When it comes to emotional issues, few are as volatile as abortion. It has been debated for decades, making Roe vs. Wade remains one of the most well-known and controversial court cases in history. People have gone to extraordinary lengths (even murder and terrorism) to push their position. Even in a free society it is not easily resolved because this is an issue that deals with human life and what could be more emotional than determining the fate of a life or a potential human life?

Since abortion is so emotional, it's a given that a large part of the debate is not based in reason. It is almost impossible to separate one's personal feelings about this issue from their justification for being either pro-choice or pro-life. This has become especially apparent as abortion has been thrust into the spotlight again along with the health care debate. Many media outlets, including Townhall.com, have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue. The debate is nearly always emotional, but there are a few concrete issues that have a reasonable position.

One point the pro-life crowd makes that is perfectly valid is the use of public money to fund abortions. This is a legitimate concern regardless of the emotional position they may have against abortion. This point in many ways highlights the shortcomings of the current health care debate. When the public knows their money is going somewhere they have personal objections to, it's only natural that they take it as an affront to their conscious and their liberty. The taxes people pay and the money the government uses is meant to go only to what the constitution specifies. That is what a constitutional republic is all about. There's nothing in the constitution that says public money should go to paying for someone else's health care let alone someone else's abortion. Nobody should be expected to fund something that isn't a direct support of their basic rights and the pro-life movement is right to protest this. Unfortunately, they do not stop at the strictly reasonable aspects of the debate.

Being so emotional, the pro-life crowd has to take it a step further. They have to paint abortion not just as a health issue, but a moral issue. They equate abortion to killing a baby, something everybody can agree is wrong. The problem with this position is that it's an extreme. For one, in a strictly rational sense it's not proper to call abortion murder. This is because killing or murder requires personhood and the beginnings of personhood are debatable. The pro-life crowd insists that life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm meets the egg, it is a human being. But this definition has a problem. If a fertilized egg is a person, then why are they not counted on the census? Why aren't miscarriages treated as murder or death? Not every fertilized egg gets implanted either. How is one to treat such situations when the context has so many inconsistencies? As a parallel, nobody judges death at the death of the last cell so why would one use such a standard for life?

Pro-lifers will go onto debate that a fertilized egg is a 'potential life' and it must be saved. It sounds like a noble intention, but it's igorning that in the constituion it does not specify that 'potential life' is protected the same way life is protected. So legally, there is no justification for calling abortion murder. It also ignores that this standard utterly ignores the rights of the woman carrying this child. In this instance the pro-choice crowd is correct in pointing out that the abortion issue needs to reside with the women it affects, namely those who have to make this decision. It is not proper nor is it reasonable for the state or other interest groups to impose their choice on someone else. If someone is against abortion, they're more than free to try and persuade people to not have one. However, when they want to start using force to make that choice for the person then they no longer have the moral high ground.

The abortion debate more than any other debate needs reason and not emotional pleas. The age-old tactic of trying to aquait an issue with something many find deplorable is utilized all too often. Recently, Ken Conner tried to equate abortion with the slavery issue back in the 1800s.

"A century and a half later, it is no longer skin color that provokes controversy over the question of liberty, but other criteria such as size, age, and location (inside or outside the womb).  Because we have decided that they are not "persons," the continued existence of the unborn has become entirely contingent upon the whims of the mother.  The pro-abortion camp insists that an unborn child only counts when it is wanted.  Rights have nothing to do with the matter - it's really all about wants."

It sounds so logical to some people and tugs at the heart strings of impressionable readers, yet it has a major fallacy. Abortion is NOT slavery. These are truly two different issues. It is not reasonable to compare a fetus to a fully living adult human being who is being enslaved against their will. A fetus at an early stage has no thoughts or internal organs. It is not capable of working, breathing, or living on its own. To equate the abortion issue with the slavery issue is to pervert both. Conner makes a big mistake in stating that it all comes down to the selfish wants of the mother. It makes light of the fact that the woman is the one making the decision and it's not always out of pure selfishness they seek an abortion. In addition, it's another insult to say rights are tied to wants. They're not. Rights and liberty are and always have been a product of law and law is a human construction. When it comes to granting rights it not always best to err on the side of life as the pro-life crowd so eagerly attempts. The law works best when it errs on the side of reason and there is nothing reasonable about equating the unborn to slaves and the woman facing this issue as being selfish.

