Replies

Some ground for compromise will have to be developed, but indices of consciousness isn't a good one. Let's look at the issue of abortion on demand as revolving around life support. If this is accepted as grounds for debate, then the issue becomes life support of what? A better indice would be the stage of development when all the basic attributes of the body are present, not all, just the basics, with beating heart and brain cells present, not consciousness, merely the brain in development. Why this stage?... Because we already use brain function as a proof when trying to decide whether to 'pull the plug'. Personally, I would that our society protect nascent life of the individual from implantation onward, but some compromise will have to be established until the society as a whole comes around to value individual human beings.

The brain begins to establish the hierarchy of cell development within the first two months, by differentiating tissue (brain cells are present within the first month from implantation, but establishing if a pregnancy exists is the snag for earlier bans). I would like to see a ban for all abortion past the first sixty days from implantation, except to save the life of the woman.

It will not be long at all before science develops the means to keep the little ones alive in artificial environs all the way back to the third month from implantation. Eventually, the entire process will be possible, from conception to 40 weeks. Now is the time to address these issues from a life support perspective. This perspective will also apply when addressing cloning issues, in order to stop ALL cloning of individual human life.

If we do not address this 'genie' of artificial life support now, through banning abortion on grounds of life support instead of a woman's right to privacy, then soon science will be cloning individual life, supporting that individual life, then arbitrarily harvesting the tissues from that cloned life.

What does abortion do? It kills an individual human life ... addressing 'how well developed an individual will be allowed for killing or protected by life support' is the way to end all abortion except to save a woman's life. Why? Because the people must accept that an individual life is present very early, before they will accept that such individual life is to be protected above selfish whim. The debate must follow a logical progression in order to reach the life-affirming end.

Wow, people on this board agree on tactics and that is good. Attacking Roe v wade head on is the way to energize NOW and eventually lose.

Making everyone realize its a life completely changes the dynamics of the debate.

Also life of the mother should remain a priority and we still need to deal with cases of rape and making people feel like their privacy is not violated.

But I want effitive action to stop aboritons, which I think are running at 1.5MM a year or so.

EFFECTIVE action can save lives now rather than the status quo.

Sensible pro-lifers don't mind taking it one step at a time. But the pro-life movement will never go away until the damage done by Roe v. Wade has been completely reversed. The sanctity of human life cannot be compromised.

The brain begins to establish the hierarchy of cell development within the first two months, by differentiating tissue (brain cells are present within the first month from implantation, but establishing if a pregnancy exists is the snag for earlier bans). I would like to see a ban for all abortion past the first sixty days from implantation, except to save the life of the woman.

Here are my thoughts... a prolife judge gets confirmed to the court. An abortion case is challenged, and Roe is overturned. Surprise number one to MANY people is that abortion isn't automatically illegal. (If we are worried about politics and elections, this can give us some wiggle room.) WE say to the people in all 50 states, now it's your choice. This takes the issue out of the Federal arena and we stop getting hammered on it during every freaking election.

Can all the different permutations (first trimester always legal, first trimester only for health of the mother, parental consent, etc) be put on the ballot? Let the people decide on the mores of their community. A few states (or counties, perhaps?) will have very restrictive laws, a few will have very liberal laws. Most, I think, will decide abortion on demand for the first trimester with some exceptions for mother's health, and maybe severe deformity of the baby.

And the battle, at this point, is mostly over and ceases to be much of an issue. I think both groups have to realize a few things. Pro-lifers have to accept that some accomodation for safe abortion will be with us for quite awhile. People don't want to put themselves in the position of dictating to others on this issue. How many women say they would never have an abortion themselves, but want it legal? Tons! Why? Because not knowing someone's life, their limitations, who am I to DEMAND she maintain a pregnancy? I'm not the one who has to live with those consequences.

I think the pro-aborts have to see that we will never agree to abortion on demand all the time for any reason at all. We will fight them to the end. And most people are somewhat "moderate" on this issue. If it is all or nothing, moderates will go with the pro-aborts out of fear of being controlled. If the choices are laid out, most people will elect to put some restrictions on it.

This is where the pro-aborts start to look really nutty and extreme. If they continue to fight, their goal is to kill more babies (clearly, if the community decided second trimester abortions are illegal, then these "products of abortion" are going to be seen and perceived as babies.) Pro-lifers who push beyond what "the people" think is a reasonable view, (perhaps outlawing first trimester abortions, although I think religion gives us some justification for our view and perhaps it's not viewed as so nutty. Definitely trying to ban things like birth control pills under the ideology that it aborts by preventing implantation of an embryo will be seen as nutty and extreme.) And both extremes will end up being ignored. Or one side or the other will so irritate the middle by agitating that they will push others to the opposite extreme.

In any case, I'd rather have this argued out on a local level.