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.
Remember Jesus said he would spit the lukewarm from his mouth.
If you believe that "every abortion is a murder, period," then you have a moral obligation to oppose every abortion, and to seek to make abortion illegal in every case... unless you believe that the practical effect of opposing early-term abortion makes it so that you can't even outlaw late-term abortion.
In other words, if you are contributing to costing lives, then the only moral thing to do is to pursue a different strategy.
Now I can't prove this, but I believe that the futile hard pro-life efforts to ban ALL abortion contribute to the perpetuation of those abortions that are bannable. Otherwise, why has it taken us 30 years just to ban something as horrendous as partial-birth abortion?
Secondly, after quite a bit of reflection, I simply no longer believe that early-term abortion is the moral equivalent of murder.
This is because (given that the abortion takes place early enough) the developing fetus is not yet developed enough to experience any kind of consciousness, feel pain, eat, sleep, or exhibit thought (conscious or not), or any kind of brain activity. In short, during the earliest term, what we have is not exactly a person yet in any of the normal senses of the words -- except that of possessing human genetic material.
The developing fetus has known nothing of life at this point, less even than a dog or cat has known (because a dog or cat at least possesses some kind of consciousness.
Now I'm not saying that early-term abortion is right. I'm simply saying that I no longer consider it as wrong as murder, at this stage.
And in fact, there are quite a few things parents can do to their kids that I consider worse than early-term abortion.
You can argue, "But this is a developing human life! You're cutting short a life that would have otherwise lived!"
Yet at this point, the developing child has known literally nothing of life. He or she has known and experienced no more of life than if he or she had never been conceived in the first place.
Is it wrong then for someone never to have been conceived? In that case, we would simply have as many children as humanly possible, claiming that to be the moral thing to do.
Again, I'm not saying that early-term abortion is right. I'm saying two things about it:
1) it's not bannable in our society, and we need to focus our efforts on more meaningful attempts to rescue developing children who are already capable of consciousness/ feeling pain. They are human beings, and even people who are "pro-choice" can come to recognize that. Many people who are "pro-choice" will never be convinced that an early-term developing fetus is a person.
If we fail to concentrate our efforts on banning late-term abortion, we are thus complicit in its continuation.
2) Early-term abortion is not as wrong as either "murder" or "late-term abortion." I do not believe we have to criminalize it, because a) attempts to do so will be futile, and b) there are other means of discouraging it, such as helping young women in crisis pregnancy, passing laws that will make make alternatives such as adoption clear, passing laws that will make adoption far easier for all involved, etc.
Also see post #427 for more thought on this matter.
I hope I have answered your question.
The key phrase in your post is the following:
"Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole, not by mere presence of living human cells."
The first 8 weeks of a pregnancy (at a minimum) consist of the mere presence of living human cells.
It seems the only arguments you are capable of providing are namecalling, quotations from organ harvesting studies, sardonic references with Nazi torture procedures, and other nonsensical comparisons. What's next? Biblical scriptures? Astrological references?
If neither the pro-choice and pro-life camps can acknowledge the common sense realities that 1) babies are not fully formed and capable of premature birth until weeks into the pregnancy, and 2) that "aborting" a five month old child is not murder, then this issue cannot ever be remedied. And at this point, the far Left has won.
When the solution to an abusive druggie boyfriend who abuses a child of the woman whom he takes up with is to kill an innocent child before they are found to be in that environment, there is definitely something wrong with, at least, the society and likely the perspective of the one who would advocate such a simplisitic solution. As a 57 years old father and grandfather, I must object to such an assertion as you've offered. For such a suggestion to be offered as 'humane' or the better of two evils, the dehumanization of the preborn must be first assumed and accepted, but the preborn are just as human as you or me, albeit they are alive in a very differnet environment and in a much more vulnerable state. A crib-bound infant is also totally dependent. Should we contemplate killing that child to avoid the later torutres of a druggie or sadistic pedophile? The answers is, to no one's surprise, 'no, we change the societal failures to accomodate that child we ought value more highly.'
But plenty of "rational thinking people" think pure logic would dictate that, at any stage, "a human individual is a human individual is a human individual is a human individual."
