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.

---

[AppyPappy]

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

She is not forced to keep it. She can give it away.

[stuartcr]

There were periods in time, and places on earth, where it was accepted practice to abort, or kill babies...God gave those people free will also....it's all relative to who we are, when we are here, and where we are.

[palmer]

keep = carry

[SoothingDave]

A married mother has an ill-advised affair with a man that will produce an instantly-identifiable child that is obviously not her husband's. I don't believe that she should endanger her existing family over a stupid mistake.

In for a penny, in for a pound? Use murder to cover up adultery? Sounds like a great plan.

SD

[palmer]

I agree. But I think my "dehumanization" of the zygote greatly helps my argument for humanizing a 12-week fetus.

[small_l_libertarian]

It is most certainly what I have been saying all thread, hence my first reply that I never posted it before, because I was sure it would be misinterpreted.

In principle, I am against abortion. I would not have an abortion. However, I am a fairly successful woman and could support an unexpected or even unwanted child with little trouble, and it wouldn't really cause me a family problem.

However, there are MANY women who are not in such a position, and I refuse to condemn them for making a terrible choice that they feel they have to make.

Okay - here's my position in a nutshell, and nothing I have said at all on this thread is contradictory...

I believe that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. I am horrified that abortions can occur at any point during a pregnancy, even after the "fetus" is actually obviously a baby. Rather than insisting on banning abortions altogether, which I know is unreasonable, I support the idea of making abortion absolutely illegal after an agreed-upon point in the pregnancy. I realize that we cannot all agree on when "life" begins, but I am sure we can all agree on when a baby could survive by itself outside of a mother's body. I know that this point of viability will get earlier and earlier as our medical technology progresses, and I think that is ultimately a good thing.

I do not believe for a second that "all unwanted children could be adopted if their mothers would just give birth," because it just doesn't happen that way. Abortion is awful, no doubt, but it will continue to happen, no matter what the law is. I believe that it is much better to prevent the ones that we can all agree are wrong, than to argue endlessly about when life begins and accomplish nothing.

Now, I desperately need a nap, so I will reply to anything that is addressed to me when I get up.

[AppyPappy]

Here's an interesting analogy I heard:

A woman gets drunk and has sex. She becomes pregnant as a result. She goes to a doctor and says "I choose to not be involved in this pregnancy". The child dies and the woman goes free.

A women gets drunk and drives home. She is involved in an accident and, as a result, a child is put in ICU. She goes to the judge before the trial and says "I choose not to be involved in this trial". The child dies and she goes free.

[AppyPappy]

She doesn't have to carry the child. She is simply not allowed to kill it.

[small_l_libertarian]

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

That is exactly my point. A zygote ISN'T obviously human. It may be to you, but it isn't to a vast portion of the populace. Argue all you want about mob rule and the like, but that doesn't stop any of the abortions that we can all agree are wrong.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Like I said, I'm not willing to (or capable of) argue with those who are certain that life begins at conception. I can never argue my way out of that.

Here's my answer (I detailed it a bit more in post 78):

Human life begins at conception. However, one is not "a fully functioning human being" at conception.

[Protagoras]

So your idea and concept is anyone disagreeing with you is attempting to be God?

No, my idea is that anyone who pretends that they (or any group of people) can arbitrarily set a date at which human life begins is attempting to be God.

[AppyPappy]

However, there are MANY women who are not in such a position, and I refuse to condemn them for making a terrible choice that they feel they have to make.

What do you mean "condemn" them? They can put the child up for adoption.

[SoothingDave]

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.

From that description, I suspect you're referring to RU-486 (the "morning after pill"), rather than "the pill" (which, unless I'm mistaken, prevents conception altogether).

You are confused. RU-486 is a "medicine" given in combination with another to cause severe cramping and expulsion of the uterine contents. A woman visit the doctor for these "medicines" and then goes home to cramp up and expel her fetus into her own toilet. It is a "private" alternative to the typical early term "surgical" abortion.

The "morning after pill" is nothing more than a high dose of regular birth control pills. A woman who is on "the pill" and has sufficient knowledge can give herself the "morning after" treatment by double dosing on the pills she already has in her possession.

Why does this work? Because the normal birth control pill is not merely a "contraceptive." One of its methods of working is to inhibit the normal function of the ovaries, preventing the release of an egg during the woman's regular cycle.

But, if you manage to slip one past the goalie, the pill also works to make the uterine lining inhospitable to attachment of the fertilized egg.

Were it not for the "medicine" the woman was taking, the fertilized egg would take root. The "medicine," therefore is responsible for the demise of the fertilized egg. This is no different, morally, than any other abortion procedure, whereby an "unwanted" "product-of-conception" is disposed of.

SD

[small_l_libertarian]

It ISN'T a great plan, but neither is busting up her family because she did something stupid.

[palmer]

If she is not allowed to kill it, then she must carry it. Or am I missing something?

[syriacus]

I think you're misconstruing his words.

This quote is from the back cover of The Facts of Life....

the authors reveal a surprising consensus of scientific opinion: humanness begins around the twenty-forth [sic] week of gestation when connections needed for brain function are finally made.

His Chapter 4, The Emergence of Humanness, is about 17 pages long.

I still wonder what we are before we are humans.

Newts? Skinks? Mastodons?

[Protagoras]

"Human life begins at conception. However, one is not "a fully functioning human being" at conception."

Looks like we should be able to kill anyone who isn't fully functioning. Another "conservative" tenet.

[AppyPappy]

However, one is not "a fully functioning human being" **at conception.**

You misspelled "until they vote Republican". HTH

[AppyPappy]

A zygote ISN'T obviously human

Irrelevant. No woman has ever given birth to anything besides a human. It's looks are irrelevant.

[biblewonk]

That's what I figured.