Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE LUKE SKYFREEPER ABORTION DOCTRINE
Luke Skyfreeper (vanity) | June 6, 2003 | Luke Skyfreeper

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.




TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-558 last
To: syriacus
Let's start by letting local communities decide whether abortion should be restricted in their jurisdictions.

To do that would certainly require a reversal of Roe v. Wade.

541 posted on 06/12/2003 5:15:24 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
The problem with abortion is not that the law allows the mother to choose to murder her fetus. The problem with abortion is that millions of mothers actually choose to murder their fetus.
542 posted on 06/12/2003 5:15:59 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
But, of course, pro-aborts, who were the originators of the "undifferentiated blob" theory, don't want anyone to say that a human dies. They don't want people to "feel guilty" about ending someone's life.

Right. Especially those who make money off of the abortion industry.

543 posted on 06/12/2003 5:16:33 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
That is what I've addressed and what you get angry over.

No, what I got angry over was your false accusation, and your basic lack of respect.

Post what you like, this is my final post to you.

544 posted on 06/12/2003 5:23:36 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
The problem with abortion is not that the law allows the mother to choose to murder her fetus. The problem with abortion is that millions of mothers actually choose to murder their fetus.

Some things have to be left to the morality of individuals. But some things should clearly be illegal. If you ask me, late-term abortion is one of those.

545 posted on 06/12/2003 5:29:36 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
Protecting humans must ultimately appeal to our ability to empathize with them, not an abstract legal status. Unless you can demonstrate how we can empathize with such a human, I don't think protection is realistic.

I see your point about empathy, and it is a good factor to consider when discussing the humanity of the preborn. But empathy can be fleeting, and loses its effectiveness if it is used to determine a preborn's right to life.

The level of empathy can vary, even for preborns of the same weeks' gestation.

Will people necessarily empathize with a human who is badly deformed? Will people empathize with someone of another race? Do Tutsis empathize with Hutus and their unborn? Do members of Hamas empathize with Israelis and their unborn?

546 posted on 06/12/2003 5:31:56 PM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: syriacus; palmer
I think you meant to post that to palmer, whom I was quoting.
547 posted on 06/12/2003 5:47:23 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
syriacus: But, of course, pro-aborts, who were the originators of the "undifferentiated blob" theory, don't want anyone to say that a human dies. They don't want people to "feel guilty" about ending someone's life.

Luke Skyfreeper: Right. Especially those who make money off of the abortion industry.

The blob theory couldn't prevail forever, but it was useful for persuading early clients that it was okay to abort the "tissue." I think some pro-abortion activists were hoping for lots of "guilt-free" abortions in the early years, in order to entrench the practice.

They were depending on a snowballing effect, to reach a sort of a critical mass of public acceptance..

I think those pro-aborts are shocked that so many people dare to express anti-abortion feelings in "polite society," nowdays.

The pro-abortion activists thought they had the whole issue sewn up.

Maybe some of their more outlandish activities backfired, like their lying attempts to prevent the ban on partial birth abortions.

548 posted on 06/12/2003 6:03:32 PM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
If you ask me, late-term abortion is one of those.

I will drink to that.

549 posted on 06/12/2003 6:53:10 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Will people necessarily empathize with a human who is badly deformed? Will people empathize with someone of another race? Do Tutsis empathize with Hutus and their unborn? Do members of Hamas empathize with Israelis and their unborn?

Their own deformed child? Probably more than their normal child. Someone else they know personally? Maybe about the same as a normal person they know. But not an abstract deformed child or one developing in its mother's body. That's where the mother will have to be encouraged to empathize. That's also why the government and all other agencies must stay out of any decisions.

Another race? Doubtful if he/she is purely an abstraction. But there are real people of other races who I know and empathize with as much as those of my own race.

Human beings on the "enemy" side? This is difficult. You can immediately identify with war victims on your own side especially when you know them. Even if you just read about them in detail (e.g. reading about 9/11 victims) it is amazing how much empathy you can feel. Unfortunately war tends to translate that positive emotion into negative ones like anger. Emotions run high and often get expressed negatively.

