"Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." ~ Albert Schweitzer
I do not agree completely with Dr. Schweitzer's definition of morality, but taken as it is, it would certainly consign abortion to the side of evil. No honest person can argue that life does not begin at conception. Would anyone suggest that a fertilized egg is not a living "thing"? The argument is over when this "thing" should be protected under the law--when it becomes a life worthy of maintaining, protecting, and enhancing. People can argue if it should be at twelve weeks, six months, or eight months. But whichever position a person takes, he must admit that, according to his position, one moment the unborn is unworthy of protection and the next moment, voila! it is worthy. But who among us has enough insight to assume the prerogative of determining when that exact moment is? The mother? The father? The abortionist? A Supreme Court justice? Put the question to any five-year-old child and see what answer you get. People have to educated out of believing that all unborn children should be protected. The natural human inclination is to protect the innocent and vulnerable. Every position that presumes to set some magic moment when an unborn child suddenly has the right to life is arbitrary, arrogant, and, as Dr. Schweitzer would say, on the side of evil.
