Written by: James Marlin, Senior Level Executive Contributor
Executive Contributors at Brainz Magazine are handpicked and invited to contribute because of their knowledge and valuable insight within their area of expertise.
Imagine my surprise when I heard that…from him. Honestly, are we all buried so deep into our own echo chambers we don’t even hear it when the single most divisive politician of the modern era is calling for both sides to come together to find a solution? I do not agree with much of anything that Donald Trump has to say, but I have to agree with those specific statements.
“Let me just tell you what I’d do. I’m going to come together with all groups, and we’re going to have something that’s acceptable.” – Donald Trump
“I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something, and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years.” – Donald Trump
With the recent Supreme Court ruling, overturning Roe v. Wade, it is impossible to escape the topic of abortion these days. With voices on either side of this argument growing louder and more adamant, it is becoming hard to find a way through this schismatic topic. But as with any divisive subject, the best way to find a way through is to first meet in the middle.
Are those who will follow this man anywhere willing to follow him to the middle?
Ah, the middle. Home of listening, negotiation, collaboration and compromise. It is also the birthplace of understanding. These days, people consider these ideas more blasphemous than the act of abortion itself.
But it is time for this country to face the facts. This “my way or the highway” all or nothing, “I’m right, you’re wrong” mentality is no way to govern. And we can see how dysfunctional that way of thinking is playing out. And yet somehow we do not think it applies to us about what we believe.
Regardless of what side you are on, your rigidity and unwillingness to budge makes our society fractious, brittle and easily broken. As the world faces uncertain times, it is crucial that the United States actually unites and addresses these issues to bring stability.
So where is the middle of this issue? It is my intention in this article to point that out. First, let’s frame it by looking at the extreme ends of the matter.
On one extreme, you have a total ban. No exceptions.
And the opposite end of that is…mandatory abortions. This may sound made up for the sake of argument, but was implemented by China from 1979 to 2015. This resulted in the termination of millions of “illegal” pregnancies.
When we take a step back and look at these extreme ends, it becomes apparent that the middle ground here is choice. Those who feel abortions are unacceptable, for whatever reason, are not forced to have one. And those who do not wish to raise a child, for whatever reason, are not forced to have one. Both sides' rights, liberties and freedoms are intact.
I am pro-choice. That does not mean I am pro-abortion.
What pro-choice means to me is that, if my wife and I are faced with that decision, we are the ones who have the authority to make it, and no one else does. It also means that when another citizen (whom I do not know) faces that decision (which does not affect me or my life) they can make that decision (without me ever knowing anything about it) and deal with the consequences of that decision on their own.
I believe things that have nothing to do with me and never will do not require my oversight. For the women facing this decision, this is not a political issue, this is not a religious issue, it is a personal issue. And this does not warrant oversight from others who are not involved. If you claim to be “anti-big government” then please pay attention. There is no bigger government than one that decides what you can and cannot do with your own body and life.
Speaking of rights and liberties, this is a good time to finish framing things correctly. The United States of America is defined as a constitutional republic. This means that the constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and no laws made on the state or federal level can contradict it. This is important, as the vast majority of arguments against abortion are based on religious grounds.
The 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution states that everyone in the U.S. has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. The keyword here is practice.This puts your religious beliefs, regardless of what they are, in the category of a lifestyle choice. But the last phrase is no throw away.
You are free to choose which religion to style your life around, if any. The rules your religion requires you to adhere to do not apply to anyone who did not choose that religion. And to those who choose no religion. Our constitution protects this.
The 1st amendment was largely based on the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson in 1786. It is in this where Jefferson points out the need for a “wall of separation” between the church and state.
The importance of this wall should be apparent. Most religions are authoritarian by nature. You have “God” on top with his prophets/lieutenants underneath, interpreting his word and directing the rest of us according to their interpretation.
If a particular religion becomes the rule of law, we cease to be a constitutional republic. We cease to be a democracy. Although our money says, “In God We Trust” it does not say, “With God We Rule.”
