Lions & Tigers and the "A" word - Oh My!.

I thought I'd stir up a little trouble and jot down my thoughts on the Abortion issue, the dreaded "A" word that is a major source of division in our country. There are two totally different and valid opinions and people will go hoarse screaming at you to make sure you know what side they're on. Unfortunately, it's apples screaming at oranges and oranges hollering back. So, after much attempted rational thought and discussion I have formed an honest opinion and ask, in fact beg, someone to convince me I am wrong.

So, the face off.

Pro-Life says you do not have the right to kill another human being (except in the case of self defense, capital punishment and war if you believe the Republicans). The concept is sound in it's purest form.

Pro-Choice (pro-Liberty) says an individual has the right to do what they want with their own body. Again, a sound concept. In fact, I believe in the idea so much I honestly believe it should be expanded to include the ingestion of drugs, both the legal (or profitable) and non-legal kind. I believe the idea that someone ingesting a drug or engaging knowingly in prostitution should be able to do so at the own risk. There are crimes in place for everything one could do while on drugs that infringe on another person's rights, but when there is no victim, there can be no crime.

So both sides have a good point on the abortion issue. In fact, they are both so passionate held beliefs they exist right next to each other in our constitution. The issue becomes if someone having an abortion is actually infringing on another human being's rights. This is the obvious issue most people want to avoid while they holler, berate and blow each other up. When, legally, does life begin? When does one become a human being? When does a person begin to receive they're rights under the law? Once that is established, everything else becomes moot. All the yelling just fades into the background.

So let's talk about the legal and philosophical issue of when life, as a human being, should legally begin. Currently, the federal law does not make that discernment and leaves and regulation up to the states. So, I would say that is basically copping out. Boo on you supreme court. Have some balls.

The solution is simple. Legally define the term human being and your problem is solved. No special laws or decisions necessary.

I think most people would agree that a full term baby, though not yet delivered, would qualify as a human being and should not be killed. So, then when? There are many items to consider, viability is usually the big one. Unfortunately, viability is a sliding gray scale dependent on many things which change every year. Medicine makes advances and the definition changes. Anything as variable as viability could never be used as an accurate legal definition. Another problem is that by including viability in the definition of human being, you would do away with the rights of every person on life support, with a debilitating disease, etc... that could be deemed not-viable. That's a sci-fi cauldron of trouble brewing.

No, we must use a definition that includes every person on the planet, with every problem, accident, disease, malformation or anything else that makes them different but still people. If we were able to reject some people, if that were allowed, who knows what it could lead to.

That leaves me with genetics. The blueprint of life. As much as I hate to admit it, I can't find another definition for human being that includes every living person on the planet but doesn't include a fetus. Of course, since the genetic code is together and replicating at conception, I would have to think that logically anyone who believed in this definition of human being, and the rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would have to believe abortion is technically a crime.

So, I guess that's what I believe until someone can provide me with a better definition of human being that doesn't include a zygote or fetus. Either that, or explain how, in these special circumstances, the right to liberty trumps the right to life. Other than that I'm stuck, and the democrat in me is hating it.

Yes, I have heard the argument of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, and I really don't have a response for that. I wish I did. It makes no sense, but, to me, neither does rape or incest. I guess my response would be that it is a hideous crime and is going to cause a lot of heartache and bad times no matter what the result. From a hideous crime comes horrible decisions. None are good. By the way, I'm not past voting for castration for offenders if that helps.

That doesn't change the fact that logically I am stuck with this definition. I realize that the word life comes before liberty, and that's the way it needs to be for without life there could be no liberty.

Now, how do I rectify these ideas with my Democratic leanings. I guess I just have to say, I can't go with you on this one. But keep up the good work on fighting the war and helping the poor (which is most of us these days). Two out of three isn't bad.