Before the recent war I criticized some obvious anti-Iraq propaganda here and was told by a veteran to "STFU", that the propaganda was needed to whip up morale in the troops. Maybe he was right, but I'm not sure his prescription is useful beyond the those actually doing the fighting.

Anyway, that's off topic, but my answer in the abortion debate is that empathy extends from the object out to the empathizers. Mothers should be helped to be made aware of their unborn child and it's humanity in whatever ways are possible. Others can look at a picture or a thousand words. I believe it easier in may cases to cultivate empathy for the unborn than to try to convince through logic or legalities. Religion is even more powerful, but of course not everybody is religious.

550 posted on 06/12/2003 6:57:01 PM PDT by palmer (Hitch your wagon to a star, and fill it with phlegm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You wrote, "That's also why the government and all other agencies must stay out of any decisions."

The proscription of behavior by law, with penalties attached to these proscriptions, does affect what people will chance, but more importantly, having something as heinous as abortion 'legal' lends the notion of 'okay', an acceptable alternative to taking responsibility for behaviors.

551 posted on 06/12/2003 8:19:36 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I totally agree with your point. What I was referring to is the government or health care agency saying that because a deformed fetus will be costly, it must be aborted.
552 posted on 06/12/2003 8:26:53 PM PDT by palmer (Hitch your wagon to a star, and fill it with phlegm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I guess we are talking about two different groups. You are now talking about using empathy to convince the mother not to abort.

I was responding to your discussion of legal protection.You wrote

Then we get to the difficult issue of legal protection. I agree a human should not be killed, but I can't agree to any punishment for the perpetrator. The perpetrator could not possibly realize that a microscopic object with no human form and no ability to sense anything or communicate in any way is human. Protecting humans must ultimately appeal to our ability to empathize with them, not an abstract legal status. Unless you can demonstrate how we can empathize with such a human, I don't think protection is realistic.

It's not as though each mother-to-be (or mother-not-to-be) gets to write a law about each child she bears.

Society at large does that. And not everybody likes everybody else or likes everybody's offspring...[of course, it would be a nicer world if they did.]

553 posted on 06/17/2003 1:10:04 PM PDT by syriacus (Why DO liberals keep describing one other as THOUGHTFUL individuals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
The mother doesn't write the laws but she is the first line of enforcement. Laws do not dictate behavior like proper nutrition, they can only be applied after the fact using inexact evidence and psychological guesswork about intent and malice. To avoid these enforcement problems, we must keep the law in sync with the rational instincts of the mother.

I believe we must synchronize the law with convincing appeals to humanity and empathy or face losing that first line of enforcement. Declaring step functions of legal protection (unfertlized egg = no protection, fertlized egg = full protection) loses that synchronization.

When the mother kills a fertilized egg during the first moments of its existence, the law should recognize that this is a human being but should set the punishment only trivially higher than the punishment for killing an unfertilized egg (i.e. slap on the wrist). As the child gains human form and capabilities (e.g. the ability to feel pain and pleasure), the punishment should increase. So I am basically saying to use empathy to convince the mother and use a realistic assessment of that empathy to tailor the law.

554 posted on 06/17/2003 1:55:05 PM PDT by palmer (Plagiarism is series)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/847037/posts
555 posted on 06/25/2003 7:55:01 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
your solutions are worthwhile political solutions. I would like to see the law go further than you say, but as Ted Kennedy says with the prescription drug plan, "it's a good down payment."
556 posted on 06/25/2003 7:56:36 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: votelife
your solutions are worthwhile political solutions.

Thanks.

I would like to see the law go further than you say

And it might one of these days. But my feeling's been, at least we need to do what's doable.

557 posted on 06/25/2003 9:10:18 PM PDT by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Luke Skyfreeper
The point of quickening was thought to be the time the soul entered the child. It's the time when the child starts to move -- the point of life. The quick and the dead is an old phrase that means the living and the dead. After the quickening, abortion is murder.
558 posted on 06/25/2003 9:16:12 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-558 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson