The topic of abortion is one that is currently deadlocked and unless there is a piece of critical evidence that is released, each side will filibuster the issue until both sides are completely exasperated. Rather than comment on this stalemate, the purpose of this paper is to explore only one remote aspect of abortion: the pro-life argument as described through the writings of Don Marquis. This stance is widely shared by those religious activists, our current president and is the only determinate factor of who can be elected into the Supreme Court. The entire topic of abortion is the termination of a birth while it is still in the womb. Those who favor the mother retaining her right to abort the pregnancy are considered pro-choice while pro-life supporters hold the opposite to be true. The following reasons are employed by pro-life advocates to support their argument: it is seriously wrong to kill a human being or one of its ambiguous variants; killing is a form of brutalization, it is wrong to commit any form of killing out of respect to the victim and "lacking human features" is not grounds for being lenient in killing something. Each reason will be followed by a counterpoint and then a cross-examination to outweigh the counterpoint.
             Beginning with the ambiguous variants argument, Don Marquis, in his article "Why Abortion is Immoral," develops the idea that all arguments presented before that attempt to put a time restraint on when a life begins. For us to focus on the main points of his argument, he has assumed all restraints to be true. If one restraint says a baby is human at conception, then the pro-life argument would have no problems saying that murder is being committed because the one-celled zygote at this particular stage is human. Conversely, if another restraint says a baby is human at birth, then a mother has every right to terminate her pregnancy even seconds before her delivery of the newb...