Abortion: Can there be a solution?

No other issue has divided more or polarized more than this issue of abortion. Now before we get into the solution that I believe could bring some healing, let me suggest that the issue of abortion is being framed by those that are in favor of its use as an issue of choice by a woman on how to exercise control over her body. This is where those that do not believe in its use are ham-strung from the very beginning.

Abortion is NOT about a woman's right to choose, but about extending protect to the most innocent of a society's population. Now do not begin to close your mind before you finish reading this entire idea. Abortion is not about the right to choose since that issue appears to have been already adjudicated in the legal arena by several successful murder convictions whereby one of the counts of first or second degree murder was assigned to the death of a "fetus" in cases where the pregnant woman was also murdered. It would seem to me that if you can be convicted of a murder of a fetus then that fetus has standing as a person in a society since once can not be convicted of murder of "tissue".

So if abortion is not about a woman's right to choose, what is? Let me again suggest that a woman's right to choose is about "if she gets pregnant" in the first place. STOP! I will deal with the side issues of rape and /or incest in a second. For now, assume that a pregnancy takes place outside the legal definitions of rape and/or incest. Does not the current societal thinking give the woman the right to say "NO" right up to the point of consummation? Have not men been convicted of rape for not stopping even after the woman has initially said "YES" and then changed her mind during the sexual process, and said "NO"? So, if that being true, then a woman's right to choose is if she completes the process by which she could get pregnant in the first place, not after the fact if she subsequently achieves that state of physical being.

We give woman the right to control their bodies, put men in jail for violating those wishes and controls, so the right to choose should be preventative not remedial. Now about rape and incest: we already have laws about these events, and I do not believe that the exception should frame the law on how a issue should be adjudicated. Rape and incest pregnancies should be handled on a case by case base when it comes to the question of abortion since clearly in these cases the woman's right to choose was taken from her.

OK. Let's get to the point of solving the divisiveness of the actual abortion issue, and there can be a solution given that in a democracy, there must be compromise on the part of its citizenry or the democracy soon spirals down into civil war as the US Civil War clearly illustrated. Those that favor the use of abortion believe that a woman has the right to this process because its her body, but if so then fetal murder could not be legally accepted which it has been shown to be. Second, those that oppose abortion believe that life begins at conception for which there is no religious or medical proof since any woman experience a miscarriage could then be charged with manslaughter: clearly a situation not desired by either side.

With those position laid out, what could a position solution be? Assuming that in a secular society that protects the practice of religious life by one of its most important founding documents: the first amendment of the Bill of Rights (yes, read the whole amendment, readers!), can there be a compromise that may be acceptable to most and conducive to unity? YES!

Here is the proposed solution: abortion is simply not allowed in any case once the fetal heart beat can be detected by modern medical practices (ultrasound, etc). In other words, since babies can and have survived birth defects of missing brains, spinal malformations, etc, no baby has been born that has survived without a heart or blood. Therefore, to take the abortion issue out of the religious or secular battle arena, we just simply have to agree that in those cases where a woman's right to choose was violated (rape and/or incest), abortion is only allowed prior to the existence of a fetal heart beat since this is definable, demonstrable event -- not given to interpretation or belief. There is either a fetal heart beat or these is not.

While this is not what the "life at conception" believers want nor is it what the pro-choice believe is correct, it most clearly defines in a society when a fetus becomes a citizen and is thus given protection under the law. Remember unless there is compromise, a democracy would soon become a dictatorship or worse, inviable political state.

This proposed solution that does remove the additional process whereby either side would be able to exercise their rights of education, advertising, or proffering their particular point of view to those to which the choice may have befallen.

Remember, you can not legislate morals, nor can you cloth an issue inside the confines of a false premise in order to get the original viewpoint or argument accepted.

Again, please keep your comment civil and on point. Tomorrow, I will offer a possible solution to the problem of legal immigrant, again from the viewpoint of systems engineer not a religious, or political perspective.

Enjoy life since the alternative is not very appealing it would seem. Good night.

OK, let's begin

Since the premise is that "America can be fixed" let's start with the most important issue that is facing our country: unity. We are a divided country with more and higher shrill rantings from both sides of the "isle" to coin a phrase. The country is about evenly divided on issues such as the Iraq war, taxes, abortion, God in public life, gay marriage, etc.

Now the founding fathers never imagined that the constitution would be such a divisive document, and for the most part they were correct. The divisiveness comes from the fact that most citizens do not feel that they have control over their government, and therefore, can not effect changes. The founding fathers tried to limit the federal government by 2 means: strict delineation of powers -- that being only 3 listed in the constitution, and second, by severely limiting the revenues that the federal government could collect and fund its operations.

Now, as the enlightened public we are today, the US citizenry has allowed both these controls to be slowly altered through the slow passage of time. First, we did not object to the institution of the federal bureaucracy whereby Congress passed on their legislative control to the bureaucracy's rule making control: Department of Education, OSHA, FEMA, FCC, FAA, etc (to name just a few). With the growth of the federal bureaucracy, the public lost control of their government's involvement into their lives and businesses, and this is clearly in violation of the 10th amendment. Secondly, with the passage of the now extremely important 16th amendment (establishment of an income tax), the people allowed the growing federal government to tax their citizenry's incomes without direct control of the amount or disposition of funds collected.

These 2 very important changes that the founding fathers' never envisioned has finally grown to the point where they are the crux of apex that now divides our country. Let me see if I can explain my point: since people don't feel they can effect control of their government since they can't control the revenue of the government since controlling a public entity is only effectively controlled by controlling its purse strings. This point the founding fathers knew very well.

Thus, we have become divided in that we try to force laws that will ultimately try to enforce our views or beliefs on the rest of the US citizenry when this is clearly not conducive to unity. Therefore, let me suggest the quickest way around this problem:

1. Give control of the purse strings (on a macro-level) back to the citizenry by imposition of 2 changes: a) forced balancing of the federal budget, b) giving the citizenry the right to allocate 75% of the taxes to particular federal operations: social programs, defense, education, etc. The remaining 25% of the taxes goes into a general fund.
2. Effect term limits on Congress and Judges to reduce the desire to become "career politicos": Congressional limits like Presidential limits should be 12 years in the House, and 12 years in the Senate with the House seats changed from 2 to 4 years terms to reduced time spent campaigning.
3. Complete and open transparency of public campaign financing: no limits on how much anyone person can give to any candidate or incumbent, but such funding must be openly and timely listed on the politician's web site so that anyone can determines clearly and easily where the politician derived his/her funding. In addition, all legislation favoring such donors must be clearly marked for public information.

These changes will begin the process of return the control of the government to the people, and will most likely reduce the feeling that "I am funding via my taxes" operations that are against my beliefs since each citizen will be able to fund only those operations in which they believe. The federal government will have to operate within those wishes of the governed.

This is a good place to begin this discussion of "fixing America". Please feel free to offer your comments, suggestions, opinions in a civil manner. As a systems engineer, I am interested in only solving problems, not the politics that have come to destroy the unity this country once was known for around the world.

America has problems, but not such that we can not solve them if we are willing to do the hard work and have the civil discussions.

Tomorrow, I will offer a civil solution to the very difficult issue of abortion or pro-choice/pro-life as it has become to be known.