THE LUKE SKYFREEPER ABORTION DOCTRINE

Luke Skyfreeper (vanity) | June 6, 2003 | Luke Skyfreeper

[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.

---

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Abortion has been a topic of interest for some years. I wrote the "backbone" of this to another thread, and then decided it was significant enough to merit a thread of its own. Agree or disagree, your comments are welcome.

And if you should elect me to the Missouri State legislature, I will propose such a bill. ;-)

[dirtboy]

So a fetus (I don't care to play word games) is somehow less human on the 56th day of gestation than it is on the 57th? While we're dehumanizeing something that is obviously human, let's see if we can declare Jews, Slavs, Christians, Muslims, Aborigines or women as something less than human when it suits our needs. It's so much easier to kill them when we do that, you know.

As Herman Hesse once noted after WWI, we understand less than ever nowadays what it means to be human, and men are shot wholesale as a result. I don't care to downplay the humanity of a fetus for political expediency.

[The Old Hoosier]

Disagree. A life is a life is a life.

[Alberta's Child]

The only problem with your proposal is that it has no basis in either law or science. You have chosen a haphazard "viability" date as the point at which human life begins, and aside from the fact that this runs counter to what is commonly known from biology, it also makes no sense because advances in medicine will always be making that "viability" date earlier and earlier in pregnancy.

[boris]

Did you know the original "working" name of Luke Skywalker was Luke Starkiller?

No kidding.

Oh, and the first Star Wars movie was based on Le Morte d'Artur, the story of King Arthur, with Luke as Arthur, Obi-Wan as Merlin...Light sabres=Excalibur, etc.

--Boris

[stuartcr]

What we need to understand, is that abortions, will continue to happen, whether legal or not.

[dirtboy]

You have chosen a haphazard "viability" date as the point at which human life begins

As if a human infant is somehow viable on its own. I've always thought that argument to be a cop-out. 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.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Luke Skyfreeper Since May 6, 2003

Welcome to FreeRepublic.

Abortion = Killing a baby in the name of convenience

Murder = Killing in the name of Convenience

Kill, to Kill = The act of aborting the life of the living.

Abortion, no matter how you slice it, is killing and murder.

[RAT Patrol]

Technically, even a newborn baby can't live on his own. Someone has to use their own body and care for him. The only difference is the child's location -- outside versus inside.

[Renatus]

Abortion has been a topic of interest for some years. I wrote the "backbone" of this to another thread, and then decided it was significant enough to merit a thread of its own.

It is not significant at all. Life begins at conception and is created by God. Noone has any right to kill any innocent human life. You wasted your time starting this thread.

[Search4Truth]

Useless semantics. Human life starts at conception.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Zavien Doombringer]

[DonQ]

Abortion should be legal, but only up to a certain date.

I suggest the cutoff date be the seventeenth birthday. I know there are parents that have considered this possibility.

[LanPB01]

I'll buck the trend and suggest your views of abortion aren't too bad.

[SunStar]

This debate reminds me of the Israel/Palistinian issue. Both sides are so extreme in their views that neither side will EVER accept a common-sense middleground viewpoint such as the one you listed, and that I agree with. It's a good try, however, and I suggest that until the congress stops the murderous procedure of partial-birth murder, there will certainly be no common ground between the pro-choice and pro-life camps.

[SquirrelKing]

Well put.

[Laserman]

I have often thought that one aspect of the abortion problem is the complicit involvement of doctors who are suppose to try and save lives. To that end, I think doctors should be required to try and save the life of the developing child no matter at what stage the mother seeks an abortion. In early stages medical science would not have the ability to save the life, while at later stages they certainly would be able to. If the mother gives up the baby,the state, or an adopting couple would foot the bill. Also, this would encourage the development of technologies that would allow earlier preservation of the baby when removed from the mother.

At least this approach would recognize the rights of the baby and the responsibility of the doctors to try and save the life. It would still allow the mother to "choose" to separaate herself from the baby, both physicall and legally.

Does this make sense? It is a compromise from requiring the mother to carry the child, but is better than what we have now.

[Ben Bolt]

If I could vote for you I would not .

[Zavien Doombringer]

thanx