THE LUKE SKYFREEPER ABORTION DOCTRINE

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

[Protagoras]

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

Oh goody, our new God has a fan!

[Zavien Doombringer]

There isn't any viable reason for anyone to have an abortion. It is selfish and should not be used for birth control.

There are plenty of married couples that would love to adopt. My wife and I are one of those couples. And statistically there hasn't been any case so far that the life of the mother was in jeopardy and needed an abortion to warrant this as a means for legalization.

Think about it this way, what would your chances be for you to be here if your mom was pro-choice?

[Luke Skyfreeper]

So who is Yoda?

Poweful Jedi. Take you to him, I will. But first, we eat! 8-)

[Zavien Doombringer]

Man, that's a good comparison...My home this is, yesss

[chimera]

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 you're really serious about this one, you'd better move the time pointer back to the moment of conception. Even a fertilized egg can survive outside the womb, with assistance, for a time. Unless you're willing to place a time limit on ex-vivo survivability, and logically/factually justify it, you're back to the point of conception on this basis.

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.

Sensory input and response is also a poor proxy for definition of personhood. There are people alive today, recognized as fully human, who, because of brain injury, cannot experience pain. I was friends with a guy who was quadrupalegic, couldn't feel a thing from the neck down. Is he going to be classified as partly human, maybe four-fifths of a man? Or is it an all-or-nothing deal? Clearly the ability to receive and process sensory input is not a sufficient basis for assigning personhood.

[Hanging Chad]

"...And if you should elect me to the Missouri State legislature, I will propose such a bill...."
- - -
Sounds like a good reason NOT to vote for you, to me.

[LanPB01]

If I vote for him to be god, will he agree to meet the demands of my powerful lobbyists and get you to shut up, or at least make a point?

[stuartcr]

What??!!!

[anniegetyourgun]

So true....and all because the heart of mankind is deceitfully wicked....who can know it?

[syriacus]

Practically, this means that for humane reasons, all abortions after a certain date (somewhere between 8 and 24 weeks) should be made illegal.

You might like the thinking of James Trefil---he wrote a book (The Facts of Life) in which he argued that fetuses attain "humanness" at about 24 weeks.

I have a question:

If we aren't humans before 24 weeks....

what are we...

dogs? cats? lizards?

[dirtboy]

If we aren't humans before 24 weeks.... what are we... dogs? cats? lizards?

I dunno, maybe a big paramecium family reunion?

[palmer]

Our scientific understanding is now sufficient for us to come up with a reasonable cut-off date that is unlikely to change significantly in the future, unless we are able to come up with artificial wombs that can nurture the single cell all the way to birth age. That, however, is unlikely to happen, for the simple reason it would be too expensive.

You're losing me here. An artificial womb (e.g. human in a vat) is a moral abomination. Who gave us the right to murder people simply because the power fails? The reason why we need to protect well-developed fetuses is simply because they share our characteristics of humanity: they look human and can feel pain. Science has nothing to do with this debate; a fertlized egg is a "human" in some scientific sense, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of protection to the point of prosecuting the mother who kills it.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Hmmm....I could be apologizing here. It sounded at first like you were defending abortion. oops.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

People don't know you yet and are more likely to write you off as a disruptor.

If there are people here who are unable to tell, from what I write, that I'm not a disruptor, well, then, I'm at a total loss for what to say.

[stuartcr]

I wouldn't say mankind is wicked, I would say it's the individuals.

[ActionNewsBill]

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

You'll be running as a Democrat?

[Protagoras]

The idea of the forum is to comment, not shut up. That the point I made was lost on you is irrelevant.

A person comes onto the forum his first day and posts a "pro abortion/government decides when life begins" thread on a conservative website and he/she gets applause from some so called conservatives. Go figure.

[syriacus]

Sensory input and response is also a poor proxy for definition of personhood.

Medical patients will be glad to know this.

Imagine the emotional insecurity for patients if it were legal to kill them when they were anesthetized (unable to feel) during an operation!

[Protagoras]

So you post a pro abortion/big government thread on your first day and you aren't trying to disrupt? LOL, nice try.

I personally don't mind disruptors like you, they make easy targets.

[Zavien Doombringer]

uh, he's been here May 6th...one month..