But let's play their game for a moment. Let's take that position that "Life begins at conception therefore abortion is murder" - a clear, simple position albeit unrealistic and untenable as I hope to show.

Let's start with the latter half of the proposition, that "abortion is murder". If that is true what about the case of a woman who cannot carry full-term, whose body rejects the fetus and causes spontaneous abortion? This is a real possibility, I know someone like that. Should she, according to this proposition, be tried for murder? The answer is..."yes" by their definition but we are not that barbaric so the answer is "no". The woman didn't seek an abortion - it just happened. We now have one exception to the proposition.

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, is she allowed to seek an abortion or should she be forced to carry to term agaisnt her wishes, placing her life and lifestyle in jeopardy? The answer is "she must carry to full term" by their all-or-none definition but we're more humane and our answer is "no, she may seek abortion". Another exception. Therefore Abortion is not murder in all cases, or even if it is murder we're willing to look the other way under certain circumstances.

If a woman is pregnant - wants the baby - but has an accident and suffers a spontaneous abortion, should she be tried for manslaughter? The answer is "yes" by their definition. She killed a human though through no fault of her own as if she accidently killed someone in a car accident, and that's manslaughter. That's what "abortion is murder" would mean - the full weight of the Law would apply. But we're not that brutal - to have the mother suffer incarceration and loss of pregancy - and so our answer must be "no". Even the Right would have to admit that they can not, in all cases and circumstances, hold that "abortion is murder". Kind of like the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" from the voice of God, the Right has plenty of exceptions to that, showing hypocrisy isn't an obstacle for them.

But let's consider the first half of the proposition, that "Life begins at conception". Is this true? Can you create life with a dead egg? No. Can you create life with dead sperm? No. You must have both living sperm and a viable egg. Is that enough? No, you must also have an appropriate environment. A test tube is initially viable but really you need a willing female whose body can handle the process. But what process am I referring to? Not the process of life for life is already present in the egg and sperm. Both components are alive! The process I refer is the creation of a human being, not life. Big difference.

If life and not the process is so important then a woman, with every menstrual cycle, could be guilty of denying life. Men even more so for not every "Sacred Sperm" (sorry Monty Python) is used in procreation, and don't even mention masturbation - that's tantamount to genocide. So already we have shown that arguably life doesn't begin at conception. The first part of the proposition is false.

The act of creating a human being which, as we have seen, needs three components: egg, sperm, and a proper environment. Ending the life of an egg isn't murder - it happens worldwide every moment. Ending the life of sperm isn't murder - it happens during sex and other activities. We've seen that if the environment - the woman's body - is not capable of supporting the forming of a human, it's not murder. If the woman is raped, becomes pregnant - an involuntary vessel, abortion isn't murder. So then is abortion murder when the pregnant female chooses to stop the process of human formation? Arguably no, for when egg and sperm combine, starting the chemical process of human formation, how is stopping that process any different then stopping the living components?

The counterargument here would say that by this logic one could have an abortion in the ninth month and that is true. But we recognize viability, that after 6 months or so the "baby" can be delivered and will likely survive. But until then is the problem. Until then the "baby" - the fetus, the embryo, the blastocyst - is a part of and depends on the vessel - the mother - and it is the mother's choice of whether to continue the process of formation. For she is more than a mere vessel.

Or let's consider an alternative scenario, that science somehow creates an artificial environment that can support the growth of a human from conception through viability. Who would take responsibility for overseeing the process? the State? The Federal Government? Church Groups? And what would be the requirements to get a human package placed in such an environment? A woman raped and impregnated? A couple of teenagers giving in to the moment and getting a pregnancy? What would be the cost and bureaucracy of transferring the fetus from human to laboratory? A lot to think about.

The Right wants it both ways: make abortion illegal and not have sex education, which can only result in an explosion of unwanted pregnancies and illegal abortions, both a drain on society. Worse, to try to inhibit or limit sex is completely unnatural. We need to eat, to sleep, to reproduce. It's an inherent drive hormonely pushed. To ask teenagers to simply keep their legs shut is even beyond the capabilties of most adults. To expect teenagers and adults to hold off sex until marriage is artificial and unrealistic. Doesn't the Bible command us to multiply? Not that this is a call for orgies in the streets but instead a call for responsible sex, for education.

The Right spews forth on personal responsibility and then seeks to relieve us of that option. If they want to make abortion illegal - fine - then educate our kids about sex, about being parents before you're ready, about true responsibility. Instead of blindly declaring that "abortion is murder", opening a can of legal worms, driving personal responsibility further underground, the Right needs to recognize that the issue is more complex than their black/white viewpoint. They need to cut the semantic crap and use their (god-given) brains for more than rote simplistic bleatings.