I’m ignoring the slave reparation because it’s not relevant to the unborn baby discussion. I don’t see them as being linked except that they are on the same list of unusual/difficult cases that require special instructions.
As far as the “completely unsupported in history,” I’d be interested to hear historical examples that shed light on the original intent and on the understanding of the original readers/listeners. I have my doubts that there is anything recorded that will be helpful.
Back to your original post, “Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision.”
We never had any such agreement. Remember, Roe overturned an agreement of the people that abortion could only be done when it was medically required to save the life of the mother. Even that doesn’t necessarily place a lower value on the unborn, it merely recognizes that when the choice is two deaths or one, one is preferable.
Even if there had been such an agreement, advances in medical technology have given us much more insight into that alleged blob of tissue and the time of viability keeps getting earlier and earlier. Why would we feel obligated to hold to prior views that were faulty?
That said, what you wrote would be a huge step forward from where we are now. I might not like it personally, but politically I could live with it if the other side would (which there is no way in H-E-double-hockey-tick they would). I understand that our country is not a theocracy and our nation is not primarily Christians. A plan that would greatly reduce the number of abortions would be a great thing. Just don’t pretend there is biblical support for the limitations you want to accept, because I don’t see it
I’m ignoring the slave reparation because it’s not relevant to the unborn baby discussion.
***It is relevant. I described how it’s relevant. It appears that you simply don’t like where that leads, but that is immaterial. If you don’t want to acknowledge a simple truth that brings us to my simple approach then we run out of common ground.
We never had any such agreement.
***Where do I use the word “agreement”? You use it, and then you reinforce my point (knocking down your own) by saying that Roe v Wade overturned such an “agreement”. If “we never had any such agreement”, then how did Roe overturn such an agreement?
Why would we feel obligated to hold to prior views that were faulty?
***I said so in the original post. It became settled law, culturally accepted. Even Jews accepted abortion for ages due to the same conditions. I don’t see that such a settled cultural issue over multiple generations can be changed in the next couple of years, but my proposal could be implemented in a couple of years. Eventually, if my proposal were in place, then those advances in age of viability would be built into the protection offered to unborn children, and abortion would soon no longer be viewed as a culturally accepted form of birth control.