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]

Whatever. I'm just stating there is no moral difference

Are you saying there is no difference between firing a bullet in the air and shooting someone in the head?

[AppyPappy]

Maintaining freedom of individual choice in things like abortion will ensure that the results accurately reflect the beliefs of the people as a whole.

So slavery should be legal if a majority believes in it? After all, it's just a property choice.

[jwalsh07]

In any event, your supposition that I first chose what I was comfortable with, and then sought to justify it, is entirely false.

Did you spin a wheel or throw a dart?

[AppyPappy]

I do not believe that pro-lifers will ever be successful in criminalizing early-term abortions

My ancestors said the same thing about slavery in 1850.

[Notwithstanding]

Because science and religion agree that a fetus IS fully human, you conclude that a fetus IS NOT fully human.

Scary.

[xm177e2]

First, I'll say I'm pro-life. But I disagree with your two main arguments.

If a developing child is old enough to survive outside of the womb, even with medical assistance, then it's a human being. Obviously.

It's not obvious. Not everyone agrees the value in a human life comes merely from being able to survive (such as a person in a vegetative state). Why is "medical assistance" somehow special? If a child is on a respirator, does that mean it's not really human, and you could kill it right there if you felt like it? Most children can't survive without parental attention (they would starve to death, among other things). How is that so different from medical attention? If a child gets an infection, and needs medical treatment to survive, does that make it fair game for abortion?

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.

I guess Buddhists might like this second argument (the defining feature of life is pain)...

[Notwithstanding]

So, every time such a woman has sex (a non-emergency activity), she knows there is an unreasonable risk that that very act may create a person who will surely die due to the effectsof the pill (an non-spontaneous pill-induced abortion).

This seems like driving for non-emergency reasons at night, knowing the headlights are out - you don't intend to commit vehicular homicide, but you know damn well there is an unreasonable risk of doing so.

Its not taking the pill (to stop bleeding, etc.) that is sinful - its creating a new life that you know you may kill by your taking of the pill.

[Salem]

That's a nifty graphic, which I certainly could put to good use.

Can I steal it and use it myself? :-D

[palmer]

My conclusion about the humanity of fetuses becomes more consistent with the religious view as the fetus becomes more developed and takes on human qualities (maybe 8-12 weeks). I don't really care about the "scientific" view since there is no morality in science.

So no, your statement that I conclude the opposite of science and religion is false.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, let's put it this way:

My OB/GYN informed me that the alternative treatments for my condition (dysmenorrhea and fibroids in the uterus - or as a famous unidentified female patient at Grady Hospital once opined, "Fireballs in the Eucharist") were (1) ovariohysterectomy and (2) the Pill.

Since the former is irreversible and the latter is not (and we did manage to conceive one child despite my condition after much fuss and feathers), it looks to me more like driving on a work of necessity and mercy at night, with the possibility (not certain knowledge) that your headlights may go out.

[Notwithstanding]

Only if you consider "having sex" a necessity.

It seems selfish that having sex is a necessity, the price for which is that some of the children you conceive during that sex will certainly have an hugely increased risk of being aborted through your voluntarily choosing to have sex followeding your taking of the pill (a combination you KNOW to be EXTREMELY LIFE-THREATENING TO ANY OF YOUR IN UTERO CONCEIVED CHILDREN).

While it sounds harsh, it is very true that some people will engage in sex, knowing that such a choice will directly cause the killing of his/her own child.

[Notwithstanding]

The only morally acceptable choices you have are:

1) have the operation and engage in sex
2) take the pill and abstain from sex

Any other choice unneccessarily and dramatically increases the threat to the life of your unborn children.

[Notwithstanding]

Do you also think that it is fine for a married person with a veneral disease (lets assume he was cheating) to use condoms when having sex with the spouse to prevent spreading the disease to the spouse?

It is not. The only moral solution is to abstain.

I have a devout friend who had to have his spermcount tested. He told me the priest told him to poke holes in the condom - this would then eliminate the contraceptive effect but allow the collection of sperm without violating suxual morality.

[newgeezer]

Are you two capable of changing your minds as well?

What makes you think my mind needs changing?

And, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you? It might help me put things in perspective.

[AnAmericanMother]

Thanks, I have thoroughly studied the doctrine of inadvertent consequences (and have talked it over with a faithful physician as well as our priest) and I am satisfied that medical necessity (which, as you will note, has nevertheless permitted the conception and delivery of a child against considerable odds) is an adequate justification. Particular when using a "high-dosage" pill with faithful administration (necessary for therapeutic effect) since the rate of breakthrough ovulation in that case approaches zero. Most ovulation on the pill occurs on the very-low-dosage "mini-pill" and with hit-or-miss use.

[syriacus]

This is a common semantic issue in this discussion, I've found. What he means when he's saying "humanness" would better be described as "personhood," "sentience" or "self-awareness."

I have had problems with some of his choices of words, too.

I wonder why such a smart man as Trefil (who has received an award for bridging the gap between science and society) made the choice to use the word "humanness?"

James S. Trefil, Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Physics, George Mason University

Physicist and author James S. Trefil is known for his writing and his interest in teaching science to nonscientists. He is a Fellow of the APS and a former Guggenheim Fellow.

His numerous books and articles include works written for general audiences. He co-authored The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (3rd ed., 2002) and in 1992 published The Facts of Life (Harold Morowitz, co-author). Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy, was co-authored with Robert Hazen in 1991, and in 1995 they published The Sciences: An Integrated Approach. Dr. Trefil's A Scientist in the City appeared in 1994. Are We Unique: A Scientist Explores the Complexity of the Human Brain appeared in 1997.  The National Geographic Society published his book Other Worlds: The Solar System and Beyond in 1999.  He was the general editor of The Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (2002) and co-author of Good Seeing, a scientific history of the Carnegia Institution. 

His most recent book is The Laws of Nature (2002).  He is a regular contributor to Smithsonian Magazine and was previously University Professor and Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia.

In 2000 American Institute of Physics chose him to receive the Andrew W. Gemant Award, presented for outstanding and sustained contributions in bridging the gap between science and society.  In 2003-2004, he will be a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar.

You would think he would know which word to use.

It's a puzzlement.

[AnAmericanMother]

The idea that condoms prevent disease is just wishful thinking. (They're also not particularly reliable in preventing babies.) And the use of a condom to prevent spreading disease to another, while probably having some charitable component, is qualitatively different from the use of a medication to cure an existing medical condition. That's where the doctrine of inadvertent consequences comes in.

[Notwithstanding]

I understand the medical necessity for taking the pill - but how is it medically necessary to have sex?

[Sloth]

When the intention is to relieve your wife's suffering, the fact that taking the Pill may possibly prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on some occasions is an unintended side-effect of the measures taken to alleviate her illness.

Correct. And I would maintain that even if her intention was to prevent fertilization, the fact that taking the Pill may possibly prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on some occasions is still an unintended side-effect.

[chimera]

OK, well, you've taken an honest shot at a topic that stirs a lot of passionate debate. Reviewing these posts makes me think you are trying an incremental approach to addressing the bloody and barbaric practice of abortion, and I will support you in those incremental steps. But it cannot end with half-measures. Banning PBA is insufficient in and of itself, as is only ending third trimester abortions, because that still leaves millions at the mercy of those who would, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, tear unborn children literally limb from limb. As long as abortion continues as it has in this country, that is, being available at any and all points within the continuum that is human life, we as a society will have to face the fact that we are wantonly slaughtering the most innocent and vulnerable among us, and, for the vast majority of the time, for no ethically defensible reason.