For virtually everyone outside of academia, the notion that human beings have an inalienable right to life, liberty and property simply because we are human is an idea that rings true. Furthermore, it is the government’s prerogative and duty to actively defend these rights from being taken away by others. If the government is to protect the right to life, it is a necessity to determine when life begins.

Many liberals believe that human life begins at viability, the point after which the fetus has a chance of surviving outside of the womb. The currently agreed upon point of viability is around 20 weeks. The argument made by the Left is that if a fetus depends on the mother for its existence, then it cannot possibly be human.

But does physical dependence on someone else preclude humanity? Everyone is dependent on others to a certain extent. And as infants, humans have an explicit physical dependency on their parents for food and water, even if there is no umbilical cord involved. What about sick or injured individuals who are receiving nutrition or oxygen through some medical apparatus prepared and operated by another human?

Equally important is the fact that the point of viability is always moving. As the medical profession progresses, fetuses are able to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier. If liberals are right, that means that we are becoming human beings sooner and sooner. Does it make sense that 50 years ago a 25-week old fetus was not a human being, but today it is, simply because of advances in technology?

The most logical starting point for life is conception. It is at this point that the organism has its full set of DNA, a genetic code distinct from mother, father, or anyone else in the world. And it is at this point that, left to grow naturally and barring a failure to implant, the zygote will grow to eventually become a full-fledged baby. It is not simply a clump of cells, like cells on your skin. Do your skin cells have different DNA than you? Do they grow into different human beings? If they start to, please call your doctor immediately.

And if we’re uncertain, shouldn’t we err on the side of life? It is illogical to say, “Well, this could be a human being, but we’re not sure, so destroy it.”

If we ban abortion and it turns out fetuses aren’t humans, we’ve caused a massive inconvenience. But if we allow abortion and fetuses are humans, we’ve caused something much worse. Rationally weighing potential costs and benefits would lead us to conclude that if we’re uncertain, we should ban abortion (with an exception for the life of the mother).

Some argue that people should be given freedom to make such decisions of morality for themselves. That’s what many slaveholders thought in the 1850s. We would do well to remember as a society that we do have freedom, but our rights end when the next person’s rights begin.

Michael Lewis is a senior in economics. He can be reached at [email protected].