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.