An article in TIME from 2018 written by James Lankford, a republican senator from Oklahoma, and Russell Moore the President of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission furthers this point by saying, “When religion is used for political purposes, it empties religion of its eternal meaning and becomes just one more cynical method of acquiring power.”
They continue to point out, "In the recent Trinity Lutheran case, the Court held that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion." One could argue that prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a safe and legal abortion was a generally available benefit to all citizens.
If you want to see how religious beliefs interfere with government operations, then look no further than the most recent military holds being implemented by Sen. Tuberville. This man’s religious convictions are keeping hundreds of high-ranking military personnel from doing their jobs. This weakens our defenses and our ability to aid our allies.
For travel expense reimbursement. This is why the separation is needed.
If you believe that your religion of choice has rules that supersede that of the constitution and that your lifestyle choice is above the “supreme law of the land” you are approaching zealot status.
We can characterize zealots as individuals who use their religion to pursue a political agenda. They are fanatical and uncompromising. They have a very strong opinion and try to force others to have the same opinion. Either way, the constitution allows for them to have their opinions and beliefs and to fashion their lives in accordance with those, as long as it does not impede on other citizens’ rights and freedoms, a.k.a. Liberty.
Look at some examples of nations governed by religion. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and Pakistan, just to name a few. And now look at some of your main grievances with these countries.
They restrict and take away the rights and freedoms of their citizens, most notably women. i.e. reproductive rights.
They also restrict and take away access to information that runs counter to their religious beliefs. i.e. book banning.
Of the three major religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there are so many denominations, sects and variants of each. To use something so epically convoluted to design laws for all of us to adhere to is irresponsible at best, and disastrous at worst.
So now we can see why religious arguments cannot be the basis of our decision. You are free to believe and live your life according to those principles. You are free to have as many children as you want. You are free to never know the anguish of having to make that decision.
And remember, if you believe that we all have a soul, then you believe it is everlasting. Therefore, according to your belief, destroying the physical form does not extinguish the soul.
So where do we go from here?
Now we face another element of this issue, the mother’s rights vs. the rights of the unborn. Again, once we identify the extremes of this argument, the middle becomes clear.
On one extreme, the mother has no rights or privileges. They prohibit her from using contraception or birth control, (which reduces the need for abortions). She must complete the pregnancy regardless of her own life and safety. After the baby is born, if she survives, she will receive no benefits or help from the government for child care.
On the other hand, the unborn child has no rights. The mother can terminate the pregnancy at any point up to the moment of birth. And contrary to what some are saying, NO ONE is advocating terminating a pregnancy “after birth.”
Neither of these options fit in a just society. So what would be the middle?
I would argue that the stages of development of the fetus hold the key to finding the middle of this. The moment the rights of this birth move from the mother to the unborn child are when the child can survive outside of the womb and not before. This is known as “viability.” This is typically at around 24 weeks. Before that, if the child is born its chances of survival are almost nil.
According to an article by Krissi Danielsson at VeryWellFamily.com, “In the hands of experienced specialists in state-of-the-art NICUs, babies born slightly earlier than 24 weeks may have a chance at survival. But unfortunately, that chance is slim, and outcomes for those who do survive are not optimal.”
The reason I would place the mother’s rights before the fetus’s (before it can survive on its own) is, quite frankly, because she was here first. If you are “pro-life” she has dibs. She is alive. She has been alive. In some people’s rush to righteousness and overt concern for an unborn fetus, they fail to see the life right in front of them.
Once the fetus can survive without her, its rights are now more valued because it cannot speak for itself. Once it can sustain its own life, then that life belongs to it.
This gives the mother 24 weeks. First, to find out she is pregnant. The idea of a 6 week ban is unrealistic at best because it is not immediately known if the mother is pregnant. Then she has some time to have those hard discussions and face some hard facts. Until then, the mother is still creating this life and the decision to complete that belongs to her. This keeps her in control of her life until the fetus can maintain its life. That is pro-life for both of them.
