Studying the effects of abortion on women’s health to bolster anti-abortion arguments fundamentally undermines the pro-life cause. It implies that women’s psychological health is a factor to be considered in the abortion decision, when we really need to return to the initial argument: whether or not the fetus is a life. Christopher Jensen made the same point in his article “Defending Life” earlier this year, saying if abortion is not immoral “pro-choice supporters immediately win… However, if abortion is immoral, then all pro-choice arguments are feeble at best and shockingly heartless at worst.”

There are many people who would disagree with this statement, but a quick substitution of words immediately reveals its veracity. If a fetus is fundamentally a life, then abortion is necessarily murder. Imagine how inane it would be for someone to hold up a sign that said: “I have the right to murder” or “I’m pro-murder.” Yet this is essentially what pro-choice advocates do. The only problem is that they do not define abortion as murder—or the fetus as a life—and so they do not see the argument in this sense. It is our responsibility, as those who recognize the millions of murders that occur every year, to convince them that this view is the only way in which we may perceive the abortion issue.

Many appeal to scripture or doctrine in the abortion debate to demonstrate that life begins at conception. Yet this is one of the weak arguments that Aquinas laughed off in De aeternitati mundi. In the same way that he relied on philosophy over biblical passages to convince his opponents that the world was created and not eternal, we must rely on reason over faith in persuading the American public that the embryo is a life and not merely a collection of cells.

To this end, the strongest argument appears to be an appeal to viability. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that “for the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” After a certain point of viability, the State is justified in banning abortions. The court set this viability date at around 24 weeks. 

Of course, the date of viability is completely arbitrary for it is based on our current technology. A century ago, there was no way that a 24-week-old fetus could survive outside the womb. In another one hundred years, no one knows how far back this date could slide. In 2006, Amillia Taylor was born after just under 22 weeks of gestation, and she managed to survive thanks to the determination of her parents and doctors. It is possible to imagine a world in which an artificial womb succeeds in bringing viability to the moment of conception, which would completely redefine our understanding of life. Such a development could persuade even the most ardent feminist to disavow the abortion argument, though some people will never be persuaded, despite the strongest logic. Regardless, our definition of viability will undoubtedly change over time, so it is silly to define life at one point in time. We should look at potential viability and not actual viability when determining where the line of life lies. Life does not change, only our perceptions of it do.

Yet even among those who believe life begins at conception, there are still disagreements. Many share Joe Biden’s opinion: “My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t think I have a right to impose my view on the rest of society.” But if you truly believe that abortion is murder, this statement is equivalent to saying that you have no right to impose your view that murder is wrong on the rest of society. Imagine if one of the abolitionists had said the same thing: “I believe that blacks are human beings, but I don’t believe I have the right to impose my view on the rest of society” Until we realize that even the youngest embryo is still a life, until we realize that it is inherently entitled to protection, we will be unable to ban abortion.

To this end, we must use the best of our logic, the strongest of our rhetoric, and all the love in our hearts to persuade those who share Biden’s viewpoint to support us in our cause. We have the righteousness of seeing the truth and the responsibility to spread it to others. Aquinas would expect no less from those holding up his legacy.