I've been holding off on writing this for a while, because i know this is a very divisive issue. On this topic, I think the entire public discussion is flawed. Pro choice and pro life are both extremes, but they also both have good points.

The current discussion is whether or not government should be involved in preventing abortion, or whether having government involved would violate someone's rights. After much thought and consideration to the arguments put forth by both sides, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a political issue, this is a social issue.

Consider this: If any person were asked if murder was wrong, they would likely say yes. If a murderer were to be put in front of a jury with appropriate evidence, this person should be convicted of the charge. This is in the hands of the jury - the society. In general, we do not have special rules for determining the guilt in a case of murder whether the victim was man or woman, 10 years of age or 90 years. Murder is murder. That may affect sentencing, but not the verdict.

So why do we fight over rules for whether or not abortion should be banned and treated like murder? Because unlike murder, where nearly everyone will say the act is wrong, society is divided. If the correct answer to the morality of abortion is either acceptable or reprehensible, then this is something that a society should be able to arrive at a consensus. Doing so will remove the necessity for government to pass additional laws, and will ensure that the common law will be all that is needed to examine each case.

Why not just create a law if I know my side is right?

All real crimes were already crimes before a single European set foot on this continent. They were crimes under the common law which took a practical approach to determine whether or not someone's rights had been violated or a person had been harmed. When a criminal justice system such as those we have in the united States becomes a farm for prisoners, they don't want to be concerned with lengthy trials. Instead they get more than 90% of their convictions through plea bargaining, which are often over non-violent or victimless crimes. They can do this because they have created so many laws that will make this process easier for them. You no longer have to violate someone to end up in prison, you just have to break a policy rule created by man to protect his interest. Sometimes those interests are financial or racist, and would not hold in a jury trial without specific instructions of unethical laws. These laws take the power away from the jury, and put all of the power of our criminal justice system in the hands of the government, against the will of the people.

Right now, a majority of American supports ending the drug war and decriminalizing cannabis. Yet it remains illegal. Why? Because legislators do not represent the will of the people. Expecting them to pass the proper laws on abortion when the country is even more divided, is a futile task. Instead, we should open ourselves to a real discussion about the issue that does not involve closing our ears and yelling our opinions at others. Even if we are right, the answer is not to throw the other half of the country in prison, and we can not hear each other if we are just yelling at each other. It's time to have a real discussion, and resolve this societal issue by consensus, not by legislation of a thin majority.

Follow me on soical media: