THE LUKE SKYFREEPER ABORTION DOCTRINE

Luke Skyfreeper (vanity) | June 6, 2003 | Luke Skyfreeper

[Luke Skyfreeper]

---

Years go by, and the abortion struggle rages on.

I would like to suggest that the following doctrine is a basis for an uneasy resolution to the political conflict; one that may eventually come to be accepted by all.

Abortion should be legal, but only up to a certain date. We need to define, as best as we can, when we are dealing with a human being.

The current definition of the law afford NO recognition that a developing child is a human being until the moment that child leaves his or her mother's womb. Anyone who pays the faintest attention to what we know through medical science can readily recognize that, at full term, this is far, far too late.

If a developing child is old enough to survive outside of the womb, even with medical assistance, then it's a human being. Obviously.

If the developing child is old enough to feel pain, regardless of whether or not an anesthetic is administered, then it is developed enough to be a human being, and destroying the said developing child must be illegal.

Practically, this means that for humane reasons, all abortions after a certain date (somewhere between 8 and 24 weeks) should be made illegal. This is only humane, and even 8 weeks would allow more than a month for decision making and getting an abortion appointment (although I suspect that a medical consensus would put the development of pain later than that).

The vast majority of abortions already take place before 24 weeks now. However, it is currently legal to destroy developing children at any stage of development, as long as at least part of the child is still inside the mother's body.

I believe this is the basis of the solution to the abortion problem. Part B is that accurate information must be provided to women considering an abortion. Potential adverse effects must be covered, and other options, including adoption, must be adequately presented. A waiting period may also be appropriate.

None of these takes away choice. The choice is still there whether to have a baby or have an abortion.

One can therefore be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time.

I also argue for use of the term "developing child" (which is intuitive, completely accurate and fully descriptive) rather than use of the term "fetus."

Political wars are won and lost on the choice of words.

---

[small_l_libertarian]

This has always been my stance, but I have been afraid to voice it here, for fear that it would be misinterpreted. Many, many kudos to you for your bravery.

My belief is that sometimes, a woman just doesn't have an acceptable choice other than abortion. It sucks, but, there it is. (If you require specific examples, just ask.)

However, there comes a point where you are undeniably dealing with a separate, viable human being. It is unacceptable to kill a viable human being (except in cases of self-defense, capital punishment, yada-yada). Unacceptable. Period.

I have had a child. I KNOW for certain that he was a human being PRIOR to the time he emerged from my body. He was a separate PERSON from me long prior to the time I gave birth to him. Regardless of the (absolutely incredible) intrauterine photos that are available today - you KNOW your baby is alive. It has moods, it has preferences, it sleeps, it cavorts. Hell, I KNEW he was a boy (I was absolutely certain, and correct), and I've only had one.

We cannot (as a civilized society) continue condoning the killing of what are obviously our children.

Abortion is ugly and awful, true. But I can understand that sometimes, an awful choice is the right one to make. But we do have to draw a clear line. We all (at the very least, mothers) know better, no matter what the feminazis say.

[MEGoody]

"there always has been, and probably always will be abortions."

Indeed, but in far fewer numbers when it was illegal.

[Poohbah]

There is the doctrine of competing harms. In most circumstances where the woman's life is in danger from a pregnancy, the child's life is in even greater danger, so that the most likely outcome is TWO dead. In that case, an abortion may prevent one death. That's a gain.

[dirtboy]

My belief is that sometimes, a woman just doesn't have an acceptable choice other than abortion. It sucks, but, there it is.

Yeah, and you know what, some times murder is just the only choice you have available. That rat fink is gonna turn you into the cops and if you want to stay out of jail you need to whack him.

There are many, many groups out there willing to help ANY woman who may be facing a difficult situation for her pregnancy. If she asks for it, she will get shelter, food, medical care and support.

Like I said earlier, our legislatures and courts see fit to force unwilling fathers to pay support for years and years, but not to force a woman to spend a few months bearing a fetus to term.

[Zavien Doombringer]

hmmm, well what do you say now... since there has only been one picture posted here :) (referring to yesterdays conversations)

[small_l_libertarian]

because advances in medicine will always be making that "viability" date earlier and earlier in pregnancy.

So be it. I agree with the original poster. Although we can't necessarily all agree on when "life" begins, we can surely all agree on when "viability" begins. If the "viability" time changes, it just means we're getting smarter, and pro-lifers get more of what they want, sooner. It's good for pro-life guys.

