I am glad that my recent article sparked a robust discussion on abortion. I am disheartened, however, to learn that advocating for the protection of unborn human life would incite such vitriol from ardent abortion supporters.

Furthermore, I appreciate the recent rebuttal in the Old Gold & Black, which presents an opportunity to expound on the subject.

Before I begin, let me quickly dispel two easily refutable assertions so that I can return to the merits of abortion.

First, whether or not abortion is “a women’s issue” is utterly irrelevant to a debate on the morality of the practice. If something is immoral, it doesn’t matter who is doing it.

Second, the idea that my arguments would be more valid if I had a uterus is logically fallacious. Truth is a domain accessible to individuals of all identities, whether or not a particular action affects them.

There is a single fundamental issue in the abortion debate: either a fetus has intrinsic value or it does not.

There is no middle ground, and there is no room for capricious determinations.

Abortion is impossible to defend because there is no limiting principle on its reasoning. Please identify the point at which this useless clump of cells magically transforms into an actual human life worth protecting.

Is it when the baby comes out of the womb? Well, partial-birth abortions require the baby’s legs to be pulled out so that the doctor can reach the skull.

The only logical line that can be drawn between life and non-life is at the point of conception. From that point onwards, infancy progresses at a gradual pace that cannot be demarcated into arbitrary divisions.

The sperm and egg join to create a third organism distinct from its parents. Embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development, and all humans possess natural rights irrespective of development.

The embryo may be inside the mother’s body, but it is not the mother’s body.

It is also evident that the viability argument is insincere. The exact point of viability for a fetus cannot be determined, and pro-choice advocates do not apply their viability reasoning to other scenarios like individuals in comas. Therefore, proponents must support abortion up until the moment before delivery in order to remain logically consistent.

Even under this assumption, abortion fails to muster any coherent rationale.

There is no distinction between a baby shortly before delivery and a baby shortly after delivery. The pro-choice position is predicated on assuming the fetus is utterly worthless ten seconds before delivery and invaluable ten seconds after delivery.

Why does the act of coming out of the womb alter the moral quality of a baby? The only logical position is to assume a human receives full moral status at conception and retains it until death.

If you believe a fetus is merely a clump of cells that has no moral worth, then you must defend the abortion rights of the most bigoted citizens.

Pro-choice advocates must allow a racist white mother to abort her baby for the sole purpose that it was fathered by a black man. You must support parents who would rather kill their mentally handicapped infants than bother with the extra trouble. You must defend the rights of parents to abort female fetuses simply because they prefer boys.

When considering these implications, it is obvious that equality, tolerance and morality have no place in abortion clinics. Abortion allows the vilest humans to subject future humans to their wicked schemes. This is precisely the reason why Margaret Sanger saw the “cure” for blacks and the poor in reproductive eugenics.

I understand that abortion is a terribly painful decision for women to make. It is a heart-wrenching choice precisely, because the mother knows innately that she is terminating her future child before birth. I cannot imagine the emotional turmoil endured by women who reach that decision.

The response to my original article revealed how accepting the leftist champions of tolerance truly are. It is always telling when one side clamors for censorship and resorts to ad hominem attacks.

To all of you readers, I urge you to weigh the substance of the arguments in this debate. The pro-choice stance is plagued by exceptions and inconsistencies.

We must begin to treat abortion as the moral atrocity it is and protect unborn human life.