I thought scientific (rational) people liked answers to be elegantly simple, not overly complicated.
How can the hodge-podge of pro-abort positions be seen as elegantly simple?
The muddle-headed pro-aborts
For too long, the right-to-lifers have been told they have to prove the fetus is a human person.
It's time for "right-to-deathers" to defend their position that particular fetuses are not human beings, worthy of being called persons.
It's time for pro-aborts to defend their position that it is okay to kill a fetus just because it is not "fully formed," or it is handicapped or it is "unwanted."
Just exactly when did some people become disenfranchised, based merely on the fact that they are "religious"?
In what situations do you think religious people are allowed to participate in their own governance? Are religious people obligated to totally abstain from participation in their own government, just because they are religious?
Since you do not approve of religious people defending the right to life, do you think religious people should be permitted speak out to defend any rights? Should the opinion of "religious" people who defend someone's right to a fair trial be ignored, just because they are religious?
The problem is that if you reject the postulate that human life is a continuum, as a consequence there is a discontinuity, a process of "becoming human", and it is incumbent upon those who propose such a system to be precise (not fuzzy) in their definitions and protocols. Further, evidence should be presented, either factual or by logical reasoning, of the point in time that this "becoming" process results in a person, and defend that point. That is, at what does something about the individual clearly change, that makes "it" become a person, and why? And, what is it prior to that point that dehumanizes the individual?
You have appealed to an argument that prior to the 7-12 week timelimit, the unborn individual is "not alive". Any high school biology text will point out the error in that assertion. So if science shows us that the unborn individual is alive and is human, it is by definition a human life, an identifibale human being, regardless of its physical state of development. At that point, once you have established that we are dealing with a living human individual, the only question you have to answer is whether or not you believe in the principle of equal protection under the law. The pro-abortion position is moving to the point of saying, no, they don't, there are circumstances where the equal protection principle does not apply. I believe that this is not only unconstitutional, it is dangerous, from an ethical viewpoint.
The "fully formed" argument is hopeless, because you can always ask the question, what constitutes "fully formed", and why? My son was born two months premature. Clearly he was not "fully formed" in a physical sense. He needed heroic medical inervention to survive. Today he is a healthy and happy 14 year-old who has brought immeasurable joy to our family. Would it have been acceptable to perform a post-birth abortion on him based on the "not fully formed" requirement? Heck, for that matter, the minister at one of the churches I used to attend used to make the (absurd, IMO) argument that a man was only "half a man", if he were not married. Taken literally, could the "not fully formed", in that case, be used as justification for vaporizing all single men (no nasty comments, ladies!).
So, again, we're just running down the consequences of what might be the outcome if we are content with half-measures on the abortion issue. That is not to say that there cannot be agreement that a starting point of, say, banning PBA, or third trimester abortions, is a worthy goal. I will stand with you on that. But we cannot let the matter end at that point, because clearly significant and profound ethical questions remain.
The abortion topic is heated for a reason. In the early days of the Usenet, abortion was the first topic given it's own "noise" newsgroup to keep the topic out of every other discussion area.
1) I stand accused by you of committing logical fallacies. I'm not up on all of your posts, but if I understand right, I think your chief gripe is that I have made a statement without accompanying it with proof (adequate to meet your standards as to what should constitute such proof).
No. My chief gripe is that they are engaged in a series of logical fallacies that undermine your entire argument. Please don't try to pretend that these are my standards. Lists of logical fallacies are well documented on the Internet and elsewhere. I even referenced one for you.
I was not aware that this was a hard-core formal debate forum in which any statement one might make is required to be accompanied, upon its initial statement, by unassailable proof.
I'm not asking you to make an unassailable proof. I'm asking you to make an argument that rises above what is essentially, "I'm comfortable with this and you should be, too."
The only reasons I can imagine (and perhaps you've got one that I can't imagine) for bothering to post a position paper on abortion is to (A) persuade other people, (B) win the approval of other people, (C) to troll for flames and to start a disruptive discussion, or (D) because you just like to type. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are looking for (A) or (B) (unlike some other people, who assumed that you were (C)). If you want to persuade people or get their approval for your position, you honestly need something stronger than what you got.
