Interesting thoughts, and a number of good things in here. But my job is to be tough on you, in the limited time I have, so here goes.
1. 20 weeks is not viable, certainly not with any chance of normal. 23-24 is risky for a normal life. I verified this in 20 seconds with a quick Google search. Do better research.
2. You start with a good hook, but you don't follow through with the theme. Just mentioning it again at the end is not following through on the theme. You start with personal emotion, but then talk technicality and politics. It's a little disjointed.
3. You've already been dinged for mischaracterizing the life begins at conception belief as a misconception. But even more, you mistake the pro-choice argument. Most honest pro-choice people concede that there is something alive at conception, it's what that something alive means that counts. This is a much tougher issue.
4. You mischaracterize the entire anti-abortion argument to say that the middle trimester is the battleground. For the strict anti-abortionist there is no acceptable time for an abortion - they don't even accept the "morning after" pill, and many consider birth control pills and the I.U.D. as unacceptable abortifacients. The fact is that there is no chance of finding a middle ground between these groups, and that's the greater pity, because the majority of Americans are much more in the middle ground - they don't get a voice in this.
All that being said, I love the question, But do we really want to base our definition of life on our ability to save it? This is a serious issue, and one deserving a lot more attention.
The writing itself is getting cleaner. I definitely see improvement.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 01:08 am (UTC)1. 20 weeks is not viable, certainly not with any chance of normal. 23-24 is risky for a normal life. I verified this in 20 seconds with a quick Google search. Do better research.
2. You start with a good hook, but you don't follow through with the theme. Just mentioning it again at the end is not following through on the theme. You start with personal emotion, but then talk technicality and politics. It's a little disjointed.
3. You've already been dinged for mischaracterizing the life begins at conception belief as a misconception. But even more, you mistake the pro-choice argument. Most honest pro-choice people concede that there is something alive at conception, it's what that something alive means that counts. This is a much tougher issue.
4. You mischaracterize the entire anti-abortion argument to say that the middle trimester is the battleground. For the strict anti-abortionist there is no acceptable time for an abortion - they don't even accept the "morning after" pill, and many consider birth control pills and the I.U.D. as unacceptable abortifacients. The fact is that there is no chance of finding a middle ground between these groups, and that's the greater pity, because the majority of Americans are much more in the middle ground - they don't get a voice in this.
All that being said, I love the question, But do we really want to base our definition of life on our ability to save it? This is a serious issue, and one deserving a lot more attention.
The writing itself is getting cleaner. I definitely see improvement.