For my topic I am choosing to write about the ethical importance of abortion. There have been many arguments as to whether abortion should be kept legal or mad illegal. There are many ways that abortion is looked at to be against morality. Abortion goes against morality because it is considered murder and goes against the word of God. It has been clearly stated that a life begins at conception, with that being said abortion is considered murder. He or she starts out as a fetus but well before birth will have turned into a human person. As early as ten weeks the baby already has a face, arms, legs and has internal organs and brain activity. That is given proof that he or she is not just a fetus in the womb, but a fully developed human person. Along with physical development, genetic development is important. Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Abortion is morally wrong because it is clearly stated in the Sixth Commandment of the Bible’s Old Testament “Thou shalt not kill”, also pointing out that abortion goes against the word of God. In the Bible the greek word brephos is used which refers to both an unborn child and infant, meaning the Bible does not claim there to be any difference between a fetus or a baby. At the time a baby is conceived her or she has already been recognized by God, as demonstrated in Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…” The way that these two statements are relevant to each other is that there is no difference in a fetus or baby, making it a human person right at the time of conception. Leading to say that since he or she is a human person having an abortion would be considered murder, violating the Sixth Commandment. With breaking the Sixth Commandment it is clear to state you are going against the word of God. When looking in the book at Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument called “A Defense of Abortion” an objection is made. Being a person does not, by itself, entitle you to use someone else’s resources, even if those resources are needed in order to preserve your life. There have been claims made that a fetus is not considered a human person, meaning they do not have the same rights as the mother. That is not what the objection it is referring to. The objection to this argument is that just because the baby is a human person dose not allow them to have all the same rights as the mother. The reason begin is because he or she is a human person, yes, but relying on the mothers resources to survive. Even though those resources are needed to continue to preserve the babies life, it does not allow them to rely on someone else's resources. Since he or she is living off their mothers resources that gives the mother total control and right over her whole body. Meaning she morally over powers all the rights of the baby. I want to look at this objection in a different thought experiment. Lets say there are twin boys who were born connected to each other. The both have separate internal organs except for the fact that one twin has a weak heart. The weak hearted twin has to depend on his brothers healthy heart to keep his body working. The healthy hearted brother wants to be separated from his brother so that he can live a more freeing life, knowing that his brother wont survive without the help form his heart. Since the weak brother is relying on him for his resources, his good heart, he still has complete rights over his body. Which then allows him control over whether or not he decides to be separated or live connected to his brother. Resulting in his twin brothers death. When comparing these two situation there is obviously some differences, but when looking at the big picture they closely