2) You also state your suspicion that I chose my position, then found a way to justify it. I could easily accuse you of the same thing.
And I'd be able to explain to you (A) how and why I was pro-choice and became pro-life without really looking to get involved in the issue, (B) how I've changed my mind on several nuances of the issues over the years, and (C) how I spent a great deal of time in college debating abortion and was personally the #8 source of news on the entire Usenet because of it. With respect to (C), I will point out that my early arguments were awful and full of logical fallacies. Most of my writing during that period is mercifully absent from the Google Usenet archives.
So you aren't doing anything that I haven't done before. But when someone tells you that you are, for example, begging the question, you need to understand if you are and how to come up with a more sound argument. Otherwise, you'll sit there thinking, "Wow, I made this killer knock-out argument and almost nobody agrees with me. Are they stupid or what?" It is the responsiblity of the person making a case to make it convincing, not the responsibility of the audience to agree with the conclusion. Do you want to make more effective arguments or not?
Anyway, for your information (and newgeezer might be interested to know this as well), I started, years ago, from a fundamentalist Christian, vehemently anti-abortion position. I held that abortion of any kind was murder, plain and simple. I have since changed my mind. Are you two capable of changing your minds as well?
Sure. I started out as a doubting science and science fiction fan who totally bought into the utilitarian, population, and social engineering justifications for abortion. My pro-life beliefs have little, if not nothing, to do with my religious beliefs. Indeed, I've convinced an atheist friend that abortions is wrong. When I first became pro-life, I didn't understand enough to make a "life of the mother" exception and learned why one was necessary. I've also modified my opinions one the appropriate legal and political strategies to take based on a better understanding of government and law.
But I'm not complaining that you've changed your mind. I'm complaining that you've failed to make a reasonable case for your position. Not just by my standards but by even the most rudimentary standards debate. And not just because I don't like your position but because you've based in on some demonstrably false premises. If you build an argument on a bad foundation, it will crumble.
My current position is the result of years of reflection upon the issues and consideration of the best way forward in the debate.
The problem is that you're position seems to be based largely on internal reflection, comfort, and emotion, and not a logical reasoning out of a coherent position. If that is not the case, then I think you've largely failed to convey the foundation of your opinions or the logical train of thought that leads up to your opinions. We were not inside of your head while you were doing this reflecting. You need to let us see it in your writing if there is something important there for us to know.
I do not believe that pro-lifers will ever be successful in criminalizing early-term abortions. Different people have different interpretations of the meaning of early-term abortion. Under these circumstances, our system will not allow such prohibition, because one group of people is not allowed to impose their entire world view on another group of people. That is simply the reality of American politics and the American system.
In cases such as this, your very premise is demonstrably false. Should I point out to you that America banned alcohol through a constitutional amendment within the past century? Need I point out to you that abortion on demand was largely illegal throughout this country before judicial fiat changed it? Or should I also point out that people's current opinions about abortion are based, in part, on the current legal status of abortion and that abortion opinion could very well simply follow abortion law, since most people would simply prefer not to think about the issue (I can point out, for example, that some initial media announcements of Roe v. Wade talked about it making abortion a decision between the mother and her doctor)? And, again I'll ask, if there is such a small chance of early abortions becomming illegal, why are so many pro-choice groups afraid of just that happening? All of these points raise serious doubts about your premises.
And, ultimately, I think you need to take a look at some polls. Not the polls that ask people, "Do you support Roe v. Wade or not?" (because most people don't really understand what Roe v. Wade guarantees) but how when people would allow abortions and why, as well as how they view the unborn. People are not nearly as pro-choice as the news suggests (they use the vague polls for a reason) and opinions have been trending pro-life. These are things that point to the sorts of opinions and changes that you don't believe exist or can happen. The data is out there. Reflect less. Research more.
I also believe that pro-life insistence upon doing so contributes to the tooth-and-nails, to-the-death opposition of pro-abortion people to any restriction on abortion, no matter how small. Pro-abortion people are not dumb; they know that a great many pro-lifers view a ban on partial birth abortion as only the first step in an incremental prohibition of all abortion.