[Poohbah]

Looks like the Viking Kittens used their Navy SEAL-trained silent ZOT! technique on Post #90.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I hope it wasn't me that left a mess for mod to clean up!

[syriacus]

there always has been, and probably always will be abortions.

There always has been, and probably always will be spousal abuse.

But, luckily for the spouse who is abused, he or she can escape in one piece.. The fetus isn't so lucky.

[dirtboy]

we can surely all agree on when "viability" begins.

Define viability. A newborn or even a young child, for example, cannot subsist on its own but requires support. The law deems that a father can be forced to provide support until the child can support itself. Why would it be such an extreme variant from that view that a woman be required to bear a fetus to term?

[Alberta's Child]

If we are ever to protect the lives of fully developed young humans, those who are pro-life must first recognize that we cannot force the sizable portion of our society who believe a blastocyst to be "a mass of cells" to submit to the prohibition of early abortion. (And likewise, those who are pro-choice must accept that they cannot continue to destroy beings who are obviously human beings.

Bullsh!t. The law is no place for coddling people with erroneous expectations. If it were, then there are a number of people even here on FreeRepublic who would be slaves right now.

As for science, science reveals to us the continuum of development from a single cell to a human being fully capable of hearing, breathing, seeing, etc.

Take any human zygote comprised of 16 cells, or four cells, or one cell. Is it a human being, or not? If not, then what is it?

[Luke Skyfreeper]

An intelligent response.

If you're really serious about this one, you'd better move the time pointer back to the moment of conception. Even a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb, with assistance, for a time.

Yes, but only for a very short period of time.

There's a whole "intuitive factor" to this definition. Does it mean the developing child should be able to forage for its own food and own its own living? Certainly not -- infants and children are easily recognized by everyone as fully human, though they are dependent on their parents for many years. Does it mean the developing child, removed from the womb, is potentially capable of continuing to live, grow and achieve a normal lifespan? Yes.

Sensory input and response is also a poor proxy for definition of personhood. There are people alive today, recognized as fully human, who, because of brain injury, cannot experience pain. I was friends with a guy who was quadrupalegic, couldn't feel a thing from the neck down. Is he going to be classified as partly human, maybe four-fifths of a man? Or is it an all-or-nothing deal? Clearly the ability to receive and process sensory input is not a sufficient basis for assigning personhood.

Agreed. The standard I proposed is therefore different. In fact, you will notice that I excluded the use of anesthesia to dehumanize a developing child.

It is not the ability itself to receive and process sensory input, but being of sufficient maturity that, under normal circumstances (i.e., barring any disability to prevent it), such ability to feel pain should exist.

[Marie]

I agree with you completely. We are NOT going to win an all-or-nothing argument. Rather on focusing on winning the war in one fell swoop, we should take on the smaller battles that we can win. At the least, we would be making progress in the direction we want to go.

A ban on PBA is a great start. Banning third trimester abortions is possible. Banning second trimester abortions is a good third step.

[Protagoras]

Hard choices when someone's life is in danger are a terrible. But if the only abortions that ever happened were in real situations like that, there would be so few of them that it wouldn't be a public issue.

Contrast that with a "new" solution where a pro abortion poster picks an arbitrary date and assumes God's role.

This is real conservative stuff.

[biblewonk]

Answers like this show me how pointless this whole topic is.

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off.

[dirtboy]

Why don't you guys just stick to the topic instead of dragging out your attacks on the poster in question? It's clear to just about everyone else on this thread that the poster is here in good faith, and a fair number of long-time posters have agreed with his position, so it isn't completely out of line on FR (although I personally disagree with it).

[MEGoody]

"My belief is that sometimes, a woman just doesn't have an acceptable choice other than abortion. It sucks, but, there it is. (If you require specific examples, just ask.)"

I'm asking.

[small_l_libertarian]

Wow! That's a truly interesting proposition. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like that proposed before.

Although I am against abortion in principle, I cannot change my belief that sometimes, it is the only reasonable choice a woman can make. I know for certain that abortions will happen, whether they're legal or not.

I like your idea of doctors trying to preserve the life of the child - as medicine advances, their trying will become reality.

(Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I wanted to state that although I don't think abortion would go away if it were illegal, I am opposed to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds - I think the Supremes just made sh*t up in that ruling.)