When you hear about abortion, you generally hear it in the context of furious and emotional back-and-forth fighting between protestors and counter protestors. This, obviously, is not a good way to properly examine such a major problem. In an attempt to be more reasonable, I have taken a purely logical and unemotional look into the issue that abortion has become. This article will address the question of abortion itself, and will refrain from exploring groups on either side, such as Planned Parenthood or Pregnancy Crisis Centers.First, it is worth noting that the primary point of the debate is different for each side. The Pro-Life faction believes that abortion murders a living person, and wants it stopped. The Pro-Choice faction believes that Abortion is a basic right of Women, and revoking it would be a major step back for women. In the end, though, the primary fight is usually over the act of abortion itself, and most laws passed concerning it are about how or when it can legally/illegally be done.We will begin by examining one of the primary points of the Pro-Choice side, the argument that Women should have control over their bodies. A common argument that I have heard runs thus: “Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies, so preventing abortion access is anti-Woman!” This statement, in fact, is an odd mixture of three different logical fallacies that must be removed before we can process the meat of the argument. First, it commits the fallacy of begging the question by assuming that anyone against abortion is anti-Woman. Second, it is guilty of Bifurcation, since it assumes that there are only two mutually exclusive options: be pro-choice and pro-woman or pro-life and anti-woman. Third, it is a straw-man argument. The speaker assumes that the pro-life side is trying to stamp on women’s rights, and attempts to refute that idea. These fallacies, however, are generally a result of speaker error and can be removed by simply condensing the statement down to the basic idea, which is: “Women should have control over their bodies.”Now that we have distilled the statement down to that basic idea, we can be honest: There is probably no one in America who would disagree with that. With a few exceptions, most everyone on earth agrees with that statement. Morally speaking, it is completely true. Women should have control over their bodies. Since this is such a universal truth, why is there any debate about abortion? The answer: Context. In the context of Women’s rights, this statement is completely true. However, in the specific arena of abortion rights, this statement commits the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming that the fetus is part of the woman’s body and thus the woman is in control of its fate. The question, then, is not whether Women should have control over their bodies, but rather is whether the fetus is part of the Woman’s body.The answer is no. Every human being has a unique set of DNA. This is why you hear so much about it’s criminology uses. A single sample of DNA can tell you exactly who it came from. The same nature of DNA that makes it so useful to criminology helps us answer our question. Since the DNA of the fetus is different than the DNA of the mother, it is NOT part of the mother’s body. Since science has shown this to be so, we now know that the argument in question (Women should have control over their bodies) is ultimately irrelevant.This, obviously, open a new line of thinking. Even though the fetus is not part of the mother, it is still in the mother, right? Not only that, but it steals nutrients from her body! Shouldn’t the mother be able to get rid of this leech if she so chooses? This brings us to the second major argument for the Pro-Choice side, the argument that the fetus is not a person. A person is defined as “A human being regarded as an individual”, making this an unproductive line of thought, since obviously each side regards the fetus differently. A more productive line would be to ask if the fetus is a human being, determining if the fetus is even eligible for personhood.Since the fetus does have the DNA and development cycle of a human, the answer to this is obviously yes. However, it is important to note that this is not the real question of the argument. Obviously, no one would want to murder a human, and the Pro-choice side is no-different than the Pro-life side in this respect. The primary line of disagreement, then, is when the fetus becomes completely human. This is the question that most laws banning/allowing abortions after a certain period of time attempt to address. Scientifically speaking, the fetus is completely human once it gets all its DNA at fertilization, but the point at which it acquires self-awareness is unknown to science, making this question very difficult. Logically speaking, however, the argument that stems from it can be easily solved:We do not know when the fetus becomes self-aware.Our opinions on when it does become self-aware do not affect the real unknown time whatsoeverIt is immoral to kill a self-aware human1Since it is immoral to kill a self-aware human and we do not know when it becomes self aware, we risk murder every time a fetus is abortedTherefore, we should avoid killing fetuses in order to prevent accidental murderLogically, the Pro-Life side of this debate makes more sense than the Pro-Choice side. Regardless, many people on both sides elect to use emotion and opinion to further their cause, further muddying the waters of this simple debate. Obviously, opinion and emotion do not change truth, which is best accessible by logical thinking. We can only hope that reasonable thought will eventually win out over emotion-charged spat, both in this fight and many others. 1 Although assuming morality may sound like a Begging-the-Question fallacy, it is not in this case. The only reason a Woman should be in control of her body is a moral one, since the relative-morality school of thought would state that whoever wants it and could control it would be in control of a Woman’s body. Since both sides agree that Women should be in control of their bodies, it is not fallacious to assume morality for this argument.