A lot has been said about the abortion debate in wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike have latched onto it as a means to serve their agenda. Pro-choice groups condemn the pro-lifers for fostering men like Scott Roeder who use violence to spread their beliefs. It is in a sense the epitome of hypocracy. Roeder hated Tiller because he thought he was a murderer, so he became a murderer himself. It runs completely opposite of the very term 'pro-life.' But that's a term Roeder didn't take seriously. But Pro-life groups aren't dissuaded. They have continually brushed off men like Roeder as "A fruit and a lunitic" so says the head of Operation Rescue, a radical pro-life organization. The same people who brush it off use Roeder as a warning to say "See! This is what happens when you let something like abortion to propagate!" Of course, neither side offers anything pragmatic to the argument.

When it comes to an emotional issue like abortion, there is little room for common ground. Pro-life and Pro-choice groups are notoriously stubborn, using whatever reason they can to justify their beliefs. Pro-lifers use religion, which is also hypocritical because the god of the bible is NOT pro-life. In the chapter of Exodus god murders every first born in Egypt and they were not fetuses. They were already alive. So it's rediculous to assert that pro-life is endorsed by god. Pro-choice groups use the notion of personal freedom, in as such that women own their bodies. But they negate to mention that a fetus isn't 'their' body. It's the body of another being, one that may not be fully developed but still a being. And they'll avoid that notion at all costs.

On issues like this when neither side shows any signs of using logic, it's often helpful to look at it from a different perspective. Take someone like famous comedian George Carlin, who never claimed to be an expert in any field, but makes a valid point in one of his famous HBO skits. He focuses on consistency. He asks questions like "Why is it that pro-life groups are so concerned about a fetus before it's born, but not afterwards?" He also calls Pro-lifers out by asking "If you're so concerned about these single mothers, why aren't you volunteering your wombs to have these kids?" It's put in a humorous context, but there is an underlying point here. Pro-lifers are so focused on calling out the evils of abortion, but they don't offer any alternatives. They only favor people being abstinent or putting the child up for adoption. But as research has shown along with human nature, this is not possible nor is it pragmatic.

The Pro-choice crowd makes similar emotional appeals, linking abortion to feminism. It's true that most of the people in power making these decisions on abortion are men, who will never be faced with this issue. These men are driven by ideology and partisen politics, not reason or logic. They will heed emotional appeals from women claiming this is an afront to women's rights. But this is deflecting the argument, saying anybody who is against abortion is against women. This is simply not true. It makes the same stereotypes as the Pro-lifers.

So how does one wade through the emotional appeals and find a reasonable context for abortion? Well the argument comes down to when is having an abortion killing a human life? It can't come at conception because not every fertilized egg gets implanted. To call that an abortion would be unreasonable because any woman who ever had that happen would be guilty of it. Then there's the argument that as soon as the fetus is viable outside the womb, it is a person. But this has some problems too. In the realm of medical science, advances are making it possible for infants to survive outside the womb after shorter and shorter periods of gestation. Some scientists foresee a day when they have the means to save a child no matter what stage it's at during a pregnancy. It's called ectogenesis and it would severely affect the nature of the abortion debate if fetus viability is a consideration. It would have a lot of cultural impacts too because it could negate the very need for a woman to go through pregnancy to have a child. But that's another issue. For more information on ectogenesis, check out the following link:

Ectogenesis

So what criteria would be most reasonable for this issue? Going back to Geroge Carlin, consistancy is the key. So if reason is going to look at where life begins, it should also consider where life ends. All medical professionals agree. A person is declared dead after brain activity ceases. One can revive a heart, but not a brain. Some cells may still be alive in a body, but without brain activity is is dead. So if that's how death is measured, logic would assume that life should be measured the same way. So when a fetus develops brain activity, it should be considered a person. This happens later than Pro-lifers would like and earlier than Pro-choice advocates would like. According to research, a fetus develops brain activity around the 8th week or 2nd month of pregnancy. And higher functions like consciousness don't develop until around the 13th week.

Stages of Development

With this in mind, abortion would not be murder if it occurs before this time. Luckily, most abortions occur well before it. According to research done by the Guttmacher Institute 89 percent of abortions occur before the 12th week of gestation. 61.3 percent occur before the 8th week.

Facts About Abortion

So the vast majority of abortions would still be allowable by this standard. But all those afterwards would face strict limits because it would then legally be dealing with another person.

It is neither a compromise nor a solution. It is simply approaching the abortion issue from outside the fervent emotional pleas of advocacy groups. It is possible to use reason for debates such as abortion. When emotion is injected, people like George Tiller face grave harm and people like Scott Roeder take their views to extremes. It is difficult at times to distance one's self from emotion. But when it comes to policy and justice in a free society, reason offers the best hope.

This week, Brent Bozell dedicated a whole column to condemning ABC for it's friendly portrayal of Seth MacFarlane, creator of the hit show "Family Guy."