There are several factors contributing to the inability of the pro-life movement to ban any abortions. Chief among them, and a point you can't ignore, is that a liberal and activist judiciary is the primary road-block to any abortion restrictions. Abortion regulations frequently get passed at the state level and numerous states would probably outlaw abortion on demand in a heartbeat if Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were overturned. Again, I point out that the pro-choice camps focus on the judiciary is telling. Right now, that's where the real game is being played.
As for the pro-choice side using "incrementalism" to defend extremism, that's only working for them because the media helps them by (A) being pro-choice and (B) keeping abortion debates superficial. The NRA's total opposition to any gun restrictions was similar to NARAL's total opposition to abortion restrictions and for much the same reason -- once you get on the slippery slope, they argue, you can't stop. Yet you'll noticed that this totally backfired on the NRA since the media supports gun restrictions. They've been played in the media as the extremists, not allowing "reasonable" restrictions to pass. Yet you'll note that the media does not call NARAL extremist for opposing the partial-birth abortion ban or parental notification, both laws that a vast majority of people support. What is needed is for people to know how extreme NARAL is. Fortunately, the alternate media and newly available news sources that are friendly to conservative causes will help here. You've seen hints of what is to come with the backlash against the NOW group that refused to recognize Laci Peterson's son as worthy of legal protection.
I also believe that some actions are worse than others.
So does everyone. But if you want to convince other people to share your beliefs, you need to explain them rather than simply stating them and calling them "common sense" or saying "I believe...".
Pro-lifers, in my opinion, would face an easier struggle to eliminate the most horrible and outrageous forms of abortion (late term and partial-birth abortion) if they didn't adopt an all-or-nothing stance.
Which is exactly what the pro-life organizations are doing. Contrast this with the approach in the early and mid-1980s. If you've done any research on, say, the Human Life Amendment, you'd be able to see the difference.
You can say my view is outdated by pro-life focus on such things as PBA. The all-or-nothing responses on this thread testify strongly otherwise.
And these people are not in charge of setting the legislative agenda for the pro-life movement. As I've mentioned, there are people on the pro-choice side that think infanticide is quite OK, too. What does that mean? Not a lot, unless the pro-choice leadership embraces their position or the press tries to convince people that they are mainstream, much as it works to convince Americans that people who blow up abortion clinics are mainstream pro-lifers.
In any event, your supposition that I first chose what I was comfortable with, and then sought to justify it, is entirely false.
Then you need to rely less on telling us what you feel or believe, less on things being "common sense" or self-evident, and less on your anecdotal experience of the pro-life movement, people's opinions, and social trends and more on facts, logic, research, and broad-basedpolls. The reason I made this accusation is that I see little evidence that you've tried to test your beliefs against facts which are readily available if you look for them. Anecdotal evidence makes for poor arguments and, often enough, wrong positions. Go out and test your arguments against the facts in the broader world.
Look, if you want to feel insulted that I'm being critical of your arguments, that's fine. Feel free to ignore me. But if you want to make a better case in the future, take some time to read the logical fallacies pages and do some research on the abortion issue. Take a look at the polls on this page or this page (do some searches, there are many more) for example, and compare them to the premises upon which you've been building your position. And be wary of finding vague or leading polls to support your points. They are often vague or leading for a reason.
FYI, I'm not a Fundamentalist and I rely on secular arguments when I discuss abortion, only talking about the religious angle if someone else brings up religion first. I just wanted to clarify that so you don't mistake me for something that I'm note. The Bible didn't convince me that abortion was wrong. Watching a first trimester abortion (and the doctor sorting through the tiny ribs in a bloody mass of tissue) and hearing a dozen couples justify their "hard case" abortions on PBS in the early 1980s (ironically, these programs were intended to convince people that abortion wasn't so bad and was a necessity -- I'm not surprised that they were never shown again since I'm sure I wasn't the only person upon which they had the exact opposite effect), combined with research on the issue convinced me that abortion was wrong.
Unfortunately, time is a factor (and I'm furtively looking over my shoulder for my wife right about now! :-) ) I'm not 100% sure how much time I've spent on this thread in the last few days, but I'm pretty sure it's getting well past the 5 hour mark.
