You probably noticed that the first essay slowed the abortion debate down on purpose.
It cleared away slogans, forced definitions, and exposed where both sides cut corners.

This second piece exists for a different reason.

Once you strip the debate of outrage and ideological shortcuts, I realized that I eventually owe the reader something harder:
Where you land after doing the work.

• Not a chant.
• Not a verdict shouted from a moral high ground.
• But a conclusion that accepts trade-offs, uncertainty, and cost.

This is mine.

Starting from 1^st Principles, Not Politics 

As an Engineer and a Theoretical Physicist by training.
That background usually shapes how I approach moral problems.

In Engineering, you don’t get to wish Constraints away.
In Physics, you don’t get to Redefine Reality because it’s inconvenient.

So I start here:

What is the unborn, objectively?

From a Biological and Systems perspective, the fetus is NOT “a clump of cells” in the trivial sense people often imply. It is a Distinct Human Organism, with its own Genome, its own Developmental Trajectory, and its own Internal Coordination. 

• That’s not Theology. That’s Embryology.

Calling it “Potential Life” is a linguistic move, not a scientific one.
Potential describes future states, not current identity.

A fertilized human embryo is already a Human Organism at an early stage, just as a new-born is a Human Organism at an early stage of Postnatal Development.

That doesn’t END the moral debate.
But it does set its Starting Line.

The Hard Collision: Two Real Claims, Not One Easy One

Guess what, once you accept that the unborn is a Human Organism, the debate becomes Harder, not Simpler.

Now you are dealing with a genuine collision of moral claims:

• Bodily Autonomy – The principle that no one should be forced to use their body to sustain another.
• Right to life – The principle that innocent human life should not be intentionally destroyed.

Both Claims are Real.
Both Matter.
Neither Dissolves the Other.

Pretending otherwise is where most public arguments fail.

Why Bodily Autonomy Is Powerful and Limited

From a Scientific and Ethical standpoint, bodily autonomy is one of the strongest moral principles modern societies have developed. It protects people from coercion, exploitation, and abuse. We rightly resist forcing organ donation, blood donation, or medical risk onto unwilling people.

Pregnancy, however, is not a clean analogy to those cases.

• It is Biologically Unique.
• It is not a Random Imposition by a Stranger.
• It is the Natural Outcome of a reproductive system designed to create dependent life.

That does not mean Pregnancy is Easy, Fair, or Morally Trivial.
It means the Analogy Space is narrower than many pro-choice arguments admit.

Autonomy Explains why Pregnancy is Burdensome.
It does not, by itself, explain why Intentional Killing is justified.

Why Dependency and Location Don’t Settle Moral Worth

A common argument is that the fetus cannot survive independently, or that it exists “inside” another body.

From a systems perspective, dependency is NOT a moral threshold.
Human beings pass through many states of radical dependency, for example, premature infants, ICU patients, people with severe disabilities.

Think about this… If Dependency alone determined Moral Status, our Worth Would Scale with Capability and I think that’s a dangerous standard in any ethical system.

Likewise, Location is Morally Arbitrary.
Crossing a birth canal does not magically confer humanity.

Viability shifts with Technology, Geography, and Wealth.
A moral line that moves with NICU access is not a stable one.

Where I Ultimately Land

After working through the Biology, the Philosophy, and the Real Human Costs, my position is this:

• I am broadly Pro-Life in principle, with narrowly defined, serious exceptions.

1.  believe the Unborn is a Human Organism whose life has Moral Weight that cannot be dismissed as inconvenience or preference.
2. I do not believe that intentional killing is morally neutral simply because the human being is small, unseen, or dependent.

At the same time, I Reject Absolutism that Ignores Reality.

The Exceptions Matter and Must Be Treated Honestly

Believe it or not, but there are situations where moral clarity breaks down, not because values disappear, but because they collide violently.

• Life of the Mother – When pregnancy poses a serious, imminent threat to the mother’s life, medical intervention is justified. The moral aim should be to preserve life where possible, but death may be an unavoidable outcome of life-saving care.
• Rape and Incest – These are not philosophical puzzles. They are violent crimes.
  I do NOT believe a child conceived through rape is morally guilty or disposable.
  But I also believe society OWES extraordinary Compassion, Support, and Protection to the victim, NOT moral lectures or legal cruelty.
• Child Pregnancy – This I don’t think is a debate scenario. It is a medical emergency and evidence of abuse. Treating it as a rhetorical edge case is a moral failure.

Please note; recognizing exceptions does NOT mean Abandoning Principle.
It means Acknowledging that Moral Reasoning sometimes involves Tragic Choices, not clean wins.

What Science Cannot Do and What It Can

Science can tell us What Is.
It cannot tell us What We Ought To Do on its own.