Ken Conner: Without Life, No Rights

The abortion issue has many other aspects. Many of the pro-life crowd also happen to be against any kind of sex outside of marriage, contraception even within marriage, and homosexual rights even though they're the least likely to ever have an abortion. They often claim that their bible believing Christians as well, but this is even more ironic because the Judeo-Christian god is one of the last characters that would champion the pro-life movement. This is the same being that slaughtered the first born in Exodus and wiped out the entire planet in Genesis. God of all beings would not be pro-life. It all seems to have less to do with abortion and more to do with imposing a ridged moral standard on society. The idea of abortion stands as an affront because it seems to mean to them that woman can be sexually promiscuous without having pregnancy to make them think twice and that flies in the face of their morality.

This in many ways is the biggest problem with the pro-life movement. They are so closely tied to this prudish, uptight model for society that they have no room to debate and reason the actual logistics of abortion. This hurts their cause and their credibility, which is a shame becaues abortion truly is an important issue. That is why it must be approached with reason and not clouded with emotional distress.

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.

In the 1920s, religious and political ideologues were convinced that alcohol was the cause of everything wicked in society and that banning it's sale and distribution would make for a better society. They were so convinced they muscled through a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Distilleries were closed, bars and saloons went out of business, and entire communities were changed. But while the idea may have seemed sound, none of the people behind the movement could have foreseen the unintended consequences. Their cause, as noble as it may have sounded, did more harm then good. They banned something they considered immoral, but it didn't go away. Instead, something worse came about.

Throughout the 20s, crime soared as continued demand for alcohol created a new black market. Gangsters like Al Capone came to power, creating networks of illegal businesses that were not governed by free markets or rule of law. Force was the only way to carry out business. It lead to bloody battles between rival gangs and authorities that resulted in the deaths of many. But even more damage was done as a result of poorly made and dangerously formulated products like Moonshine. The cost of enforcing this ban on alcohol was immense and even when major crime figures were apprehended, new figures always took their place and the trade continued.

The 1920s prohibition on alcohol failed. In the span of a decade another constitutional amendment made alcohol legal again. But the era of  prohibition offers an important lesson to modern social activists who seek to ban certain vices. Banning something doesn't make it go away. And banning something often leads to unintended consequences that can only make the problem worse. Yet this is lost on people. Even when they know what they do won't stop something, they do it anyway just because it makes them feel good. And that level of conceit and selfishness is reprehensible on all levels.

While the battle against alcohol is long over, other battles continue. One is the ever popular War on Drugs. Up until the 1920s and 30s, there were no drug laws because it was thought to be unconstitutional to dictate what people could and could not consume (and it still is). But that didn't stop Nixon from flat out banning substances like marijuana and cocaine. And the result of his policies were the same as the policies on prohibition. Black markets have thrived and crime has surged with prisons overflowing with non-violent drug offenders. And like Moonshine, new drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack emerge as potent new synthetics that are far more harmful than anything naturally occurring. But it doesn't stop people from selling them because in the world of black markets, there are no rules or standards.

Another battle is abortion. Some radical pro-lifers seek a constitutional amendment defining personhood as beginning at conception. This would in effect, make all abortion illegal. But would it make abortion go away? No, it would only lead to the deaths of countless women. When abortion is legal it can be regulated and scrutinized for safety so that the risks are low. But where it is illegal, like in much of the developing world, women still seek them and often resort to the black market to get them. These are called 'back alley abortions' and they have no standards and regulations guiding them. According to the World Health Organization, around 68,000 women die every year because of unsafe abortions. Is such a price in human life worth it?

Another battle that emerged around the time of prohibition is prostitution. Up until the 1920s, prostitution was legal throughout most of the United States. But the same idealogues who banned alcohol sought to ban prostitution as well. But once again, banning it didn't make it go away. Instead, it sent it to the black market where the ugly forces of pimps and human traffickers control the trade. Like the drug war there is no order and there are no standards. Criminals will abduct children and take advantage of runaway women to force them into prostitution. And there's nothing they can do about it because if they go to the police, they get thrown in jail. Then there are the women choose prostitution of their free will (yes it does happen). Should they be thrown in jail too even though they're not hurting anybody?

