are irreconcilable in the abortion debate. On one hand, pro-life supporters maintain that from the moment of conception, a human life has begun; and to destroy that life is to commit murder. On the other hand, pro-choice activists maintain that human life does not begin at conception; rather, human life begins when the fetus is capable of living outside of the womb (about 24 weeks gestation). Therefore pro-choice activists believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether she wishes to be pregnant or not. Unfortunately for those that support the pro-choice side of the argument, it seems that pro-life current has the upper hand. The words used by pro-lifers call to mind powerful images of living humans while those used by pro-choice proponents form no clear pictures in readers’ minds and therefore objectify what pro-life proponents hope to humanize.
The abortion debate has existed for decades and despite the counter arguments presented by pro-life advocates, the pro-choice side of the debate has made the most obvious legal headway. This is not because abortion advocates have any stronger lobbying power with legislators than do pro-life advocates. In fact, there is a much larger majority backed by a religious conservative front that has lobbied very strongly against abortion. Nevertheless, the argument for abolishing abortion based on religious principles has been insufficient to influence abortion law is favor of the majority. What should be submitted as arguments advocating abortion rights are those based on scientific evidence and social and economic realities, both of which have fortunately leaned on the pro-choice side of the debate. One of the most significant applications of scientific evidence is based on the issue of whether or not an embryo should be considered a viable human being.