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.
Not at all. By the way, Michael Tooley would grant the same legal rights to both, too -- to be killed. You should read his classic essay "In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide" (it used to be in most major college morals and ethics texts). It is a masterwork in what it means to reject drawing the line at fertilization.
But caring for the infant is the job of the government, and Congress should create a multi-billion dollar program to scour deserted islands for infants who have survived plane crashes. Yeah, that's it.
The same question HAS been asked, and the answer has been so close to unanimous that it's hardly controversial for the law to afford protection to children who have already been born.
If that was on purpose, Bravo!
SD
Should murder of children be a private decision, then? Can't have the government interfering in parental rights, now.
A favored liberal tactic to avoid inconvenient facts, the other tactic being getting up and leaving if the fact persists in presenting itself.
Whatever. I'm just stating there is no moral difference. Chemical contraception is a purposeful act to prevent carrying a child. This may involve the chemical disposal of an unborn child.
SD
Well, at least you're being honest here.
Why don't you ask all the kids who are legally available for adoption but haven't been adopted? And then ask all the adults who were legally available for adoption for many years, but were never adopted (you'll have to go to prisons to find a lot of them, and graveyards for some of the others who gave up and ended it on their own)?
"Each one you have is one that you can't adopt that gets left in the system."
Sorry, you seemed to have drifted on a point, can you clarify?
You posted that you can't afford to adopt any of the currently available-for-adoption children because you already have four of your own and that's all you can afford. If you hadn't had any, you could adopt four of the available children. If you'd had just two of your own, you could still adopt two of the available children. Instead, you had four of your own, and are not adopting any of the available children. I don't think you're on very firm moral ground, telling pregnant women to give up their babies for adoption, instead of having abortions, when you have freely chosen to take yourself out of the pool of potential adoptive parents.
Your premise is flawwed. The pro-life movement is using an incrementalist approach, hence the focus on parental consent, partial-birth abortion, and other "low-lying fruit" instead of going for an amendment. You are about two decades too late for this accusation.
The second part of the painful truth (again, as I see it) is that legalized abortion, in some form, is here to stay.
Your premise is flawwed. If you took a good look at history, you would realize that (contrary to liberal propaganda) it does not ratchet in one direction. And can you imagine that both Roe and Doe (of the lawsuit fame) have become pro-life?
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.
Your premise is flawwed. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, as many as a dozen states would probably retain legalized abortion. Most of the rest would outlaw it to the level of "rape, incest, deformity, and life of the mother" or less. You'd probably also see nearly universal parental consent laws. If this wouldn't happen, why do you think NARAL is being so extreme in their opposition to any judge who isn't pro-Roe?
But there is a more important point. By putting abortion in the democratic could only generate more restictions everywhere since there are effectively no restrictions now.
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).
And I'm sure in the mid-1960s, there were people who would have told you that America does not have the political will to overturn the abortion laws of all 50 states. And polls already show public opinion trending pro-life, including among younger people. You really should take a look at the polls, particularly the ones that break out specific cases where peopel would allow abortion to be legal.
As I understand it, when "the pill" is used in the usual, one-a-day dosage, there is virtually no chance that an egg will become fertilized. There is no egg in the uterus.
Therefore, if the moral issue begins with the fertilized egg, being on the pill is not the moral equivalent of abortion.
Wow. So you openly admit -- nay, boast -- that your position is emotional, unscientific and illogical. It would have been quicker just to say, "I'm a moron and I can't think rationally" back in your first post on the topic.
OK. I'll ask the question I asked in passing in another reply.
If you crash landed on an island and you and an infant were the only survivors, would you have an obligation to take care of the infant and provide for it, no matter how much you didn't want to, or not, until you are rescued?
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.