.
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.
What district do you live in & have you qualified yourself to run ? Wich party will you align yourself with ?
I have considered this as well, but you have to look at it in the wider scope of liberal-think. While they may be slaughtering their children at an alarming rate, they fully support the import of foreigners, preferably non-white, to fill the void. Come election day, the voting booths are packed with these recent imports converts to liberalism. Add to that the graveyard vote and conservatives, who tend to have and to value and educate their children, still have a big problem. It is also important to keep in mind that most "immigrants" are breeders and do not indiscriminantly kill their offspring, but most can be counted on to avail themselves of the free liberal indoctrination camps education that is provided for them compliments of the NEA and your tax dollars.
.
The fact that I have changed my own mind, on a lot of different things, over time.
My experience with people who identify themselves as fundamentalists is that quite often, they are pretty much incapable of changing their mind. They already "have" ALL the truth, as far as they're concerned, and often are not willing to listen carefully and consider carefully any other point of view than that which they have identified as "the truth."
Interestingly, you can find plenty of fundamentalists who are absolutely, irrevocably, unalterably 100% convinced of diametrically opposed positions. Generally speaking, quite often "God has revealed" to them that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. (Never mind the fact that "God has revealed" the exact opposite to the next fundamentalist down the road.
And, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you? It might help me put things in perspective.
I'm in my 40s, and I have 5 children. And how old are you?
I guess it all depends on how you define acceptable.
I live in Greene County, and have taken no particular steps toward running for office, although I would like to do so at some point in the future.
Wich party will you align yourself with ?
Republican, of course.
There is of course the possibility that I might run for office as a Democrat -- but only if I should receive certified, incontrovertible, unassailable proof that every last region of Hell is under at least 5 feet of snow.
Mothers, by definition, have children, but I suppose that technically you are correct....a pregnant woman is a mother until the moment she has killed her child who never had a choice.
.
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, shouldn't that second discussion be held PRIOR to becoming pregnant? Why must the obvious be so convoluted?
Another poster made the point earlier on this thread that viability, or lack thereof, could just as easily be applied to other situations. Case in point... and please don't make a judgement without reviewing the link in post #36. In my opinion, playing God has become so commonplace in our society and human life so devalued, that instead of seeing the protection and nurture of life as a sacred trust we see it life as a burdensome inconvenience. As a result, life and death choices are made daily by individuals without moral conscience about the potential consequences and impact of those choices. Then, instead of being held accountable, he or she is applauded for showing courage in the face of a difficult decision, kinda like Job's comforters, with a twist.
And a very reasonable analogy it is to make. While I understand the reasoning in certain situations for not using the Nazi card, it is equally stifling to a debate to make the subject taboo when it can effectively illustrate a point.
That's a fairly easy one to answer. The same government that thinks it's just fine and dandy to murder your children right up to birth, seems to have a real problem placing deadlines on parental rights, allowing worthless parents to play the kids like yo-yos....today we want them, today we don't. This "game" can go on indefinitely or until such time, as you suggest, that the children become unadoptable. Kids of criminals are often put in a perpetual state of limbo as well. Many times there are even family members willing and able to take on some of these kids, but the "all-knowing" state won't approve them as adoptive parents because of age, or credit record or some other equally irrelevant (in the overall scheme of things) rationalization. We live in an adoption-hostile society.
The bureaucracy is such that the keeping of children in the system keeps the federal funds flowing into the state till. I'm guessing that that's the real bottom line, just as the real bottom line in the abortion industry is that a lot of entities have become accustomed to making big bucks from trafficking in dead babies. Adoption weans these children and their parents off dependency on the "state" and the system, largely a liberal contrivance, is not designed to promote autonomy at any level.
I wonder how many of US wouldn't be here if this had been an acceptable excuse to kill us. I know I wouldn't be.
This, and every other situation you cited, involves a choice. Your "reasoning" suggests that affairs and stupidity, callousness and irresponsibility just overtake a person and they are at the mercy of the force that is acting upon them. That is the liberal doctrine of nonaccountability and makes as much sense as guns commiting crimes independent of the individuals possessing them.
And to make matters worse, the recent decision to reverse the termination of parental rights in a case in which the child had already been adopted has dealt yet another blow to the already unstable adoption process. It is pretty difficult for a family to provide security and stability when every day the content of the family is a lottery. It has always been that once the adoption was final, everybody could finally rest in the assurance that the legal limbo was over. I pray the recent case will not set a precedent, but I fear the possible backlash.
See my post #412. Based on what I have seen of s-l-l's reasoning, it was renegade sperm that overpowered the father and forced a child upon him, and since he obviously had no choice in the matter, neither should he bear any responsiblity for what happened to him.
See posts #200, 214 and my posts #411 and 413.
You learn something new every day here. 
