On Abortion

There was an article in the Christian Science Monitor Thursday written by a life long Democrat that hasn't voted as a Democrat for 12 years over the Democratic party's stance on abortion. What was interesting about his perspective was first, it was male and second, it underscores the complexity and confusion many of us have over what the national parties real underlying philosophies are (I'm not passing judgement on the fact that this writer gives a 100% weight to a single issue. That's another blog).

His point is basically this: He feels that the Democrats have always stood up for the poor, downtrodden and, in general, those that can't really help themselves in the world and that who is in a worst position than an unborn fetus? While I do think that generally, the Democratic position is more representative of the poor, lower and middle classes (read "masses"), I contend that, with most of these complex sociological issues, his position is too simplistic to be of any real value. Besides, if he were a Democrat and believed as he believes, doesn't he see a real contradiction in the Republican position on this? That would make me one mixed up voter. I was just kidding because, in reality, abortion is one of those issues that turns traditional political positions on their ears.

Most Republicans would argue that they are for smaller government, less oversight and regulation and pro individual rights. I think most Democrats would argue that the are for more government services, more oversight and control especially where individual rights are affected negatively. The issue is how individual rights are determined, regulated and protected. The abortion issue is counter intuitive on all fronts and can easily fit into both parties general belief system both for and against. So what drives our views on abortion? My view is theocracy. My silent survey over the years indicate that ant-abortionists tend to be those that are the most religious. These folks view human life as something beyond the scientific classification of an animal or organism and is therefore sacred at creation. When "creation" begins, in my view, if you believe this viewpoint, has to be at conception...not somewhere in between. When is a human a human I guess depends on when our biology begins to differentiate us as an organism from, let's say, a chimpanzee. But I digress. The opposing viewpoint considers humans as another form of animal that just so happens to have the enhanced capabilties to wrestle with these types of issues.

That was pretty brutal wasn't it? If you forget the biology for a minute and ask yourself what the philosphical difference between the two contingencies are, you might ascertain that one party places more value on the life that is already a productive member of society over one that is not yet so. The counter arguement is that you might be jipping society of the next Einstein every time you abort a human life (don't think anyone would argue that aborting any other animal's life would have similar consequences). I wonder whether Einstein would have had time for his studies if he had had an unplanned child when he was sixteen? Hmmmm.

After all of this convoluted discussion, I have some really simple guidelines that I follow with these kinds of issues. One is that I assume that most people involved do not take these decisions lightly. Second, does it affect me personally? If not, then I would concede the decision to those involved in the dilemma (in other words, let the folks with the problem decide the outcome). Third, which is more of a mental checksum, is that I try to put myself in their place and see whether I can empathize with their situation. If I can, then it reinforces number two.

What really angers me are the radicals. Those that take the law into their own hands and act as judge, jury and executioner are the lowest forms of humanity in our society. They cannot acknowledge differing perspectives or empathize with involved parties. To them, everything is black and white.

Nothing is black and white.