THE LUKE SKYFREEPER ABORTION DOCTRINE

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.

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."

While I think abortion should be outlawed in all cases, I'm enough of a realist to know that that will never happen. Thus, I have often proposed a comprimise that seems to be distasteful to both pro-choicers and pro-lifers: (which may be a sign that it's the best comprimise possible)

We already decide, as a society, when someone is "dead" by the fact that, for 24 hours, they register no perceptable brain wave activity. If that's an acceptable way to determine when life ends, legally, then why can't it be an acceptable way to determine when life begins?

It's entirely possible, medically speaking, to measure the brain waves of a developing baby (fetus, whatever you want to call it). (and usually brain wave activity starts in the first trimester, I believe, if memory serves) I would propose legislation that would outlaw abortion in any case where brain waves could be detected.

The question of "abortion" is actually difficult not because it involves a baby, but rather because it involves the age old question of, "When does life begin?", or really, "What IS 'life'?".

These are questions best left to coffee table philosophers and religious scholars. The fundamental question of "What is human life?" will never be something that everyone can agree on. Heck, we have problems with the "end of life" issues from time to time, is it really that suprising that the question of when life begins gives us equal grief?

For the purposes of society, for most cases, there never is dispute over the definition of death. (24 hours without brain wave activity). So long as the family of a loved one doesn't dispute, or if they condone it, someone in that condition can easily be "allowed to die" (taken off respirators, etc...), and legally, there's nothing wrong with that. As a society, you don't see hoards of people protesting the "killing" of brain-dead people, simply because for some reason to them, in that instance, it's alright to let them die.

Some say, "The two situations aren't comparable, because in the one you're talking about actively killing a baby, where in the other you're simply talking about passively letting nature take its course".

I would say that those who say that are missing my point. Let's put it a different way: Say someone gets into a car accident, and they have brain wave activity for a while, but then after being in the hospital a while they loose that activity. At the point where the person becomes brain dead, society has said it's ok to "pull the plug". So what's the real difference between that person before the brain died, and after? Obviously the lack of brain waves. Before, when such a hypothetical person had brain wave activity, it would have been considered murder to take away life support. After the brain waves cease, it is not. So the only difference is the brain waves.

So why can't it be the same for the brain waves of a fetus? I suppose that if someone is against taking away life support in any case, they'd be consistent in also being against my proposed "brain wave test" for the beginning of life. But I don't think there are too many people who are against euthanasia in the case I just described (lack of brain waves). So if they're not against it then, they really shouldn't be against setting the beginning of life based on brain waves either. Again, it would be considered murder to take away life support if someone still had brain wave activity, (legally), so it could be considered murder if we take away life support (the home environment of the uterus) of a fetus with brain wave activity. Similarly, it's not considered murder (legally) to take away life support if there's no brain wave activity for that victim of a car accident; so why should it be considered legal murder to take away life support for a developing fetus if there is no brain wave activity?

Note to all reading: Don't flame me for being a "baby killer" or any other ad hominems you can come up with. I said at the outset of this post that, personally, I think all abortion should be outlawed. I'm also a realist though, and realize this will never happen. I believe my proposed solution will save MORE babies, simply because it will set a bar we can all live with (not LIKE, but live with), and thus there will be fewer challenges in the courts.

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.

Hmmm. So we should then allow the mob to rule. Maybe we can bring back legal slavery if a majority decides it to be OK. But we wouldn't fully dehumanize them, you know, we'd still consider them to be 3/5ths human.

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

Tyrants and thugs throughout history have devised aundry lists of traits to show how other ethnic groups are inferior and therefore suitable only for extermination. I don't care to define what a fetus isn't, because it is the same exercise, and one that has led to 30 million deaths since 1973.

I'll be one of the few here who can see what you mean, and kinda agree. I wont speak to the legality of abortion, but I do like to think of "lesser evils" in this case, from a practical standpoint. In my opinion, the older a "fetus" is, the worse the abortion becomes. I think most people lean this way, and this is seen in various polls which show an overwhelming support for partial-birth abortions. In a similar sense, I would prefer that a woman use RU-486 within a few days of conception, than I would her having the baby sucked out after several weeks.

It is an awful compromise, and far from what would be ideal (a woman finds out she is pregnant, can have the baby removed from her body at ANY point, and either implanted into someone else, or placed into a super-incubator, where the baby could await adoption).

Or better yet, as a close liberal friend of mine would suggest.. women and/or men would be reversably sterilized at birth, and only later could be made fertile. My friend thought to give the Government the power to require a petition and proof of parental eligibility, whereupon "they" would decide if you were the right "stuff" to breed. (Liberals can get damn creepy..)

This one appears to be a minor caning that the thread orginator is taking in stride.

Actually, I did expect a bit of a caning, since both sides of the abortion issue are utterly polarized into diametrically opposed positions, and since both sides hold those positions with literal religious fervor.

You can be sure that the pro-abortion audience will react with every bit as much vitriol (more, actually) than some have expressed here.

As I see it, the abortion debate, after more than 20 years, is pretty much deadlocked. Right now, pro-lifers seem to be gaining a bit, but you can be sure those gains will be checked, or if not checked, then later reversed.

What I propose is that a genuine and lasting way forward exists.

If we are ever to protect the lives of fully developed young humans, those who are pro-life must first recognize that we cannot force the sizable portion of our society who believe a blastocyst to be "a mass of cells" to submit to the prohibition of early abortion.

Scientific knowledge changes and views change. You might find this inkling of a change interesting....

Some quotes from Nature ^ | 8 July 2002 | Helen Pearson Your destiny, from day one { Embryos differentiate early, aren't blobs}

Our body plan is being defined in the first few hours of life. Your world was shaped in the first 24 hours after conception. Where your head and feet would sprout, and which side would form your back and which your belly, were being defined in the minutes and hours after sperm and egg united.
Just five years ago, this statement would have been heresy. Mammalian embryos were thought to spend their first few days as a featureless orb of cells [snip]
The first hint that the blastocyst was not the unassuming orb it appeared came in the 1980s.[snip]
What is clear is that developmental biologists will no longer dismiss early mammalian embryos as featureless bundles of cells - and that leaves them with some work to do.

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.