Vice Presidential prospects Mike Pence and Tim Kaine went head to head on the subject of abortion in what ended up being an extremely personal and nuanced exchange in last week’s vice presidential debate. What was interesting was that neither Pence nor Kaine seemed eager to delve into a detailed discussion regarding abortion, which is a testament to the fact that they had to be careful addressing a problem that continues to divide the nation. According to a May 29, 2015, Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans identify as “pro-choice” while 44 percent identify as “pro life.” Ethically speaking, abortion is undoubtedly a difficult issue to tackle, as it is multifaceted in its implications.

When breaking down the morality of abortion, the central point of contention is whether or not the unborn baby constitutes as a life. Many proponents of the pro-choice agenda argue that an unborn baby is simply “just a bundle of cells” and therefore does not constitute as a human life. This argument is poorly supported. Most women only notice signs of pregnancy around four weeks into gestation. By the fourth week, the baby’s heart is pumping blood, its brain and other vital organs are developing, its mouth and lips are present, and its eyes, legs, and hands have begun forming. These are all characteristics developed in the first third of the first trimester of pregnancy. If someone is going to write off a living, breathing entity with vital organs and features of life as “just a bundle of cells,” then they would have to argue that any living human being is “just a bundle of cells” in order to remain intellectually consistent.

Pro-choice advocates also often argue that an unborn baby cannot possibly be a life since it is dependent on its mother when in the womb. By this logic, hospital patients who are dependent on life support also do not constitute as lives, which is a ridiculous notion. Pro-choice advocates’ arguments implying that an unborn baby isn’t a life define the parameters of life on the basis of convenience, which is as sick as it is disingenuous.

Certain pro-choice proponents argue that first and second trimester abortions are acceptable because a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy. The problem with this argument is that a lack of pain doesn’t make it acceptable to kill a baby. There are plenty of painless ways to kill human beings—that doesn’t make it an ethical thing to do. As humans, we choose not to kill one another because each of us is deserving of life—not because the victim would feel pain.

Some pro-choice advocates acknowledge that they themselves define an unborn baby as a life, but think it is sensible to allow women the right to make this distinction for themselves. By this logic, one could justify killing anyone on the predication that they themself did not find their victim to constitute as a life. Human life is not subjective.

If the application of the contemporary definition of life doesn’t construe abortion as immoral, then the details of abortion procedures certainly do. A person sticking a knife through a baby outside the womb is infanticide, but a doctor doing the same thing inside the womb is a supposed “reproductive right.” During the first trimester of pregnancy, a common abortion procedure is dilation and curettage. This involves a doctor using a curette to chop up the baby inside the womb then scraping the pieces out. Another popular first trimester abortion procedure is suction aspiration, in which a doctor plunges a suction tube with a blade at the end into the woman’s womb, tears the baby apart, then sucks the pieces of the baby out of the womb.

The methods of abortion become more gruesome as the baby becomes more developed. A second and third trimester procedure, dilation and extraction sees doctors use sharp tweezers to crush the baby to death, focussing specifically on its brain and spine. The abortion procedure that was a big point of contention in the vice presidential debate was partial birth abortion, in which doctors pull the baby’s legs into the birth canal, deliver the baby’s body, then stab the baby in the skull and suck out the brains from the wound using a suction tube. Partial birth abortion was made illegal in the United States in 2003, but many pro-choice advocates maintain that it should legalized.

The contemporary definition of what constitutes as a human life combined with the details of abortion procedures render the moralization of abortion invalid. The typical pro-choice argument is that women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies. This is absolutely correct. That being said, it is bizarre and sickening for an individual’s right to do what they want with their body to extend to infringing upon another’s right to live. Someone’s body belongs to them, and they themself are responsible for it. The thing is that an unborn baby is a separate entity from its mother. It does not constitute as part of a woman’s body—it is merely located within the woman’s body. The argument that a woman should have to right to kill her child because it is inside of her devalues a human life on the basis of its location.

Pro-choice advocates and moderates alike point out many relevant problems that would inevitably surface if abortion was outlawed. A valid argument could be made that society, to an extent, is dependent on the legality of abortion to sustain itself. The basis of this notion is that babies who are aborted would, more often than not, have been born into extremely adverse life circumstances. This is a valid concern, and would need to be addressed if abortion was ever to be outlawed. That being said, the fact that it is convenient for society to kill babies doesn’t make it acceptable to kill babies. Morality takes precedence over convenience.

At the end of the day, sex is a biological function designed to conceive children. When someone chooses to be sexually active, with or without protection, they run the risk of having a child. The principles of personal responsibility dictate that people have to face the repercussions of their actions. Ending a life that one created because it is inconvenient for them is the antithesis of personal responsibility.

The only scenarios in which an abortion could possibly be justified are in the events that the baby is the product of a woman’s rape or the woman’s life is at risk. That being said, it is extremely illogical to use these scenarios to justify all abortions. The National Abortion Federation in 2009 reported that 1 percent of women who have abortions claim to be rape survivors. A 1998 study published in Guttmacher’s International Family Planning Perspectives ascertained that risk to a woman’s health was the motive for 2.8 percent of U.S. abortions in 1987-1988. Extreme circumstances that make up a small minority of all abortions don’t justify the practice as a whole.

Abortion is a deeply immoral practice. After the Supreme Court invalidated a Texas law that was restrictive of abortion clinics, host of “The Daily Show,” Trevor Noah, tweeted, “Celebrate the #SCOTUS ruling! Go knock someone up in Texas!” This tweet is reflective of many Americans’ mindset about abortion, which views it as a legitimate and ethical form of birth control. The fact that such sentiment is so widespread is worrying.