I have always been confused by what motivates people's opinions on the abortion issue. Clearly, as pointed out by Sean Collier in his letter, "Imposing beliefs won't solve abortion debate (Jan. 22)," religion cannot be the determining factor in a society that promotes multiple religions that may disagree. It is just as clear that privacy rights have little or nothing to do with the issue as well, because privacy involves, by definition, one person, and abortion involves three.

The issue is one of ethics and biology. Biologically, the unborn child is not only half mom and half dad, giving each an equal claim, but it is also alive. The fact that it is alive is just that -- a scientific fact, to put it simply. Life does not come from non-life, so if a baby is alive at a point in the future, it is alive now and has been since it became alive. What point is that? Scientifically, at conception, every cell is bounded by its own outer membrane and contains a full set of instructions necessary for its operation and reproduction. This means that it is alive and its genetic material defines that life as human. The fact that the baby cannot survive at this point without the protection of the womb is irrelevant.

The logical conclusion to the reasoning of "if it can't support itself we can kill it" is euthanasia and infanticide. Given these facts, the question is obvious: Is society willing ethically to kill in favor of the mother's desires?