But let me respond to a few things in your latest post, while acknowledging that there are many things in your earlier postings that I haven't even attempted to deal with.
The Bible didn't convince me that abortion was wrong. Watching a first trimester abortion (and the doctor sorting through the tiny ribs in a bloody mass of tissue) and hearing a dozen couples justify their "hard case" abortions on PBS in the early 1980s (ironically, these programs were intended to convince people that abortion wasn't so bad and was a necessity -- I'm not surprised that they were never shown again since I'm sure I wasn't the only person upon which they had the exact opposite effect), combined with research on the issue convinced me that abortion was wrong.
I'm curious -- what were the circumstances that allowed you to witness the abortion? Was this televised on the PBS program?
The only reasons I can imagine (and perhaps you've got one that I can't imagine) for bothering to post a position paper on abortion is to (A) persuade other people, (B) win the approval of other people, (C) to troll for flames and to start a disruptive discussion, or (D) because you just like to type.
My motives are along the lines of A and B, in a sideways sort of way. Let me explain.
I posted the thread partly because I felt that this point of view is likely to provide a way forward in resolving the utter clash between two camps, both of which are absolutist in their views and goals. I also wanted to test the idea in public. You are helping me do that, and others who have posted to this thread have also contributed to the refinement of my views on this issue.
BTW, if you can convince me that I'm wrong, then I'll change my position.
Do you want to make more effective arguments or not?
Generally, the answer to that question is yes.
Unfortunately, whether an argument is "effective" is often not based upon whether it is actually logical. Witness the continuing public adulation for the former First Felon.
In cases such as this, your very premise is demonstrably false. Should I point out to you that America banned alcohol through a constitutional amendment within the past century?
I should have stated, more accurately, "I do not believe that pro-lifers will ever be successful in lastingly criminalizing early-term abortions."
Yes, I am and was well aware of the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1919. However, Prohibition lasted for only 13 years before being permanently repealed. Such a law again prohibiting alcohol is, barring some kind of global catastrophe that would destroy our entire modern culture, utterly unforeseeable. The repeal of prohibition also makes a future national prohibition of early-term abortion the more unlikely.
Is possible, though, that we could temporarily ban all abortions? Yes, I will certainly agree that a temporary ban is possible, but I also believe that course of action is likely to result in an ultimate failure similar to that of the 18th Amendment, because there will always be many Americans who do not see early-term pregnancies as involving beings that are fully "human beings" in the same way that you and I are human beings.
Until a certain stage of development they possess no brain activity (and hence no capability for human thought), no ability to feel pain, no ability to exercise will, and no ability or potential to live if physically separated from the body of the mother. In fact, until 9 weeks of development, an entirely different term is medically used: embryo, rather than fetus.
It may be that fetal abortions could ultimately prove to be permanently bannable (with a lot of difficulty), while a permanent ban on embryonic abortions is unlikely to stick.
Need I point out to you that abortion on demand was largely illegal throughout this country before judicial fiat changed it? Or should I also point out that people's current opinions about abortion are based, in part, on the current legal status of abortion and that abortion opinion could very well simply follow abortion law, since most people would simply prefer not to think about the issue
You make some good points here, especially about judicial fiat and people not thinking about the issue, but abortion opinion is quite unlikely to simply follow abortion law. (Witness again the Prohibition, where per-capita alcohol consumption increased after a dramatic dip in the first year back to the same levels as before, if not higher levels in some instances).
You also fail to recognize (in this paragraph, at least) a massive cultural shift we have experienced during this century. The culture of the United States is no longer based on a unified world view. Religious world views (which include the view that all human life is sacred) compete with the humanistic world view, which holds enormous influence and is extremely unlikely to go away.
It's possible also that the most powerful shaper of public opinion -- the media -- is going to be completely taken over by conservative pro-lifers, but I doubt it. That liberals still have enough strength to vastly influence American opinions is demonstrated by the fact that Living History is currently the #2 best seller at both amazon.com and bn.com. Granted, there's an enormous "new book" bounce, but there are approximately 200 new books published every day in the United States.
