Elementary logic for an American political issue.

Abortion. The whole issue pisses me off to no end, because every single position I've heard on the issue sucks. No one seems capable of forming a coherent position that stands up to even basic logic.

So here we go, folks. Time to educate some people. There really is only one decision to make regarding this issue, and everything else falls into place. Ask yourself, "When does a human's life begin?" There's ultimately three options:

1. Life begins at conception. In this view, a whatever-euphemism-you like becomes a human being at the moment of conception. The thing that amazes me most is how many people claim this reason to justify pro-life views, and then turn around and endorse what, by their own professed moral framework, is murder. For example, the idea that "Abortion should be banned except in cases of rape or incest." So human lives conceived of rape or incest have no value? I know people who were conceived of rape, is it legal to simply kill them now that they're outside a woman's womb? Because I don't see the distinction there. Same goes for incest. Likewise for "health of the mother" arguments; We're supposed to murder one human being due to an (as yet hypothetical) threat to another?

Another constant bit of cognitive dissonance is the unwillingness of people to address the consequences of such a decision. Let's consider a few here: Women who miscarry could be tried for, at the very least, neglect, child abuse, negligence or depraved indifference. Car accidents that cause a woman to miscarry become vehicular homicide/manslaughter cases. Obviously, abortion would have to be outlawed entirely, and with that, a drastic increase in unwanted children the various state DFACS agencies would have to absorb. Furthermore, a larger-than-normal percentage of such children would be at risk of FAS or similar disorders relatedness to the general unfitness of that mother to carry a child to term anyway. Sure, she can be tried for harming the child thus, but that doesn't change the fact that state DFACS agencies (which are already woefully inadequate) will have to handle a drastic increase not only in unwanted children, but in unhealthy ones at that. It's easy to insist on a federal-level abortion ban, and considerably harder to accept that the states won't be able to handle the obvious consequences, and we'll need a federal orphanage program.

2. Life begins at birth. If life doesn't begin until birth, then an unborn child/fetus/whatever you'd like to call it, has no rights at all, it is a total non-entity under the law. Thus there can be no ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, and so forth. The fetus has no legal standing at all and can be aborted up until labor begins. A woman would have absolute power to abort at will. If a woman is attacked and miscarries as a result, it is no greater a crime than if she hadn't been pregnant. No criminal penalties could be sought against women who abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant.

Obviously giving no special consideration at all to those who harm expectant mothers is a hard pill for some to swallow, as our general moral consensus (and biological/evolutionary imperatives) drive us to wish to protect pregnant females, particularly those of our own tribe. But if an unborn child is not alive, there is no crime in killing it (beyond the necessary trauma to the mother.)

3. Life begins at some other (usually ill-defined) point. Various other benchmarks for life have been proposed such as: quickening, the beginning of some manner of heart or brain function, or simple arbitrary points into the pregnancy. The problem with most of these standards is that they can only be determined post-mortem, making it impossible for people to know ahead of time if their actions would face criminal (or increased criminal) penalties.

Admittedly, some of those standards are possible to determine through other means. While various such standards would ameliorate the negative legal/societal problems with defining life as rigidly beginning at life or conception, the two main sides in the abortion debate in America both would be unsatisfied by such. Those who honestly believe life begins at conception would consider such an option truly no better than accepting that life begins at birth. Meanwhile those who (while often dodging actually making a moral judgement on the matter) believe a woman's right to an abortion is absolute would also be unwilling to accept such limitations. As well, such a compromise view appears wishy-washy to both sides as it makes no clear judgement.

Conclusion: I'm not even going to get into which of these I believe because ultimately I'm not complaining about any particular side, so much as the stupidity of all sides. This is just another case where logic is completely absent in the social discourse.