THE LUKE SKYFREEPER ABORTION DOCTRINE

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

[BabsC]

As long as something is inside of me I make the decisions. I would not have an abortion. If I were raped I'd have a D&C that very day. Otherwise I make the choice prior to conception. I cannot make that choice for another.

[dirtboy]

God also gave us the knowledge to perform these abortions with little risk to the mother

Little risk to the mother, mortal risk to the fetus. After all, if you kill someone, the only way justice can be served is for the living to act for the dead - and that is true whether it is an adult, a child or a fetus who is killed.

Scott Peterson is facing charges for killing his son inside the mother. Had Laci Peterson decided to kill that child a few months earlier via abortion, she would not have faced charges. But one is murder and the other is legal, and NOW has a cow over even Patterson's action being illegal, because they understand where the logic behind declaring Patterson's action a crime - that a fetus is a human and deserving of protection in the womb.

[MEGoody]

"God also gave us the knowledge to perform these abortions with little risk to the mother....what's up with that?"

God has given the gift of free will. That's what is up with that. That, of course, does not mean that what we choose to do with that free will is right or that He approves of same. (If you are or ever were a parent of an 18 year old child, you should be able to relate. LOL)

[dirtboy]

This is not at all what you have been saying all thread!!!

Read his statement again:

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

So by saying that a zygote isn't obviously human, it provides the legal rationale to abort it.

[MEGoody]

"As long as something is inside of me I make the decisions."

Our society makes choices for others all the time - they are called laws.

[palmer]

Legal protection doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. There can be increasing sanctions for abortion from counseling for repeat offenders (early) to manslaughter (late term abortion providers).

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Sorry Luke, when you put up a lightning rod, expect lightning. - Freinds?

You bet!

The "lightning rod" experience is an interesting one. I'm sure I haven't seen the last of it, since I believe I have ideas that can meaningfully contribute to our cultural and political life, and would like, if possible, to eventually fly them in other venues than FR. :-)

[syriacus]

Actually, I did expect a bit of a caning, since both sides of the abortion issue are utterly polarized into diametrically opposed positions, and since both sides hold those positions with literal religious fervor.

The mere existence of polarization does not mean that a compromise between the opposing parties is the right solution.

There was extreme polarization between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery sides in the 1800's.

Each side fervently used religion to back its argument.

The pro-slavery people did not have a basic right to keep their slaves.

The pro-abortion people do not have a "basic" right to kill an unborn child, either.

Allowing the abortion of an unborn child, below a certain developmental age, is age descrimination at its harshest.

It is similar to the age/size demarcation the Nazis had for deciding which concentration camp prisoners would be allowed to live, and which prisoners would be killed.

It would be like allowing slaves of certain sizes or ages to go free, and keeping the others enslaved.

[dirtboy]

Legal protection doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

Abortion, however, is.

[MEGoody]

"Sounds like the Palestenian plan for ending Israel."

Perhaps, because my goal IS to end abortion. :)

[small_l_libertarian]

Like I said, I realize that there ARE other options. I don't necessarily agree that those options are always the BEST options.

Think of it this way...(I know it's farfetched, but bear with me here) assume Laura Bush had sex with Kofi Annan because W ticked her off by attacking Iraq. She turns up pregnant. Should she risk everything because she did something stupid? I don't think so. You do. We're going to have to agree to disagree, because I'm not going to fight.

As to the two adoption scenarios, I would have to ask "what about all the kids that are currently waiting to be adopted?" If there are so many good people willing to adopt these unwanted children, why are they sitting there waiting?

[Zavien Doombringer]

That my freind, has so much liberal spin on it, it sounds like clinton himself wrote it!!!

"It all depends on what your definition of 'is', is"...

[MEGoody]

"Should she risk everything because she did something stupid?"

Doing another stupid thing isn't going to help matters. Don't kid yourself. People find out that women have had abortions more often than you know. Especially if it is someone like a Laura Bush.

If there are so many good people willing to adopt these unwanted children, why are they sitting there waiting?

As has been stated previously in this thread, the reason so many kids are 'waiting' is that the biological parents don't want to relinquish their parental rights for whatever reason (which are mostly stupid and selfish).

[palmer]

Most difficult legal questions boil down to subjective judgements.

Regardless of whether you "recognize" a human zygote as a human being, it is, in fact, a human being.

I always recognized it as human worthy of respect and admiration. But not legal protection to the point of forcing the mother to keep it. I don't want to establish "scientific" criteria for this (like a heartbeat) because that would weaken my argument to women trying to convince them not to abort even at the earliest stages.

[stuartcr]

...'the only way justice can be served is for the living to act for the dead - and that is true whether it is an adult, a child or a fetus who is killed'....I'm not sure what this means, but who said anything about this topic being just?

[palmer]

Yes the fetus is dead in all cases, but I think legal sanctions for abortion could be based on the level of development.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

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.

Lol, thanks.

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...

Definitely. Although I haven't talked about it much in this thread, I'm a big proponent of making adoption easy to do. Adoption should feature very, very prominently on the list of choices that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has access to. And we should pass laws making adoption easier, both for a woman having a baby, and for couples wanting to adopt.

[dirtboy]

But not legal protection to the point of forcing the mother to keep it.

So a few months in the life of a mother, who in almost all cases acted in free will to create the fetus, takes precedent over a fetus which found itself created in that mother's womb and will lose its entire life if aborted.

[dirtboy]

Yes the fetus is dead in all cases, but I think legal sanctions for abortion could be based on the level of development.

That, again, requires a certain dehumanization of the fetus in its earlier stages.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Look Luke, there are absolutes. There is right and there is wrong. Never the 2 will mix. Wrong can never be made right and right can never be wrong.

Abortion is wrong. If it is deemed necessary to terminate a pregnancy for the life of a mother, that decision should be left up to the family involved, not government. In any other circumstances are irrelevant, abortion then would not be NEEDED, but WANTED, making it a selfish killing for convenience!