“Anybody who values life like I do, and is pro-life, recognizes that the way you change minds is not you yell at people”

As I was typing the title to this post, I had to stop and think.  Abortion is one of the few topics that is difficult to talk about no matter what side of the fence you’re on.  OK, maybe not for people like this woman, but for those of us that value the feelings and beliefs of our neighbors next to us it is.  To say the issue of abortion is polarizing would be the understatement of the century.  It seems that siding pro-life or pro-choice isn’t enough.  Demonizing the opposition comes with the territory.

So, where is the middle ground?

The truth is that both sides are right to an extent.  This is what boggles my mind about the electorate and especially our elected officials on hot button issues like abortion, gay rights and immigration.  I need to preface this by saying that I am certainly pro-choice, but what I am about to say is largely independent of that belief.

I can sympathize with the pro-life crowd, and I can even defend their position!  There is sound logic to both sides of this argument.  Saying anything less would be lunacy no matter what you believe.  I’ll use cliches because they serve this argument so well:

Pro-life: A young teenage couple comes to the realization that the female is pregnant.  They are unable to support a child in the way they would like to and both parties fear the scorn that having a child might bring from friends and family members.  They decide to seek an abortion.
Argument: First of all, it isn’t your right to kill a living thing.  Second, there is some family out there that would gladly adopt your child.  Third and possibly most importantly, this era of ducking responsibility on a choice as sacred as the choice to have sex is both bad for our children and bad for the children they may have borne.  It lends itself to premarital sex and a lack of accountability.

Pro-choice: A young couple is excited to have their first child.  Upon a visit to the doctor, they are told that the child has only a 20% chance of survival after birth.  The expected defects could leave him or her horribly deformed.
Argument: This is an event that could traumatize this young family for years to come.  The final months of the pregnancy term would be full of sleepless nights and worry for all parties involved, including extended families.  Nobody should tell someone in this position what they can or can’t do in relation to their family.

These juxtapositions have been used for decades to argue for and against legal abortion in the US.  I’m using them to say that both are valid arguments and neither is wrong, persay.  They both warrant merit.  Dammit.

The abortion issue has always been one that split the electorate pretty evenly, but what does that mean when it comes to enforcing the law?  This is when I want to start beating my head against the desk.  I am going to operate under a couple of commonly-accepted assumptions here.  There are exceptions to these rules, to be sure, but for the most part I’ll stand behind these assertions.  OK, bear with me…

1. Conservatives generally are more apt to be pro-life than liberals
2. Conservatives generally want a smaller federal government than liberals

Empowering the federal government to ban abortion (which has already been deemed legal by the Supreme Court) is a federalist move.  Conservatives are anti-federalist by their own design… or are they?  Using the federal government as a conduit to impose conservative values on the electorate is like Mark Sanford doing a PSA about the dangers of adultury.  Its pure madness.

My idea of a solution?  Make a move back to anti-federalist ideals.  Put the power in the hands of the states.  There is an intrinsic problem with this solution right now because so many state governments are defunct, mismanaged and impotent.  However, placing more governing responsibility on the states would promote an entirely new foray into civic leadership from the local level, and it would allow people with all sorts of beliefs to find a home here in the United States.  On the subject of abortion, this is largely how the system already works.  Should someone be able to leave their state to get an abortion if they live in a pro-life state?  No, because their tax dollars paid for a different frame of mind.  However, as an American I should have the choice to live in an environment of my choosing.  If I support strict gun control, am pro-choice and believe homosexuals should be able to marry, there should be a state in the union for me, and it shouldn’t piss you off if I choose to be around like-minded individuals.  These are decisions that split the electorate.  There is no grand consensus, so let the system support coexistence.

Why does one party always have to be right?