In response to Suzan Cox’s Feb. 18 letter concerning abortion, Cox emphatically states that “there is not . a clearly defined point at which [the beginning of human life] occurs.” Most people agree that nobody knows for sure whether a fetus is a human being. Because of this uncertainty, we must acknowledge that either side of the debate, anti-abortion or pro-abortion rights, could be wrong. We must consider the consequences if each side is wrong.

If the anti-abortion argument is wrong, then it must be proven that the fetus is not a human life at some point during the pregnancy. If that were the case, and women were not allowed to abort, our government would be forcing a lot of women to have unwanted babies. The women of America would rightly feel that their right to control their own bodies was being trampled.

If the pro-abortion rights argument is wrong, it must be proven that the fetus is a human life. If that were the case, and women were then allowed to abort, our government would be sanctioning (in many cases, funding) the killing of human beings.

If abortions are disallowed, but it turns out that the fetus is not actually a human life, then we will have wrongly denied women the right to control their bodies. Conversely, if abortions are allowed, but it turns out that the fetus really is a human life, then we will have committed millions of cases of government sanctioned infanticide. If it cannot be proven one way or another, in Cox’s own words, “it then becomes an individual moral decision.” Which risk is more acceptable on moral grounds: Potentially denying millions of women control of their bodies, versus potentially denying millions of children the right to live? Some would argue that the latter supersedes the former.

Mark Wilson

Freshman

Industrial engineering