I would just love to see how that little piece of legislation would come about when we are dealing with a plethora of liberal judges who do not even think a mother has a right to KNOW if her daughter is pregnant and has an abortion, let alone give consent for it.
How do you propose teaching children accountability? The liberals we all detest are waiting with open arms to welcome the children and tell them they are not responsible for the consequences of sex. My own proposal would be mild sanctions for early abortions, mostly for repeat offenders. But I'm afraid a strict approach equating fertilized eggs with newborns will only have the opposite effect that you intend.
Excerpt from an interview with world famous fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers: Question: “Are there any birth control pills out there that do not have this potential to abort a developing child?” Dr. Hilgers answered: "There are none! At my last count in looking at the Physicians Desk Reference . . . there were 44 different types of birth control pills. . . . and they have different concentrations of chemicals that make them work. None of these so-called birth control pills has a mechanism which is completely contraceptive. Put the other way around, all birth control pills available have a mechanism which disturbs or disintegrates the lining of the uterus to the extent that the possibility of abortion exists when breakthrough ovulation occurs. (Life Advocate, March 1994, page 28-29.) .
Sources indicate not only that Pill-induced endometrial changes prevent implantation (what I will call the Pill’s first abortive effect), but, and this is a second abortive effect, that even if they do allow implantation they can prevent the proper nourishment or maintenance of the new child, resulting in a premature end of the pregnancy. (e.g. Stephen G. Somkuti, et al., “The effect of oral contraceptive pills on markers of endometrial receptivity,” Fertility and Sterility, Volume 65, #3, March 1996, page 484-88; Chowdhury and Joshi, “Escape Ovulation in Women Due to the Missing of Low Dose Combination Oral Contraceptive Pills,” Contraception, September 1980, page 241-247.)
In My Body, My Health (Stewart, Guess, Stewart, Hatcher; Clinician’s Edition, Wiley Medical Publications, 1979, page 169-70), the authors point to a third abortive potential of the Pill:
"Estrogen and progestin may also alter the pattern of muscle contractions in the tubes and uterus. This may interfere with implantation by speeding up the fertilized egg’s travel time so that it reaches the uterus before it is mature enough to implant."
This is the same “contraceptive” effect Dr. Speroff referred to as “peristalsis within the fallopian tube.”
In its 1984 publication “Facts About Oral Contraceptives,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated,
"Both kinds of pills . . . make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining."
These changes in fallopian tube contractions can cause a failure to implant. This third abortive effect is distinct from the first two, both of which are caused by changes to the uterine lining. (Those who remain unconvinced about the abortive effect of Pill-caused endometrial changes must also address the separate but significant issue of tubal peristalsis.)
There’s a fourth potential abortive threat, pointed out to me by a couple who stopped using their pills after reading the package insert. I have that insert in front of me. It concerns Desogen, a combination pill produced by Organon. Under the heading “Pregnancy Due to Pill Failure,” it states:
"The incidence of pill failure resulting in pregnancy is approximately one percent (i.e., one pregnancy per 100 women per year) if taken every day as directed, but more typical failure rates are about 3%. If failure does occur, the risk to the fetus is minimal.
Exactly what is this risk to the fetus? I asked this of Dr. William Toffler of the Oregon Health Sciences University, who is also a member of Focus on the Family’s Physician’s Resource Council. Dr. Toffler informed me that the hormones in the Pill, progestin and estrogen, can sometimes have a harmful effect on an already implanted child. The problem is, since women do not know they are pregnant in the earliest stages, they will continue to take the Pill at least one more time, if not two or more (especially if cycles are irregular). This creates the risk the leaflet refers to. So not only is the pre-implanted child at risk, but so is an already implanted child who is subjected to the Pill’s hormones.
There is still a fifth risk, which is distinct in that it applies to children conceived after a woman stops taking the Pill:
There is some indication that there may be a prolonged effect of the oral contraceptives on both the endometrium and the cervix after a woman has ceased taking the pill. There may well be a greater likelihood of miscarriage in that period also as a result of some chromosomal abnormalities. . . . It is worth noting that the consumer advice from the manufacturers cautions that pregnancy should be avoided in the first three months after ceasing the combined oral contraceptive. (Nicholas Tonti-Rilippini, “The Pill: Abortifacient or Contraceptive? A Literature Review,” Linacre Quarterly, February 1995, page 8-9.)
Why should pregnancy be avoided until three months after a woman has stopped using the Pill? One physician told me it’s because the Pill produces an environment that threatens the welfare of a child, and that environment takes months to return to normal. If those effects are still considered a risk up to three months after the Pill was last taken, it also confirms the risks to both the pre- and post-implantation child while the Pill is still being used. Another physician suggested that abnormal eggs are more likely after Pill use and that is one reason for the warning.
Must be that same impeccable logic that can say "it's just about sex," as if that negates any precipitating or consequential events.
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.