But it can eliminate lies.

It can tell us:

• The Fetus is Biologically Human
• Dependency is Not a Moral Defect
• Slogans Collapse under Scrutiny

What remains is a Moral Judgment about how much weight we assign to competing goods.

I, personally assign more weight to Protecting Developing Human Life than modern culture typically does, but not so much that I Deny Reality, Suffering, or Moral Tragedy.

The Question Society Avoids

If society decides Abortion is Permissible, it should say Why clearly, and accept the Moral Cost.

If society decides Abortion should be Restricted, it must also accept Responsibility for:

• Healthcare
• Maternal Support
• Adoption Reform
• Economic Assistance
• Long-Term Care

You CANNOT demand Sacrifice while offering Indifference.

That Hypocrisy, more than Disagreement, is what poisons this debate.

A Final Thought

Abortion is not a Hard Question because People are Stupid or Evil.
It is Hard because it sits at the intersection of Biology, Morality, Responsibility, and Power.

Pretending it is Simple, on either side, is the Real Problem.

• My Position is NOT Comfortable.
• It leaves Moral Residue.
• It costs something to hold.

But Serious Questions Deserve Serious Answers, Not Slogans.

And serious societies should be willing to live with the weight of their decisions, whichever way they choose.

Please note:
I don’t think for one second that my account is a definitive account.
I offer it no more than an opening round in a conversation that I hope

End 

Before CLOSING, I want to be Explicit about what I am NOT arguing, because clarity matters more than applause in debates like this.

Addendum

Why I Reject Both Extremes

Having slowed the abortion debate down and stripped it of slogans, I think it is only fair to say where I stand and just as importantly, where I refuse to stand.

I REJECT both extremes, not because I am undecided, but because both collapse under serious scrutiny once Biology, Ethics, and Real-World Consequences are taken seriously.

Why I Reject Absolute Pro-Choice

The strongest Pro-Choice argument is not that the Fetus is “A Clump of Cells,” but that No Person Should Be Legally Compelled to Sustain Another with their Body. That is a serious moral claim, and it deserves to be treated seriously.

But absolute Pro-Choice frameworks often avoid a harder truth and from a biological standpoint, the unborn is not merely tissue. It is a Distinct, Developing Human Organism, with its own DNA, Trajectory, and Internal Coordination. That is not Ideology. It is Embryology.

Once that fact is acknowledged, abortion cannot be treated as morally neutral or reduced to preference. The language of “Choice” alone becomes insufficient, because the act unavoidably involves Ending a Developing Human Life. A position that refuses to grapple with that reality or tries to dissolve it linguistically is not morally complete.

In Engineering terms, this is a model that ignores a critical variable because it is inconvenient. The conclusions may feel clean, but the system is incomplete.

Why I Reject Absolute Pro-Life

At the same time, absolute Pro-Life positions often fail in the opposite direction, by pretending that pregnancy exists in a moral vacuum.

Pregnancy is not abstract. It carries Physical Risk, Psychological Cost, and Sometimes Catastrophic Consequences, particularly in cases involving severe medical danger, extreme youth, or profound trauma. To ignore this is to treat human suffering as collateral rather than morally relevant.

A framework that refuses to acknowledge tragic moral collisions, where every available option carries real harm, may sound principled, but it is detached from reality. In systems thinking, this is what happens when constraints are denied rather than managed.

Serious Ethics does not deny Tragedy. It Recognizes It.

Where I Stand

I am pro-life in principle because I believe Human Rights Should NOT Depend on Size, Location, or Level of Dependency. That belief survives scrutiny across Biology, Ethics, and Consistency.

But I also believe that Exceptional Circumstances Exist, where preserving life must be weighed against grave and immediate harm, and where the goal should be to reduce loss, not pretend it can be eliminated entirely.

This is not Moral Relativism. It is Moral Realism.

Why I Reject Easy Answers

Both Extremes Promise Certainty. Both Avoid Responsibility.

One avoids the Moral Weight of Ending a Life.
The other avoids the Moral Weight of Forcing Sacrifice Regardless of Cost.

I reject both because real leadership in ethics, as in engineering begins where slogans fail and trade-offs appear.

If society asks women to carry pregnancies, society must also accept responsibility such as Medical Care, Real Support, Accountability for Perpetrators, and Honest Acknowledgment of the costs involved. Anything less is not Pro-Life. It is Performative.

A Final Thought

Hard Questions do not become Easier by Pretending they are Simple.
They become Clearer only when we are willing to hold 2 Uncomfortable Truths at the Same Time.

That is where I stand, NOT at the Edges, but in the difficult centre where Thinking is Required.