From the moment of fertilisation, an organism with unique human DNA has been formed. The foetus' genetic information is different from his mother's, therefore all matters concerning the life of the foetus are not matters concerning the mother's autonomy over her own body, but rather matters concerning the foetus' right to life.The argument that a foetus is merely a clump of cells is erroneous. Pro-choice advocates argue that because the foetus is not as developed as a born baby, it is a clump of cells. This argument is fallible on two counts. Cells are the basic, structural units of all organisms on Earth, meaning that all organisms can similarly be dubbed "clumps of cells". The differences in size, shape or complexity between a born and an unborn baby are irrelevant; if an unborn baby is capable of taking on the characteristics that supposedly distinguish a "clump of cells" from a "human", then the unborn baby must be human. The growth and development of the child into an infant is evidence that the child is both human and living. Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that a child born prematurely at 21 weeks is less developed than a child in the uterus at 28 weeks, yet, according to the most extreme pro-choice arguments, the born child would be considered a life whereas the unborn child would not.Viability outside of the womb is also an arbitrary yardstick because there are situations in which born humans are not viable outside the uterus without intensive care. If a child is born maturely, and then the child was to be left alone, the child would soon die, due to a lack of shelter and nutrition (this was common in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta). Given this, we can conclude that no infant is, by himself, viable outside of the uterus. Another example that disproves the viability argument is adults with severe physical disabilities. Without the help of technology, a carer, and, in some cases, help from the government, many would starve to death, given their inability to work.Moreover, sensitivity to stimuli is a poor determiner for the human condition. A human in a coma is unable to respond to stimuli, but we accept that the human is still living, and therefore it is immoral to end the life of the human in question. Why then should we accept that more than 200, 000 abortions were carried out in England and Wales last year? Meanwhile, no one was killed while in a coma.A foetus is an innocent human life, and abortion always involves the termination of an innocent human life. Given that all rational, moral people agree that the termination of an innocent human life is evil, we can all agree that abortion is evil. Human lives are intrinsically and infinitely valuable; the moment we lose sight of this, we lose all rights we claim to cherish, for no right can exist without the right to life. If we grant individuals the right to terminate lives because it is more convenient for them to do so, we set a dangerous precedent, a precedent for negligence and societal derision.