All that being said, abortion should always be an option when the life of either is in danger. Today, many doctors in many states would force a woman to carry a baby that has no heartbeat until she becomes septic and her life is in danger “just in case” the baby might survive. Or that it had a heartbeat and we didn’t hear it. If we do care for the life of these women, we can’t force these doctors to wait until they are dying before they can do their jobs.
To be clear, I will never choose the life of an unborn child over that of my wife. To put families in this position with no way out is cruel. Again, choice works best here because life is not one size fits all and is not always obedient to your beliefs. Even those with conservative beliefs have made the difficult choice to have an abortion.
Another sticky issue this raises is whether or not states should allow women to travel to states that permit abortions if they reside in a state that does not. Should they face charges when they return home? States who are trying to push for this seem to invoke the 1857 Dred Scott decision which is notoriously one of the worst decisions in US history. The decision that allowed slave owners to still own their slaves even if they were in a free state.
For comparison, if you live in a state where gambling is illegal and you take a weekend trip to Vegas, are you facing charges when you return home? If you and some co-workers pitch in and drive across state lines to buy a bunch of Powerball tickets, will you be arrested when you come back? This is a slippery slope that would create more division between the states. This is not a characteristic of a “United” States.
An article from the Associated Press on April 10th, 2023 had this to say from a conservative stalwart, “In his concurring opinion in last year’s ruling overturning Roe, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh contemplated whether states could restrict their residents from getting abortions in other states: “In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel,” he wrote.”
The reason choice is the middle is because it allows both sides to have what they want. Those of you fighting to make abortion illegal are not the ones who will get them anyway. That is your choice and you have it to make. And if you think that this matter affects you when someone else decides to get an abortion, think again.
From 1979 to 2015 which one of those millions of Chinese abortions affected your life? Which one ruined your birthday or Christmas or vacation? I would argue none did. Yet the lives of those women and their families were deeply affected. I have yet to speak with a woman who has had an abortion and she remembered it fondly. In fact, for a lot of these women, it is quite traumatic. We should not force anyone to have a baby they don't want, and we should not force anyone to terminate a baby they do want.
Another conservative leader pointed to this as well when Nikki Haley said in a recent interview, “As much as I am pro-life, I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice, and I don’t want them to judge me for being pro-life. Let’s find consensus. We don’t need to divide America over this issue anymore.”
I could not agree more. Pro-lifers need to realize that the ability to be pro-life lives within your choice.
In my research for this piece I wanted to look into some other long-term life-altering decisions we face and check for comparisons. So I asked AI, “What are some examples of long-term life-altering decisions people have to make?” and its response ranged from buying a house, moving to another city/state/country, marriage, to starting a family. But its conclusion stuck with me.
It ended its answer by saying this, “Making life-altering decisions can be challenging, and it is important to approach them with careful consideration. It is helpful to seek advice from trusted friends and family members, and to consider the potential long-term consequences of each option. Ultimately, the decision should be based on what is best for you and your unique situation.”
Even a lifeless algorithm can tell you, this decision is personal and belongs to the individual. It’s not about who you vote for, or who you worship. It’s about what is going on in your life at that time. You can seek advice from trusted friends and family members but, it truly does not involve any one else.
James Marlin, Senior Level Executive Contributor Brainz Magazine
James Marlin is a professional questioner, storyteller, dad, and husband with a passion for investigating. He works to distill complex findings into actionable and relatable information through his written articles and keynote talks. Having battled and overcome addiction, James firmly believes in the power of change. In the last five years, James has dedicated himself to investigating our beliefs, emotions, the conscious and subconscious minds, addiction, ADHD, mental illness, and the impact of technology on society. James is enrolled in a Modern Journalism course with NYU in partnership with Rolling Stone Magazine. Alongside his studies, he works as an investigator in the city of New York.
