I began reading Slate and stumbled across an article by William Saletan. Mr. Saletan and I have gone round and round before over any number of topics, but recently he addressed a draft legislation that would outlaw any behaviors that were considered abortifaciant before or after implantation. This led me to read a bit of his book on google text titled Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won The Abortion War. I was torn as I read this--abortion is a dead topic, beat into the ground. I do what I can to keep watch on President Bush and the rest of the conservatives who would outlaw it, but I rarely debate it any more--what's the point?

As I began reading this I questioned that impulse, however. Had I stopped debating it because there was no point, or because I was no longer interested in thinking about it? If it was the second, that's a serious problem. More interesting, though, was a very interesting point Saletan brought up as he discussed conservatives vs. liberals. Specifically, conservatives don't want the government's interference at all and liberals want the government to protect the citizens. This manifested itself in Little Rock in 1957 when Eisenhower enforced the integration of schools. The white parents didn't care if blacks went to public schools with whites, they just wanted the right to deny blacks attendance to their school.

And this got me thinking--first of all, as a liberal, I absolutely do not want government interference in anything I do. More importantly, however, I don't want government restriction. Secondly, where does the government draw the lines of mediation? People want the right to segregate their schools. People want the right to deny abortions. People want the right to keep homosexuals from marrying. People want all sorts of rights, so how does the government decide which ones are worth granting, which ones are worth denying, and which ones are inalienable? And how do we, the people, decide to police the government?

The government does all sorts of things that are for our own good and I've never questioned them. I've yelled, and taught, and written about the Patriot Act and my fears of having laws passed for my own good, but I've never questioned the decision to integrate schools for our own good, to legalize abortion for our own good, to force equality amongst men and women or heterosexuals and homosexuals for our own good. And in the end a lot of these laws were passed while people were still deeply divided about them. But I don't have a problem with any of them because it doesn't seem like people should be allowed to discriminate.

But once you start deciding what people can and can't do how do you walk that line? Obviously in things like murder, rape, or burglary we pass laws to protect the victims, but what do we do to protect people from emotional pain, not just physical pain? Is abortion murder or is the debate about controlling women's bodies? Is homosexual marriage immoral or would legalization be forcing people to condone lifestyles they despise? When do we decide a belief needs to be checked and when do we let it fly free and dictate the lives of others? Prayer in school, marriage, abortion, teaching evolution vs. intelligent design--the list goes on and on.

Each side accuses the other of brainwashing. Both sides think they are absolutely right. I've discussed and argued that laws need to be passed based on ethicality not morality, but as I read this excerpt it occurred to me how little I had really thought about what that means. How do we decide what is ethical vs. unethical? When is it okay to stifle a behavior and when is it not? And even as I ask that I know there are behaviors I will fight to the death to stifle--discrimination, prejudice, control over another's body, inequality. People are able to believe these things even as they are able to believe anything; you cannot stop a person from believing something. But you can punish them for acting out a belief. And for me that is the great difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives don't care what you believe, they just don't want you to act it out and will pass laws to see that you don't. Liberals do care what you believe, but mostly they want the right to act as they will and fight for laws enabling them to act it out. If a law is passed that legalizes abortion, gay marriage, or integration, the conservatives see this as a threat to their autonomy. But no one speaks nearly enough about the autonomy of those that suffer to protect the status quo. If a law is passed that prevents a behavior that discriminates, forced prayer in school, In God We Trust, the teaching of evolution over intelligent design liberals are accused of brainwashing kids and forcing belief on them. Preventing the beliefs of others.

But you can't stop belief. The prevalence of racism shows that, all you can do is punish the acting out of it. And by stifling actions that promote one belief are we discriminating against that belief, or working towards an environment where all beliefs may be sustained in peace? I suppose that is the great question. And this all comes back to abortion because these are all behaviors--laws, pressures, attempts--to regulate actions for our own good. And so perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle as it does with everything, something that has to be decided with each individual law or choice.

And that's why I don't want laws telling me what I can or can't do, even as I want laws that prevent myself and others from dictating the choices and lifestyles of those around us. That's a bit of a slippery slope isn't it?