An Unpopular Topic

It has been a long time since I even thought about discussing the issue of abortion with anyone. The last time was probably in college when I was told by my then-girlfriend that because I was a man, I didn’t deserve to have an opinion. She said this before I even had a chance to tell her what my opinion was.

Anyway, quite recently, in the course of discussing the Presidential campaign, I witnessed reasonable people arguing the merits of the abortion issue. It was strange. Out of habit I declined to participate in the discussion. One side argued a woman’s right to privacy and the ability to determine what happens with her body. The other side argued the preciousness of life and a moral duty handed down from a higher power.

Both arguments have compelling points that can be made, which is why the topic seems so pointless to discuss. I am not going to tell you my opinion on the matter, either – that would be equally pointless. But as I listened to the argument (actually, as I read – it was on an internet message board), it occurred to me that the anti-abortion activists have taken the wrong approach if they truly want to change laws. If they really want abortion to go away (which is debatable, since this is a great wedge issue for conservatives) here is a two step plan for what they should do:

1. Drop the religious overtones to the argument. The problem is that your God is not necessarily my God and why should what your God says govern the way that I live my life? This is probably a tough one to swallow, since many anti-abortionists believe their cause is mandated by God. But a better angle would be to pursue the cause from a social contract point of view, or better yet: a constitutional view. Everyone in this country is bound by the constitution, so if your argument is couched in those terms it is more applicable to the general population.

2. Embrace Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortionists have spend the last thirty-five years working to get Roe v. Wade overturned, but it is a well written and well reasoned opinion. Have you actually read it? It is right here: http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/. Even better for anti-abortionists, it has the tools that you need to chip away at abortion and (eventually perhaps) eliminate it almost completely.

Roe v. Wade states unequivocally that the State has a compelling interest in protecting a fetus after it has become viable. That should be the strongest point in any anti-abortion argument. In fact, Roe v. Wade specifically allows a state to prohibit abortion (except to protect a woman’s life or health) after viability. According to Roe v. Wade, viability occurs at about 28 weeks into the pregnancy and as early as 24 weeks. Of course, Roe v. Wade was written thirty five years ago. I’m no expert, but I have to believe that medical advances over the last thirty five years ago have to have made viability occur earlier in a pregnancy. If not, perhaps that is where anti-abortionists should spend their money: on medical advances that would lead to earlier viability.

No matter what you believe in the abortion argument, there is always a line to be drawn. The line determines at what time the fetus/child has its own set of rights under the constitution. Some would argue that the line should be drawn at birth, others say at conception. The court in Roe v. Wade drew the line at viability. It seems to me that the best way to reduce abortions would be to accept this line and then work on having viability be declared to be earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. (By the way, Wikipedia has this to say about the current state of fetus viability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability)

Stealing Jeff Kay's Topics (and paraphrasing him for my title, too)

Jeff Kay asked his commenters on the West Virginia Surf Report if they had ever been accused of something when they were totally innocent. Here is my story:

After my first year of college I went back home and got a job at the local movie theater. I did just about everything for the theater, from selling popcorn and other snacks to picking up trash in the theaters after the movies ended. I had worked at a movie theater all through high school, so I knew my way around a popcorn kettle.

Anyway, one Saturday afternoon I reported for work in the afternoon and was called into the manager's office. Inside was the manager and two douchebags in suits. It turns out that one was a regional manager and the other was from the "home office" in Denver. They asked me if I remembered working on a certain day, which, of course, I didn't. Then they asked me about working with a certain girl who sold tickets in the box office. Again I didn't have any recollection of the shift. Finally they abandoned their FBI questioning tactics and got to the point.

It turns out that a mystery shopper had come in during one of my shifts. This particular shift I was working as a ticket taker. The mystery shopper wrote in his report that he had paid for two tickets and handed them to me to tear, but I only handed him one stub back.

The douchebags asked if I could explain that. I told them that I could not. There could be a hundred explanations for that happening and, since I couldn't remember that particular shift or any of the particulars of that situation, I had no idea what the explanation might be. Their theory was that I pocketed one of the stubs and then gave it to the box office girl, who issued a refund and then she and I split the money. I almost laughed in their faces. Tickets at that time cost $5.25*. I told them that I had not taken part in this elaborate scheme and asked if there had been a rash of refunds issued lately. They sheepishly agreed that there had not.

*How much do you think it cost the company to send those two assclowns to North Kansas City to investigate this conspiracy?

I was allowed to go back to work, but I was told that under no circumstances was I to work as a ticket taker any more. Everyone I worked with thought that it was hilarious, especially since all the good scams involved the concession stands anyway...