|
Lots of people are really really against abortion. They think it's the ultimate evil and they crusade against it at every
level and they don't think that any situation justifies it. They think that by allowing abortion to continue, we invoke the
wrath of God, and that the very act of abortion is nothing less than the murder of innocents. Life begins at conception and
that's all there is to say about that.
Others say that abortion is safe and should be accesible to all women, and to them it's a matter of protecting the
rights of women everywhere to have a safe, legal medical procedure. They see any restrictions on abortion as a threat to our
individual liberties, or at least the individual liberties of women.
Politicians and the media would have us all believe that there are two sides to this issue and that most everyone
falls into one category or the other. The truth is that there are so many different sides, and so many different issues to
consider that there are probably as many positions to take as there are people to take them. You have to consider who should
be allowed to have an abortion and at what point during their pregnancy they should be allowed to have one, who should perform
them and where, who should pay for the procedure, how old you have to be and should the doctors be required to tell your parents.
But at the end of the day, most folks consider themselves one or the other: They're either pro-life or pro-choice.
Pro-life people believe what they do because they think even the unborn should have rights. Pro-choice folks believe
what they do because they think women should have the right to make their own decisions with rehard to their own bodies and
unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.
The sides can argue back and forth (and they totally do) but they'll never reach an agreement. Because they're not
even talking about the same thing. In the end, it will always come down to the question of when does life begin? And no one
can answer that question scientifically, because, scientifically, no one can even say what life is.
It seems to me, the best thing anyone could do on either side is to figure out where do the two sides agree, and then
move forward from there. No one wants young children to have unlimited access to abortions with no parental controls. No one
wants more people to get abortions whenever they want. Everyone should just define what it is they want ultimately, and what
they'd be willing to settle for, and then just agree on restrictions and safety checks and regulations.
It's called compromise. It's pretty much the only way I can think of anything getting done anywhere ever. It's a
shame, then, that it's become a dirty word. Compromise is seen as weakness. "Compromising your principles" isn't just cowardly,
but immoral.
The fact is that if my side wants red and your side wants blue, we're probably going to wind up with some shade of
purple. And why does it make me weak to wind up with the reddest purple I can get, keeping the blue people as happy as I can,
and just moving forward?
Henry Clay thought that way. He was called The Great Compromiser, and is considered one of the greatest Senators
in American history. He brokered deals and kept everyone as happy as he could, and probably avoided Civil War in this country
on more than one occassion.
People don't think that way today. Today, people only "get things done" when they get their own way. To me, a real
leader would be someone who could bring people together, and not champion the left or the right.
Everyone vote for me.
|
