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.

---

[syriacus]

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that mothers will always make the choice.

You're absolutely right.

And the mere fact that people can and do take a certain action doesn't mean that particular action should be lagalized.

[biblewonk]

he said:let's see if we can declare Jews, Slavs, Christians, Muslims, Aborigines or women as something less than human when it suits our needs.

Why not just say, "that sounds like something Hitler would say?". It shows you are debating with someone that has no interest in debating.

[biblewonk]

The fact that people stoop to that tactic so quickly and think themselves on the moral highground shows this whole topic to be hopelessly emotional.

[MEGoody]

"For those that are in jeopardy, yes."

As long as abortion is legal, all babies are in jeopardy.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I notice you ignored this question. What is it on the 56th day? A frog? A hamster?

I didn't ignore it, I just hadn't had time to answer it yet. See my post #78, which I posted one minute after the post from you that I'm answering here. :-)

[stuartcr]

No, but it does mean that it has, and probably will continue, to happen.

[dirtboy]

Why not just say, "that sounds like something Hitler would say?". It shows you are debating with someone that has no interest in debating.

That's the entire point - that the language used to dehumanize a fetus has a similarity to the langauge used to dehumanize an ethnic group - and both have been a precursor to mass murder, with 30 million dead in the United States from abortion and millions dead from genocide around the world. Nat Hentoff, a principled liberal, is wise enough to recogize that slipperly slope and not condone the first step out onto said slope.

If you wish to make a religious argument against abortion, fine. I wish to make a secular argument that takes away the refuge of those who try to downplay opposition to abortion as the realm of religious fanatics - by using their own concepts of human rights against their justifications for abortion.

[stuartcr]

Depending on the mother, they will be in jeopardy whether it is legal or not.

[Alberta's Child]

What makes my position "religious" in nature? One of the most ardent pro-lifers I know is an atheist who feels the exact same way.

[palmer]

With enough horrible science that foot will be just as viable as a fetus. I don't viability is a complete argument although it is an important consideration.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You're way too sensible for this forum. The extremists will just call you a bunch of nasty names and then go back to what they were doing.

BTW, we can't require dispensing of information about the possible adverse effects of abortion, without also requiring dispensing of information about the possible adverse effects of having a baby you don't want and/or can't afford to raise. There are plenty of the latter, the worst of which is the tendency of the mother to make an emotion-based decision to keep the baby, even though she's obviously unequipped to do so, and then after a year or two or four of serious neglect or worse (all taxpayer-subsidized), the now-unadoptable child is carted off by CPS, to grow up in a series of horrific foster homes and emerge into society as a permanently damaged and hopelessly dysfunctional adult, with no job or job skills, no family attachments, and no friends except the street gangsters and meth-heads. This individual will then promptly begin reproducing, and the cycle perpetuates and expands itself.

[dirtboy]

The fact that people stoop to that tactic so quickly

Stooping? STOOPING? Lemme see, Hitler killed millions largely by declaring that non-Aryan groups were subhuman. And abortion, which has killed over 30 million in this country, was declared legal by declaring a fetus as something less than human. That's hardly stooping to make a point - sometimes such comparisons are quite apt.

[palmer]

Giving a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a newborn. That is either a narrow scientific view or a religious view.

[small_l_libertarian]

That's not true. A fetus left to itself would die. A fetus before the point of its own viability REQUIRES the resources of its mother (or advanced medical technology) to survive. It isn't a completely separate being until it can survive on its own (not meaning that I condone abortion, but meaning that the mother is being forced to contribute her resources to the fetus' survival, up to a certain point).

[MEGoody]

"Depending on the mother, they will be in jeopardy whether it is legal or not."

If abortion were made illegal, far fewer babies would be in jeopardy. (We can keep this up all day if you like. LOL)

[newgeezer]

I can only guess there's a whole lot of miscommunication going on between you two. Unlike biblewonk, I interpreted your point as being coldly logical, which is the sort of reply the original post called for.

Maybe the widely-different interpretations just illustrate how limited this medium can be.

[MEGoody]

"without also requiring dispensing of information about the possible adverse effects of having a baby you don't want and/or can't afford to raise"

And also, the information on giving the child up for adoption, which would solve those two issues.

[dirtboy]

Giving a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a newborn.

And there is EXACTLY where your problem lies. You apparently adhere to the notion that the government gives us rights - when instead we are endowed with rights under the Declaration and Constitution and government is supposed to exist to protect those rights. A fetus only needs one right - the right to be left unmolested until it is born. If a mother does not want that baby, there are many, many people willing to adopt it.

Once again, legislatures and the courts have seen fit to force unwilling fathers to financially support their offspring for years - but are unwilling to force a woman to bear a fetus to term for a few months. Quite a paradox, one that is resolved by declaring a child human and a fetus as something less.

[LanPB01]

I would suggest you might like this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924290/posts

[dirtboy]

That's not true. A fetus left to itself would die. A fetus before the point of its own viability REQUIRES the resources of its mother (or advanced medical technology) to survive. It isn't a completely separate being until it can survive on its own (not meaning that I condone abortion, but meaning that the mother is being forced to contribute her resources to the fetus' survival, up to a certain point).

Well, the courts see fit to force unwilling fathers to contribute resources for their child to survive, often for years and years, but don't see fit to force a mother to carry a fetus for a few months.