In terms of the way network television portrays the decision process with which a woman’s chooses to abort or carry to term, I don’t see where this is any different from the way the mainstream media represents any if not every, personal liberty. It hardly matters if the subject is drug legalization, gambling, prostitution, pornography, the free market or the right of a wage earner to keep what they earn. Mass media, in almost every instance, promotes government policy and downplays the autonomy of the citizen. It is foolish to expect conventional media outlets to perform any differently.

Even if the media takes a stand against abortion, there are now quality of life assessments to be considered. If a woman keeps her child as a single mother, does she possess the financial means, emotional maturity and parental skills with which to raise the child into adulthood? If she chooses to place the child in an orphanage or give it up for adoption, what consequences will this have on the youngster’s future as well as her own? I see nothing amiss in adding these real life conditions into the television dramatization. Similarly, I do not accept the notion that some ethical or moral values would be compromised by allowing for the mother to merely contemplate terminating the pregnancy. Almost 37 years ago, another CBS sit-com, “Maude” broke new ground by bringing the contentious abortion issue into prime-time view. Though Maude Findlay decided to have the abortion, it was not without much anguish, debate and soul-searching. The important thing for anti-abortion proponents in regards to this most recent network show, is that the mosther decided to keep her baby. As with any complex decision in life, the real part of the growth process is the path to the resolution.

Lastly, most viewers of television and film who watch a show from beginning to end seldom consider the broad brush that a creative license grants its owner. For those who seek accuracy and truth in dramatic productions on the small or large screen, let me suggest one word of caution to be inserted whenever opening titles promote the claim, “based on a true story”. The word is “loosely”.

Self-ownership develops in stages. We extend rights to those at lower stages so to allow them the chance to grow into actual self-owners.

But then, I do not believe that rights are natural. Not in any exact sense other than a highly nuanced one. So I don’t start with “what rights do we have?” but “what rights make most sense?”

This is where many libertarians leave my company. Natural rights arguments strike me as POINTERS to ideal relationships at best. They never provide knock-down reasons for anything, libertarian or otherwise.

Is it really a good idea that those of us at a more advanced stage of growth and development have the power to “draw a line” (as in via Roe v. Wade, etc.) on a particular point of a less advanced stage of growth and development of another, and say that, prior to this stage it’s okay to destroy this individual, but not okay to destroy the individual after that stage of development?

When does self-ownership actually begin? Does one’s self-ownership actually begin when others at a more advanced stage of life determine that for us?

If we have natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, when do those rights actually begin?

In a pregnancy, there are two separate individuals, each with a right of self-ownership, and right to life and liberty. There seems to be an extra responsibility of self control, if one doesn’t want to deal with another individual inhabiting one’s body.

But there are few people more annoying than folk who dogmatically support abortion as a human right . . . without ever really addressing the rights of babies. I want a good reason to draw the line somewhere — or at least acknowledge that drawing the line is difficult.

Elfman: If I’m going to spread my legs and endure cold hands and cold steel as well as hormonal shifts and a night of crying, I want to get something more out of it than blood, dead tissue and a whopping medical bill.

Then again, maybe not.

Just kidding, interesting and insightful post.