosophy, rights become conditional privileges granted only by those in power.

Objective definitions prevent that. Biology offers the fixed point every constitutional system needs. If human life begins at conception as a matter of science, the law must reflect that reality, even if people disagree on policy outcomes.

Pro-choice advocates often argue that banning abortion would not stop illegal abortions. But that logic proves nothing. Murder remains illegal, yet homicide still occurs. Theft remains illegal, yet people steal. The persistence of a crime has never justified its legalization. Law exists to protect life, not to guarantee perfect compliance.

Another argument claims abortion is a private decision. But the United States has never treated the safety of children as entirely private. If a toddler faces danger, the community intervenes. If the unborn child is a human life, that principle applies before birth as well. A child’s right to life cannot hinge on parental preference.

Cases involving rape and incest represent fewer than 1% of abortions. Their emotional weight does not settle the central question. If the unborn child is a human life, its worth does not depend on the circumstances of conception.

As a Jew whose moral thinking is shaped by Jewish law, I look to the Old Testament for clarity. Exodus 21:22–23 distinguishes between harm to a fetus and death of the mother. From this, Jewish law develops the category of the rodef — the “pursuer.” When a pregnancy creates an immediate, direct threat to the mother’s life, the fetus is treated as a pursuer, allowing termination to save her. This exception reflects a conflict between two existing human lives, not a denial of the fetus’s humanity.

Modern medicine, however, has made such situations extremely rare. Emergency delivery overwhelmingly protects both mother and child.

Once the biological reality is acknowledged, the logic of the pro-choice position collapses. Abortion ends a human life in its earliest form. A newborn is the same organism minutes before birth as minutes after. No other legal right depends on location.

A nation is judged by how it protects those who cannot defend themselves. If science confirms that human life begins at conception, then protecting that life is a duty — not a political option.