Does life begin at conception, or at birth?  Until recently, the question only plagued philosophers and those of existential bents, though, it has long been considered, albeit more fleetingly, by many.  Does it matter?  Yes.  But why?  Well, for starters, it affects a lot of real-life issues. 

One such issue is criminal justice.  If a person kills a pregnant woman, is it a double-homicide?  It does seem worse than killing a non-pregnant person, but if that's murder, what is abortion?  Ah.  There's there's another issue.  Criminalizing the former subtly outlaws the latter.  In Roe v. Wade,  a fetus was referred to as a "potential life."  It's an apt term.  A fetus can't live on its own; its sole existence is through the mother-to-be.  Ending a potential life forcefully (i.e., killing a pregnant woman or conducting a D&X without consent) is reprehensible, and should be a crime in its own, but not murder.  And if it's not "life" yet, there's no basis to outlaw abortion. But didn't you mention sexism?  Ah yes. That.

Has it been that long since I've spoken about male hegemony, the self-inscribing apparatus that even women help enforce?  I suppose so.  The main issue here is representation.  How do we present the ability to create life, and the role of men and women in that process?  It is also about agency.  Who can create life.  If life starts at conception, men and women are equal partners in the creation of life, and women just happen to carry the new life into the world: like traditional housewives who buy the groceries with community property funds and carry them into the house by themselves while the men make that money.

But, if life begins at birth, only women can create life.  This elevates women.  This makes women capable of something no man can possibly do.  This also means that women make all the choices about life and potential life, and should be the ones that establish the right of life and potential life.  It means men take a back seat and listen to what women decide.  The male hegemony, however, says "no" to this concept.  So certain sub-stratas of society says life starts at conception, and cloak it in the authority of religion.  Because, gasp, their god could not have intended for women to be above men in any capacity.

Don't believe it.  Women are unique.  Their ability to create life makes them superior to men.  Too many make the process out to be a burden.  Women in no position to complete their education or secure their financial well-being are encouraged to have children before they are ready; men argue the fetus is half theirs and demand rights.  But it's all insecurity.  Men cannot bring life into this world.  Women should rule the world based on that principle alone.  Yet too many men skirt their responsibility as fathers, burdening women as solo mothers, and use the educational and financial restraints on (particularly young) solo mothers to oppress them.  Laws should stronger favor women's and mothers' rights.  Women should make them stronger.  For example, build in attorneys' fees and multiple damages on unpaid child support.  Force the government to pay for that woman's child care and education until the father can be found; but allow the government reimbursement against the father.  This is the same principle that Medicare works on: protect the injured person and allow the government to go after the liable person later.  But that, of course, might be construed as socialist.  For shame.  On the other hand, if you realize that 100% of global democracies employ socialism in some form, maybe you'll wake up and realize that "socialism" is only as strong of an invective as you are susceptible to reverse-anachronist McCarthyism. 

Regardless, women should fight harder to say when life begins, and men should be more honest about it.  Because, face it fellas, it's about ego, it's about control.  But the truth is, you can't bring life into this world.