Last week the Maroon received a response to my column, and I have to say I’m thrilled. Civil discourse is hard to come by these days, so I’ll jump at the chance.

Let me first commend Mr. Langlinais for identifying so well where we disagree. I originally said that the most important part of the debate is the personhood of a fetus, and he objected that it was impossible to consider the issue without considering the role of the government as well. I could not disagree more.

While it is vitally important to consider the role of the government when crafting laws about abortion, I believe there is much value in discussing the moral status of abortions outside the realm of law completely.

Let me be clear; I believe in debating about and changing the current laws on abortion just as strongly as I desire to talk about the moral implications. I think each influences the other. I simply want us to agree that these are two different discussions.

I believe that drug use is harmful and should be discouraged, but I believe the prohibition of drugs does more harm than good for America. The fact that drug legalization would save tens of billion of tax dollars (usually used to find and prosecute non-violent, non-dealer offenders) does not justify drug use. I believe we should talk about both, but one at a time.

I will consider the legal problem in a moment, but let’s briefly consider the moral question again. If we assume the personhood of the fetus, Mr. Langlinais asked what the mother owes. Mr. Langlinais asked whose health takes precedence. This is not a correct question, however.

The question in this case is whether the health (or decision) of the mother takes precedence over the life of another person. Can she decide that another person must die for her?

Now, consider the legal question. Does a government have the right to decide what constitutes life? It does, and will continue to do so. At this moment fetuses are not considered people, but newborns are. Though the difference between them is simply five minutes, one can be killed without repercussion from the government.

This brings me to the point of our original discussion. A newborn child depends entirely upon others for its care. The parent or guardian must provide food, water, shelter and changing. Why then is infanticide illegal? Because the infant is a human life. Human life is held higher by our society than the convenience, lifestyle, or mental health of others.

We cannot murder because of convenience or annoyance, monetary hardship or unrequited love. If these conditions do not justify ending life in America, why does a fetus not qualify?