Fox's "Comedic Genius"

It was by no means an indictment. Bozell spent the whole column giving his opinion on how he thought MacFarlane and Family Guy were pure smut and that having them on the airwaves is somehow an afront to god, America, and everything good in the world. Needless to say, he goes a little overboard just as other anti-MacFarlane camps have done such as the Parents Television Council, a strongly Christian Conservative group. But through all this outrage they all miss one simple component and that's humor.

Family Guy is not meant to be serious. It is a slap-stick, over-the-top, outrageous show that makes no secret of it's primary goal, which is to get laughs. And for it to be on the air for over 100 episodes and 2 cancellations, it's a safe assumption that it succeeds. As a fan of the show myself, even I get offended by some of the jokes they do. But by and large few shows make me laugh louder and more fully than Family Guy. Anybody can hate Seth MacFarlane for his profane sense of humor, but the man does have talent in being able to craft a show like this. Plus, he does multiple voices including Setwie, Peter, and Brian. You don't have to like him, but for the fans he has he's doing something right.

This is what critics never realize. Humor by definition is NOT meant to be taken seriously. It is not an agenda. It is not afront. It is what it is and that's a joke. So when a show comes along that makes a joke about God or Jesus that offends Christians, that isn't meant to insult them. It's just meant to stir laughs. It's been done in comedy for years. George Carlin was the master of it and lasted 40 years in showbuisness, offending a lot of people along the way especially religious people. And in a free society, people have a right to make these jokes. It's a part of free speech. But people DON'T have a right not to be offended. MacFarlane said it himself in the interview. Nobody is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to watch it. People have the power to change the channel or not listen. But that doesn't satisfy some people like Brent Bozell. It can't just be ignored, it has to be condemned. Not only is this wrong in a free society, it shows no sense of humor.

Comedian Lewis Black said it best when he describe radical islamists as people having no sense of humor. In Islamic countries, making a joke about religion can get you killed. There is no room for humor in a society like that. But this isn't the Middle East. This is the United States of America. Freedom of speech is in the constitution. People like Bozell have a right to speak out against what they don't like, but to actively seek the censorship and obliteration of something as menial as a TV show is not only insulting to American principles it's downright idiotic, much more so than anything Family Guy has ever done.

Family Guy is a lot of things, but it's essance is humor. Look no further than the following clip for all you need to know:

This past year, the comedy world lost one of it's most prolific and influential figures: George Carlin. He spent nearly half a century in show business. His comedy specials and television appearances are some of the most memorable and funny skits in pop culture. Many comedy experts rank him among the elite with the likes of Richard Pryor and Rodney Dangerfield. His death this year was a true loss.

George Carlin gave us many memorable routines. Most notably was the "seven words you can't say." This famous routine prompted a Supreme Court case known as FCC vs. Pacifica, which laid the foundation for the censorship powers that the FCC uses to control broadcast media. Carlin, and many like him, spent many years decrying this act as being unconstitutional. And a strict interpretation of the first amendment confirms this. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." And yet an unelected body in the FCC is given power to regulate and control speech they consider 'indecent' or 'obscene.' It is censorship, plain and simple. It was unconstitutional when Carlin fought it and it's still unconstitutional now. It comes down to politicians and beauracrats banning something just because they and a select few don't like it.

In addition to Carlin's rants on free speech. He was also famously a non-believer. Some of his most memorable skits were about god and the irrational nature of religion. Even before I became a non-believer, I felt he made many astute observations that were not done out of malice, but out of criticism. And some are valid. Many people of faith often don't think critically about it and don't approach it from different points of view. So that when they try to engange in discourse with others, it is often hampered because they are unwilling to think differently.

One of my personal favorite rants was about Easter and the life of Jesus. When I was a Christian, I may have found this troubling. But as a non-believer, I think it's very thought provoking and worthy of inquiry. Below is an excerpt from that rant, courtesy of Carlin's book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops." It details what he considers a description of Easter if it were reported by an objective, outside media source.

"Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus buffs on a day in which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes referred to as 'The Messiah' was allegedly crucified and - according to legend - died for mankind's so-called sins. Today kicks off a 'holy' weekend that culminates on Easter Sunday when, it is widely believed, this dead 'savoir' - who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling, invisible being known as God - mysteriously 'rose from the dead.'

According to legend, by volunteering to be killed and actually going through with it, Jesus has saved every person that has ever lived - and every person who will live - from an eternity of suffering in a region popularly known as Hell, providing - so the story goes - that the person be 'saved' firmly believes this rather fanciful tale."

It's interesting to consider how those who believe would look at this compared to those who don't believe. Many people believe in many different things. And even for the beliefs shared by a vast majority of the population, it is important to look at them from an outside perspective. George Carlin was a master at painting things in a differet, if not bawdy, sort of light. He could do it in a way that was entertaining, insightful, and very funny.

Geroge Carlin will sorely be missed. He lived a long, eventful life and had a very successful career. And his jokes, and insight, will live on for generations to come.