Then there are the other smaller battles like banning pornography, violent video games, and profanity. Idealogues think that by removing these from society people will be better off, but banning them will only create more black markets and more illegal trades that will clog courts and put non-violent people in jail. Some states like Texas and Alabama have laws banning the sale of erotic toys. But people are still able to get them through the internet so it doesn't go away and it risks putting the people that sell them in jail. How is that justice?

These social ideologues are usually not driven by anything rational. They are usually people seeking political power through scapegoating certain aspects of society or religious leaders who believe they have a god given right to take away the freedoms of others and impose their standards on society. They don't care that doing so only makes things worse. They only care about doing something that makes them feel good about themselves. Because at the end of the day that's all these battles do. They make the idealists feel good about themselves while the rest of society suffers.

But in a truly free society, people have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit so long as they do not harm other people. That means they have a right to take drugs if they want or eat junk food if they want. That means they have a right to engage in prostitution so long as it is not coerced. That means they have a right to watch whatever violent or erotic media they want so long as they aren't harming people. This is what freedom truly is. You don't have to like these things or participate in them. But you don't have a right to tell other people they can't. That is the essance of a free society.

When the philosopher John Locke wrote about the basis of the free society he cited life, liberty, and property as the natural rights imbued by all individuals. This idea played a large part with the founding fathers of America and lie at the basis of American ideals. We all have a right to live, a right to own property, and a right to express ourselves as we see fit so long as it does not intrude upon the natural rights of another individual. And even though the legal system tends to overly complicate it at times, that is the essence of a free society. In simpler terms, you can't just ban something because you don't like it. Even if a majority of people don't like something they have no right to forbid other people from doing it so long as it does not hurt anybody.

And yet here in America people still try to legislate their personal tastes into the law, intruding upon the natural rights of others to live as they see fit. Many special interests groups exist to promote their favorite view of the world, but one of the most well-known and extreme group is known as the Family Research Council. Founded by Tony Perkins, a product of the Christian Right, the FRC exists to promote the Judeo-Christian worldview as the standard and government sponsored lifestyle for America. They constantly lobby for legislation that opposes gay rights, gambling, abortion, sexual freedom, and prostitution. Their goal, intended or not, is to have their views as the only government approved views of America and that is absolutely, 100 percent wrong on every level.

The FRC, like most groups from the Christian Right, take their cues from Judeo-Christian ideology and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but the fact they try to get the government to support them violates the basic principles of America and liberty. They resort to fearmongering and deciet to scare people into accepting their way and try to convince people that they must give up their liberties to support a narrow, superstitous view of the world.

One recent example of their deceit happened on 20/20 when one of the chief spokesman for the FRC, Peter Sprigg, sat down with John Stossel to talk about sex in the media. Sprigg painted a bleak picture, saying sex in the media was turning an entire generation of kids into sexual deviants. But emperical data didn't support that. John Stossel even showed him a chart that indicated rape and crime had gone down over the past decade even as TV continued to push the sexual envelope. You can see the entire piece at the link below:



But even in the face of this data Sprigg refused to buy it. He refused to buy anything that contradicted his views on the issue. It's a perfect reflection of the sheer absurdity of the Family Research Council and groups like it. They don't do research, they promote an agenda. They don't present the facts, they pick and choose the facts that support their agenda. They'll gladly parade out a report that paints abortion, homosexuality, and sexuality in general in a negative light while ignoring the vast amount of data that contradicts it or puts it in a different light. They do that the same way all extremists do. They ignore it, not caring about truth or freedom, but about promoting their own agenda and that has no place in a free society.

If you're going to do any kind of research for policy on matters of sexuality, check your facts. If the FRC did their research, they would have seen that contraceptives don't fail, most abortions have no long lasting side effects, and teen sexual activity has gone down even as sex becomes more accepted in our culture. If you want to see the research supporting this check the research presented by the Guttmacher Institute:

Guttmacher Institute

Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council do neither research nor do they promote families. They promote their own agenda. If they had their way America would be a vast Judeo-Christian authoritarian state where only Judeo-Christian morals are recognized and all other views are relegated to second class citizenship. It violates the first amendment and the very concept of what it means to be in a free society. It's perfectly fine to say you endorse certain morals like those presented by the Family Research Councel. But it is NOT okay to seek support form the law or the state. This is a free society and the day America favors one view over another is the day it is no longer free