Posted on 06/06/2003 9:46:51 AM PDT by 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.
The truth is (as I see it), we are failing to save some lives because we are essentially insisting on saving all lives or none.
The second part of the painful truth (again, as I see it) is that legalized abortion, in some form, is here to stay.
Even if pro-lifers succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade, some other justification would be found for the continuation of abortion. Even if a law prohibiting all abortion were to be passed, it would later be repealed.
There simply does not exist, nor will there exist, in any foreseeable future, the political will in our nation to ban all abortion (specifically, early-term abortion).
Therefore, the insistence upon "saving all lives or none" has effectively turned into an insistence upon (or at least, a defeated acceptance of) saving no lives.
I would argue that some abortion can and must be banned.
There comes a time (and when dealing in human lives, that time comes far quicker than you would think just by looking at the history of the debate) when some results are better than no results.
So what are you waiting for? Tens of thousands of adoption-eligible kids "age out" of the foster care system every year, most after being bounced around between a large number of homes that were either neglectful/abusive or simply couldn't handle these often angry, damaged kids.
Many of these kids entered the system as infants, with AIDS, brain damage related to mom's drug and alcohol use, and other serious problems. Others entered the system at a later age, after mom decided to keep the cute little baby that the anti-abortion activists persuaded her not to abort, and after a few years of being fed sporadically and beaten/molested regularly by mom's shack-ups.
Oh, I get it, you and your wife don't want to adopt THOSE children. Careful who you call "selfish".
Ah, so basically you don't believe that many women can handle the concept of rights and responsibility, so let's just have them kill the baby so society might not be exposed to the consequences of that risk.
That sounds just like the logic used by the drug warriors.
That's a strawman and not accurate at all. Pro-lifers have been doing their best to chip away at abortion laws - the partial-birth ban being one example. But IMO the way to win the war is not to create legitimacy for the position of the opposition that a fetus is something less than human.
Yes, I think we can both agree that those guidelines would represent genuine progress.
It is easy to argue that a late term abortion should be illegal but you claim a single-celled human has an equal right-to-life which trumps any right of the woman to make a decision about that humanity. Endowment with rights comes from our humanity not the scientific technicality of having complete DNA.
Married couples use the pill which causes many conceived "could have been babies/egg sperm combinations/pick your favorite emotional buzz phrase" not to survive. Is this murder like a partial birth abortion? Not to me.
Excuse me??? If the mother does not want or cannot afford to keep the baby, adoption sure does solve those issues.
There was a time in this country when giving black people the same legal rights as white people was considered either a narrow scientific view or a religious view.
I don't understand you point, though. There is a perfectly clear, rational reason to do exactly as I suggest.
Congratulations! My wife and I are eagerly anticipating the birth of our 5th child, any day now.
Actually, I think it says "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." :)
Are you trying to be funny, sarcstic or just plain insensitive?
What are YOU waiting for? It's easy to judge me and my wife, have you taken any of these children in and raised them yourself?
Do you know my family history? enough to know I already have 4 children and I make less than $50,000 a year. Taking on more would bankrupt us. My wife doesn't have an out of the home job! And it would be moot for her to have one, if we have another infant in the house!
We are waiting for our 2 oldest to leave the nest...sheesh why do I need to explain that to you?
You sir, insult me!
Hardly. It's taken years to get a ban to passage and signature by the president.
It is easy to argue that a late term abortion should be illegal but you claim a single-celled human has an equal right-to-life which trumps any right of the woman to make a decision about that humanity. Endowment with rights comes from our humanity not the scientific technicality of having complete DNA.
So let's play your game here. Let's confine a woman against her will and have her declare that the fetus growing within here is not human. The child is born - does the fact that the mother decreed the child to not be human make that child less human?
Out of all the posts I've seen so far on the thread, yours is the most disturbing - that a mother somehow has an inherent right to decide upon the humanity of the fetus that she has helped to create.
It's a common tactic by pro-aborts. It is designed to take the focus off the real issue in abortion (the unborn child) and put it on you. That way, they don't have to be reminded of their murderous character.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.