In fact, I'm going to start taking a closer look at the "dividing point" (9 weeks) where terminology shifts from "embryo" to "fetus," as that appears, for several reasons, to be potentially a significant dividing point in human development.
There are several factors contributing to the inability of the pro-life movement to ban any abortions. Chief among them, and a point you can't ignore, is that a liberal and activist judiciary is the primary road-block to any abortion restrictions. Abortion regulations frequently get passed at the state level and numerous states would probably outlaw abortion on demand in a heartbeat if Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were overturned. Again, I point out that the pro-choice camps focus on the judiciary is telling. Right now, that's where the real game is being played.
Actually, you've made some very good points here. However, for reasons briefly outlined in skeletal form above, I do not believe we can look for a Supreme Court at any point during the next 50 years that will allow State governments to ban all abortions, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned (and it should be).
We might have a Supreme Court in the more distant future that is willing to ban all abortions, but probably only if liberalism is eventually defeated in this country by Islamism -- through demographics, terror weapons and brute force.
As for the pro-choice side using "incrementalism" to defend extremism, that's only working for them because the media helps them by (A) being pro-choice and (B) keeping abortion debates superficial. The NRA's total opposition to any gun restrictions was similar to NARAL's total opposition to abortion restrictions and for much the same reason -- once you get on the slippery slope, they argue, you can't stop. Yet you'll noticed that this totally backfired on the NRA since the media supports gun restrictions. They've been played in the media as the extremists, not allowing "reasonable" restrictions to pass. Yet you'll note that the media does not call NARAL extremist for opposing the partial-birth abortion ban or parental notification, both laws that a vast majority of people support. What is needed is for people to know how extreme NARAL is.
I agree completely.
Fortunately, the alternate media and newly available news sources that are friendly to conservative causes will help here. You've seen hints of what is to come with the backlash against the NOW group that refused to recognize Laci Peterson's son as worthy of legal protection.
These help. However, if you think the conservative media are going to become as all-powerful and dominant as the liberal media used to be, any time soon, then you're kidding yourself.
If you want to convince other people to share your beliefs, you need to explain them rather than simply stating them and calling them "common sense" or saying "I believe...".
Sometimes there is no honest alternative to saying "I believe," and then stating why. This is especially true when talking about the future, and when interpreting things that are subject to different possible meanings.
Which is exactly what the pro-life organizations are doing. Contrast this with the approach in the early and mid-1980s. If you've done any research on, say, the Human Life Amendment, you'd be able to see the difference.
Good.
Anecdotal evidence makes for poor arguments and, often enough, wrong positions.
I'll give you that. However, more people will readily form an opinion based on a single compelling anecdote, than will form an opinion based on facts and reason.
Fact is, we need both.
Look, if you want to feel insulted that I'm being critical of your arguments, that's fine. Feel free to ignore me. But if you want to make a better case in the future, take some time to read the logical fallacies pages and do some research on the abortion issue.
I'm not insulted by your criticism! And I'm not ignoring you, either. And I've no doubt some of your criticisms are valid. Your feedback may well turn out to be the most valuable I've received in this entire 450-post thread. I just wish I had a bit more time and energy to process it all.
I should have added: and more importantly, no matter how conservative the Supreme Court should become, it's not going to become conservative enough to allow an early-term abortion ban to stand.
And how exactly do you know before that time that it does not feel pain?
A good liberal Nova or Nature documentary described consciousness not as a toggle switch but a dimmer switch. It comes gradually. How can you make a legal guideline on that? About as far as I can go is implantation as a guideline for abortion. Even that I have to hold my nose at.
Excuse me but... HUH? These two sentences directly contradict each other.
Agreed. Viability is such a relative term. An infant is hardly viable in that he/she can't survive without assistance. A full-grown, intelligent adult dropped naked without food on the South Pole is hardly viable either.
It's amazing that the courts can require a father to pay money to support a child for years, but cannot see fit to require a woman to bear a child to term that she has helped to conceive.
Amen! And I can't get over the fact that a man is required by law to provide support but he can't legally prevent the abortion of the same child.
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.