The issue of abortion has long spurred passionate debate on both sides. With each side firmly convinced that it occupies the side of absolute moral righteousness, without ever pausing for a single second to wonder if some issues may simply not have an absolute resolution; and that this style of thinking may be too simplistic to approach such issues.

Before I delve into the specifics of the issue, it helps to give a little bit of background on the style of thinking that gives this type rationale context.

It’s important to note that we all live in essentially a manufactured society, these ‘laws’, ‘regulations’ are ultimately constructions that were implemented with the aim of facilitating peaceful coexistence between essentially a group of complete strangers.

The point is, none of this is somehow written in the stars or in the fabric of the universe somewhere. I think when approaching these issues, it helps, me at least, to think in terms of historical terms or even just simplistic terms.

Not long ago, humans used to live in largely unregulated tribes. Similarly today, once can run an easy thought experiment by positing the situation on living on a deserted island with one or more inhabitants; and the dissolution that follows of everything we as a society hold as inherent or ‘real.’

That being said, it’s clear to me that an issue such as abortion, is an inflection point where everything that makes us a civilized society simply in a way collapses.

I’ve now heard plenty of arguments on this issue, ranging from the ‘nuanced’ to the simplistic, while some are actually very compelling, most fail to acknowledge to obvious and arguably insolvable, built-in dichotomy, which resides in this argument from the beginning: That dichotomy being, we have a life inside another life.

There is simply no amount of argumentation to will be able to bypass this issue which is really at the heart of this debate.

There is simply no way to approach this issue while simultaneously granting equal sovereignty to the two lives involved. It’s mathematically impossible. They exist in zero sum contests to one another.

This point can be driven home, by positing the advent of an artificial womb: If we, at some point, develop an artificial womb, that simply negates the necessity of a woman to bear a child for 9 months, this would reinvent the terms completely.

I would then, happily argue, that the fetus is to be treated like any other member of society. And that neither the mother nor the father, has any extra rights on him or her, than they would a 5 year old child.

However, until then, to simply pretend that the fact the fetus has to spend 9 months inside a woman’s body in order to be viable, is somehow ‘irrelevant’ to this debate, is simply not based in reality.