Opinion

Separation: something the children haven’t quite accepted, yet.

Abortion, a medical procedure to end an unwanted birth – by virtue of personal preference or due to medical opinion, has taken center stage after several states have augmented their legislative understanding to nearly ‘outlaw’ the procedure. What was once ‘settle law’ is facing a surge of ‘crafty’ opposition, and advocates are lining up to fight a battle they thought was long won – Human Rights vs ‘Moral Good’.

Let’s face it, the battle is betwixt the interpretations of ‘Human Rights’ from the dawn of society and the interpretations that have been argued and earned lo’ these last three-hundred years. The mechanisms at play pit similar philosophies against one another by alienating one from the other through simple, yet clever, contextual cues – “we are for the innocent children who have a right to life” vs “we are the innocent who, too, have a right to life and to decide how their life will be led”. Essentially, this is the core of each compassionate appeal.

I mean, they both advocate for human life – the ‘against’ group’s roots can be found in place when life was terribly harsh; when the tragic loss young life was shockingly common. They couldn’t fathom the ‘why’ others felt upon learning of their pregnancy…whereas, the ‘for’ group can find their roots in the hard-fought social evolution throughout the last three hundred years. Through the virtues of technology and debated philosophy, their aims have advanced women in society – to nearly that of a man. And now, as we venture forward into amazing times, we find ourselves dusting off debates long-settled and dive deeply into their dichotomy.

First, let us examine rationality. I mean, you should always begin the search for great answers to great questions by examining the rationale. Does life have a right to life? When does ‘life’ become life? Does the emergence of life within life supersede the right of a host? Sounds really cold, no? Yes see, this is where the first divide occurs – the disagreement on what each entity is to be called. The ‘Pro-Life’ side views these medically frigid definitions as a foreign tongue…and not-at-all an impartial arbiter.

So, if not these, what words best describe the relationship between the woman and what/who she carries – and when ‘what’ becomes ‘who’? Again, the rationale…the definition matter…and the interpretation requires an immense amount of careful thought. I mean, you could argue that these things have been argued at great length, and you’d be right. Forty-six years ago the greatest legal minds in our nation sat down to hear the case for and against. They ruled that a woman had a fundamental, constitutionally valid right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and would be protected from irrational restriction.

We’ve long crossed the Rubicon, so to speak, and ‘going back’ simply isn’t an option for society. So, how do we reconcile the divide between these two neighboring philosophies? Sadly, someone’s feelings will have to be hurt in the fray…some will be offended…and their irrationality regarding the separation of ‘Church and State’ will manifest itself in blindly predictable voting blocks – ones that dismiss the ills of those who pledge to represent this irrationality in legislative form. We will be more divided than ever, but like the divisions of old…these too shall pass.

Education is the foundation. Don’t just champion Decartes, Joyce Mitchell Cook Ph.D deserves your attention…and her proximity to the world you inhabit is likely to give you a perspective you hadn’t acknowledged before – antiquity isn’t the sole measure for the value of something. Give EVERYONE a gander, learn to read and absorb the words therein to extract a worthy meaning. Don’t simply wander about the pages for multi-choice meaning – dive as deep as humanly possible. If we learn about women, well, we’ll likely learn to view them as humans…ones deserving of their own voice in their choice.

Again, before you rebut me, please sheath purely religious perspectives – unless you’d like to debate the separation of church & state.

‘Separation’: the division of something into constituent or distinct elements. The Church, when channeled honorably, serves the soul….and The State, when channeled by the honorable, serves the person. We mustn’t ever forget this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: