Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice, the battle lines are again being drawn subsequent the legislative ban on abortion in Alabama.

Elizabeth Warren is seeking to have the battle litigated in the political arena. Trump has weighed in after the fact in his often chosen manner by tweeting …

As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions – Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother – the same position taken by Ronald Reagan.

This debate appears very likely to drive much of the political rhetoric for the 2020 presidential election.

It’s an important issue and sometimes the best way to determine where the line should be drawn is often by identifying that for which everyone can agree. Perhaps the best way is by looking to China.

Last century, China found that it had an overpopulation problem. The country’s solution was to create a one child policy. Now China is attempting to contend with the negative knock-on effects of that decision.

But, it would be extremely hazardous to fail to take a moment to explore what China had to do in order to pursue its one child policy in to place.

To enforce the policy, women were forced to not just forced to use contraceptives in an attempt to prevent the necessity of abortions, they received forced sterilizations.

As someone who has lived in China and had occasion to see the state of its medical facilities, one thing is patently clear. Sterilization techniques – not of women – but rather of bacteria are a far cry from Western standards.

And for anyone else who who has witnessed the rows and rows of baby’s who are being cured of their colds by means of an IV-drip to the forehead, one can only imagine that the process of sterilization was placed on the human equivalent of a factory floor.

How about the doctors that performed these surgeries? I was acquainted with one woman whose medical education was pressed to state use as an abortionist.

Is that the reason why she secured her medical training? Hell no. But, when not only your livelihood, but your life is threatened if you won’t play the game, rare are those that decide to buck the system.

For folks in Seattle who are interested in gaining more insight into all of this, consider going to a SIFF screening on May 27 or 28 of One Child Nation. See [HERE].

What does this have to do with identifying a ways of mediation a breakthrough on this subject?

Well, it seems patently clear that both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides of the debate would ever consider state forced abortions a worthwhile plan.

What about the opposite extreme? Say America found itself in the predicament where we needed more children.

Disgustingly, this was another one of the tricks the master-race miscreant Hitler established. See [HERE].

It’s pretty clear that state forced sterility and state forced fertility are out of the question.

So where then should the acceptable middle line be drawn?

Here’s where if both sides were actually willing to talk to as well as listen to each other, we might be able to come to have a robust conversation and in doing so come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable.

Instead of the government forcing people one way or another, perhaps the government can instead consider incentives.

As it is currently framed at bedrock, the abortion debate comes down to who has control to decide. Is it the government (which is generally male dominated) or the individual woman who has to care for the infant?

Is this framing consistent with the underlying interests of those affected by where the line should be drawn.

Do stakeholders extend beyond the mother and the unborn infant? Though likely rare, is there ever a situation in which a father wants to keep the child? How about the grandparents on either side of the matrilineal/patrilineal  divide?

Instead of using the debate as a means of seeking to dictate some ideal level of sexual responsibility, what new programs do those on the Pro-Life side intend to put in place to be able to take care of unwanted children … if any?

The equation that having children is a big responsibility, ergo risking the possibility of taking on that responsibility by engaging in sexual relations may prevent some but certainly not all from entertaining that risk.

A Pro-Life nation simply is not going to make that fact go away. And if states have the ability to legislate as they will one way or another, you know that it is not going to take long before a Pro-Life state legislates that it is illegal to take an unborn child conceived within its jurisdiction to another state where it is aborted.

So, when that happens how is the baby to be protected? It’s a damn tough decision. One for which moralizing simply isn’t going to provide proper resolve.

But, this is a decision for any mother which should never be undertaken lightly. The debate is framed in stark black and white contrast in aggregates. Perhaps instead the nuances need to be clarified to the frightened mother and those who are willing to put their money where their mouth is and care for her and her child.

Perhaps if the debate was structured more caringly in that way, both sides would be willing to acknowledge that the other has some legitimate concerns and a fruitful discussion could ensue.

Instead, we will likely watch a fight at the current scrimmage line for many years to come. Both sides of the debate will see the other as being inhumane. The fact of the matter though is that both sides are right AND both sides are wrong.

The challenge as in all conversations seeking truth is to find to greatest extent an answer which blends the positive aspects of both sides of the debate and dismisses the negative.

Amazingly forced sterility has been ratified by the Supreme Court in the case of Buck v. Bell. See [HERE].

My attempt to raise concern about this case drew umbrage both by someone on the far right who apparently idolized its author, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and those on the far left who in knee-jerk fashion apparently concluded that I was keen on eugenics. See [HERE].

It’s precisely for the reason that people fail to think and just willingly line up on one side of a battle or the other by means of habit that we fail to come to solutions.

How much longer will this need to occur in the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice debate? I’m not expecting it to cease in 2020, 2024, or 2028 … unless we come to understand how to again engage in constructive conversation.

And with our country’s current leadership how likely is that to occur?

Photo Credit: