The Abortion debate in America

      This issue is heated to say the least. To lead into it I must first mention the difficulty of reaching a compromise on this issue. While there may exist multiple (more than two) takes on the issue – generally there are only two: pro-life, or pro-choice. It was pointed out to me by a passing winged object that both positions are “pro” in that they are both for something. This is the beginning of why the issue is complicated. Usually in a debate one side is for something, and then the other is against it. For example, party square is for non-regulated gun freedom, while party circle is for regulated gun freedom (or no gun freedom at all). The squares represent one treatment of the issue of guns, while the circles represent more or less the opposite. And while this may not be the final example of how disagreement usually works, it shows the general trend of a disagreement and how one party is for S, while the other party is for not-S. But as we step into the issue of abortion we see right away a difference in the pattern of disagreement. The pro-life party is just that, pro-life, and with that the (as will sometimes be referenced) “life-party” feels that all life is precious and therefore abortion is wrong in that it destroys life. There is no argument here, abortion does destroy life. After that another party can argue that abortion only destroys life that maybe would not have had a good chance at having a decent existence, or that it maybe even aids life in that it supports giving birth to children whose mothers want them and feel that they can give their children something decent, and etc and so on… But no one is going to say that abortion doesn’t destroy life – it is, always, murder (be it legal, intentional, and maybe even perhaps maybe with good intention). No one argues for long that murder is ok if the intention is to prevent displeasure or a life that isn’t worth having; although it is fit to point out that most pro-life individuals, if given the choice, would probably have preferred and opted for the abortion of, let’s say, Hitler.

      So where do the pro-choice individuals lay? They must be the opposite, since this is a disagreement, so they must feel that pro-death is the way to go. They must feel (hang with me here) that we should abort, uh, all babies? No, that can’t be right – and of course that isn’t their stance on the issue at all. And here the atypical presentation of a disagreement begins to unfold. The pro-choice individuals are just that, pro-choice. They feel that a woman (or even the family of the woman) has the right to choose abortion if that is what she (or the family) wants. They feel that if a woman has a reason for not wanting to bring a human into the world under her control then it is probably a good reason, and that she should be allowed to stop it. But again, they are not referred to as pro-death; they are referred to as pro-choice because they believe the woman should be able to choose life or death for her unborn child. By many accounts this is a pro-life stance in that her opinion on life is validated by giving her control over it, that hopefully she will not have to make such an ugly choice to begin with, and that hopefully most of the time she can actually choose life for her child. Pro-choice allows for the possibility of death, but it equally allows for the possibility of life. And here again we see the atypical presentation of a disagreement in that both parties are pro-life, but one of the parties is pro-death sometimes.

      So how do we, as intelligent adults, reconcile this difference that appears to be so difficult to compromise on? We can not. There is no compromise between the two issues, meaning that we can’t meet in the middle – we can not say sort of kill the baby but also sort of leave it alive. We can’t say, “well just abort half of the babies that woman want to abort and then leave the other half to live”. We can not find the five between the ten and the zero. In this case, in this way, compromise is simply unobtainable.

      That said – here is the best way to compromise on the issue if there is going to be any compromise at all. The pro-life party and the pro-choice party can not mix. Their money can not mix, their efforts can not mix, they must be separate in all ways (I hope we can still live near one another though). The pro-life individuals can continue to be pro-life, never aborting a fetus, never destroying life. While at the same time the pro-choice individuals will continue to make the choice of death or life as they see fit for themselves and for themselves only. What we can not do, not without repudiating the opinion of a majority of people and thereby contradicting the very foundation of this great and fair nation (I should say of a significant amount of people, as of course there can not be two majorities on an issue), is say that because the pro-life party feels abortion is wrong then no one is allowed to abort their own child. Certainly no one is going to argue that just because they feel one way on an issue everyone else should feel that way too (try not to laugh). And so to be fair, abortion can not be made illegal unless it is shown that the pro-choice party is a significant minority and therefore out of touch with the will of the nation. But also, to be fair, tax dollars can not and must not ever be spent on abortion; otherwise we would be repudiating the opinions of so many hard working Americans that again the foundations of this nation would be compromised. Let us all agree now that we have a vested interest in never compromising the constitution of the United States of America, not for any reason. And so if an individual wishes to obtain an abortion, wishes to murder their unborn child with the help of a doctor, then they must pay for it entirely out of their own pocket. If universal healthcare did come to be, then it could never cover abortion – else, again, we risk the creation of a grave idiosyncrasy the likes of which countries do not recover from. And so finally, I propose this – an optional tax, for this matter only, and only because the compromise does not exist, that would fund abortions. Individuals would be free to pay this tax only if they want, and in fact they could even control how much of it they pay. If an individual wishes to pay thirty cents into the abortion fund, then they could do that at their own discretion. If they want to pay four thousand dollars into the fund, then they could do that too.

      In this way the opinions of both parties are conserved and respected. In this way neither party is asked to do something they don’t believe in, nor are they expected or pushed to endorse, encourage, or support an issue they don’t believe in. This is what is known as compromise. The alternative is not to compromise. The alternative is to strongly suggest and actuate that some people’s opinions do not matter, and that they should in fact be ignored and compromised entirely; the alternative is to contradict the bases of this country and to move forward towards something of an entirely different ilk all together, into an age where all people are not equal, and where some people’s opinions are simply better than others. Please let us agree that this is not a viable alternative.

      If you don’t like my solution then I like you. Disagreement is at the heart of every new beginning – but if you don’t like my solution, respond to it, fix it, replace it – create something else – but don’t just whine about it.