Last Thursday, pro-life advocates from around the nation protested in recognition of the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. If that surprises you, you are not alone. The annual March for Life garnered little to no public anticipation, even considering the nationalistic mindset brought about by Obama’s inauguration earlier in the week.

In fact, public debate concerning the issue of abortion, especially on our campus, has been criminally deficient for quite some time. The topic is too personal; don’t talk too loudly. It is a religious matter; don’t impose your beliefs on me. We will never come to a universal consensus; don’t disrespect my views. I am all for political correctness, but quite frankly this trend of social silence is bordering on ridiculous, and I am tired of walking on eggshells around what I consider to be one of the most imperative issues and grossest injustices taking place in our nation today.

Any biologist worth his salt, or for that matter, any seventh grader who does his homework, will tell you there is a certain number of easily recognizable characteristics used to define the presence of life. A simple application of these qualities — complete cells, organization, metabolism, growth, homeostasis and reproduction — leads to the conclusion that life, as defined by science, begins at the moment of conception. (For the record, many pro-choice advocates argue at this point that yes, life begins here, but is it human life? Well, unless you are trying to convince me that thing growing inside your stomach is actually a baby fish, I think that argument successfully defeats itself.)

That being said, every one of our great 50 states has relatively solid legislation against the premeditated destruction of human life — it’s called first-degree homicide. This is where the awesome power of nomenclature comes into play, in that the public generally views two identical actions in a different light when political opposition terms them in a more aesthetically forgiving way. It would be much more difficult to portray yourself as being in favor of homicide than abortion, or my personal favorite, “the termination of pregnancy,” which is roughly the equivalent of locking someone inside a house, burning it down and calling it arson.

To top it all off, I recently discovered that the original version of the Hippocratic Oath, which is taken in one form or another by all medical practitioners in the United States, included the prohibition of actions taken by doctors to cause abortion. While this portion of the oath is traditionally omitted from its modern version, it only goes to show that, in addition to the realities of science and the force of the law, the pro-life movement appears to have history on its side as well.

I realize this line of argument would carry far more weight coming from a liberal atheist graduate of Smith College, but to be honest I am more than a little sick of that prejudice as well. My opinions should not carry less political weight because I was raised in a religious environment, and I do not believe abortion is wrong because the Catholic Church told me to. I believe abortion is wrong because no one in my life has ever been able to convince me otherwise.

Carolyn Pippen is a senior in the College of Arts and Science. She can be reached at Carolyn.m.pippen@vanderbilt.edu.