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.
There are plenty of women who feel the need to abort. It's a shame we can't bring these two groups together with something other than the threat of legal force.
There is much discernment needed here. Your presence is requested.
If one believes life begins at conception, any "compromise" of that is untenable.
If one doesn't believe life begins a conception but rather viability, then compromise can be made.
If one believes life begins at birth, then obviously the "fetus" can be done away with at the parent's whim.
The problem with this debate is that this is life which is not open to pragmatism the way war or the death penalty can be discussed. This is a life inside another. Life of a potential full grown being with a soul carried in the vessel of another full grown being with a soul. So when I say "pragmatically" I couldn't have an abortion(well duh...I am a man) but others are free to do so it pains me. I see the inconsistency and it pains me. Would I say "pragmatically" I would never beat my child but others are free to do so? Of course not.
I can recognize the life of the mother in the event of medical circumstance is in danger, that abortion could be a very sad decision to make. But otherwise...I just can't anymore.
In the past 2 months, 2 close friends had abortions. I didn't offer any support for those decisions and changed the subject when it came even remotely close. Now I deal with the twin devils of guilt; being a crappy friend and being a crappy human being.
Life unfortunately isn't fair. If it was, 2 children would be alive and I wouldn't get late night phone calls of sobbing where the reason isn't disclosed. Damn...I hate these discussions.
Ask any woman if she really wants to abort her baby. It is usually pressured by liberal groups, uncommited fathers and other social venues.
Ask any mother who has aborted a baby.
I volunteer at the Crisis Pregnancy Center (I fix databases and computers for them)
I'm anti abortion, but that statement is at best misleading. (statistically) Are you saying that there is no case when the mother's health/life is in jeopardy from pregnancy?
Wierd, I don't see any posts claiming he is a disruptor. Are you sure it's not just you?
My mistake, thanks for the correction.
(the idea doesn't change much)
It happens. This site is attacked every single day so when a relatively new poster starts a thread one of the big four firefights (WOD, WBTS, CREVO, abortion, which basically consist of aof maybe a dozen people vs. the rest of FR) some people's radars go nuts. Just wanted to give you the heads up.
I notice you ignored this question. What is it on the 56th day? A frog? A hamster?
While I believe this statement to be true, it is just our opinions.
Think about it this way, what would your chances be for you to be here if your mom was pro-choice?
My mother is pro-choice. Thankfully, she made the right choice.
Rapes will continue to happen, whether they are legal or not. What is your point?
In our society, we the people are ultimately responsible for our self-government.
It is quite demonstrably true that about half of the people believe abortion should be legal, and about half of the people believe the practice should be illegal. The vast majority of these would state that they do not believe that a fertilized ovum is "a human being" in the same sense that you and I are human beings.
For the record, I believe that the fertilized ovum is human. That is obvious. We do not have an elephant, a bird, or a crocodile. The genetic code is complete, and it is human genetic code. However, to be a genetically human fertilized ovum, with NO capabilities for thinking, self-awareness, awareness of one's surroundings, exercise of will, directed movement, eating, breathing, or feeling pain (the latter of these are not only characteristics of human beings but are characteristic of animals such as dogs and cats as well) is not exactly the same thing as being "a human being" (in the sense that most of us understand human beings to be.
In any event, here is the practical result of the insistence of pro-lifers that abortion must be an all-or-nothing proposition: it is currently fully legal to destroy developing children through the full 40 weeks of pregnancy in the United States.
If you can live with that, fine.
I can't.
That SOUNDS nice and 'compromising,' but we are talking about a human life here, not the choice of how much land each party gets.
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.