Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 11th, 2019, 11:43 pm 

Books, fiction, TV shows, movies they show narratives with resolution, and love triumphs over hate. Out here in the real world, there is just stuff that is not good and can't be sliced in any way that makes everyone happy. We have war, and slavery, and cancer and you name it. What is a nuclear weapon used for? We still have them.

There is no good way out of this. There is no feel-good resolution of the Abortion topic. Its issues, its ethics, its morality, its "implications for society". It is an ethical question that is like asking whether you want to shoot yourself or drink poison.

I don't like being around such nastiness but I look for the minority open to the depth of philosophical and religious ideas which pertain to the human condition. Sadly it cannot be done over there. I’m not holding back. If people here are open to discussing the deeper meanings of the Cave allegory I would appreciate it. I know if we can discuss abortion in the context of both societal mores and objective conscience, we can discuss anything.

What I actually read is something more like "The evil secular government has declare life has no objective value. So lets start killing, starting with infanticide because the weak must be eliminated." All tacked closely to posts about genocide.

I guess I would say that's not going on in reality. What is being described is not unfolding in any Western developed nation. What is described is an episode of Star Trek. This is like a meeting some alien species that has aligned all their planet around utilitarian principles, and wants to start "exterminating the weak" to make "space for the strong." It's a horrifying and compelling idea to think about, but it is not happening in any real way in the real world.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on March 12th, 2019, 12:02 am 

FTR Nothing like that happened on Star Trek.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 12th, 2019, 12:40 pm 

Star Trek had an episode with a society that had a punishment of immediate death penalty for "stepping on the grass". Deep Space 9 had this warrior species that was all about eliminating the weak (Maquis). The original series had Romulans, who would talk about the elimination of the weak and feeble in their society.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby PaulN on March 12th, 2019, 1:24 pm 

Then there were those energy-people who told Captain Kirk, "the presence of beings such as yourselves is intensely painful to us." Snowflakes!

This kind of ethical discussion would seem to hinge somewhat on metaphysics, which means it comes down to what you think constitutes a soul and when said soul appears in a fetus. So one rational approach would be to say that a secular society doesn't make laws based on personal metaphysics, and therefore would have to rely on developmental biology and neuroscience to establish, if possible, at what point a fetus can be conscious and suffer from its own demise. Since there are many legitimate doubts after 22-24 weeks along, we could err on the side of caution and just make really sure that all women have full access to reproductive care and counseling so that they don't get into the horrible position of waiting until they are that far along to pull the plug.

If we applied this sort of standard of conscious suffering to everything, we would probably not eat any creature more neurologically developed than a sardine. Most pro-Life advocates are flaming hypocrites, since they shovel in the cheeseburgers as they assert their reverence for "life" and empathy for a living thing that suffers. It's quite likely that a cow suffers a lot more than a first or second trimester embryo or fetus. Why aren't all those Pro-Life marchers vegetarians? The answers is obvious: they subscribe to a particular sect of Christianity that only values human life and is fine with the exploitation of other animal species.

If a vegan told me they were pro-Life, I would at least respect their position and their reproductive choice.
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 12th, 2019, 2:41 pm 

Since there are many legitimate doubts after 22-24 weeks along, we could err on the side of caution and just make really sure that all women have full access to reproductive care and counseling so that they don't get into the horrible position of waiting until they are that far along to pull the plug.

Yes.

On some days, I get the feeling that government-sanctioned sterilization of women is a preferable ethical action than is partial-birth abortions. Am fully aware that both of these things are evils. But as I said, I feel like I'm being asked to either be shot or to drink poison. There will be no happy resolution. Choose between evils.

The legal process would look something like this: if you have undergone PBA or a late-term procedure, you are not charged with Murder 1 and sent to prison, ( ... which is what the Christian Right wants.) But instead you are sterilized. No prison sentence, no criminal rapsheet. You have demonstrated to society that you don't have the "whatever" in order to be a fitting mother. (responsibility, access to reproductive care, family support, you're too poor, your life is too turbulent, et cetera be that as it may) You get one chance to make all the mistakes.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 12th, 2019, 3:08 pm 

Hycos

Abortion is an ethical question of colliding rights. In the ethical framework of Social Contract Theory, its greatest weakness is in those situations in which two rights conflict. This means, you could scream "rights of the unborn" until your face turns blue, and it makes no progress on the ethical question. SCT cannot resolves those questions until at which it references something outside its framework. You are invoking Rights as a basis of your ethical and moral argument, but then trying to use the ethical system of Rights to uphold your position of the illegality of abortion. But in a world of conflicting Rights, there is no resolution from Rights-based ethical frameworks.


But if rights are relative the fact that they collide is just chance. Rights are made possible in a free society only by the acceptance of voluntary obligations necessary to make rights possible. Rights don’t exist in statist slavery. Citizens only have obligations to the state. The right to life is only made possible by the efforts of previous obligations in support of this right.

In a Republic, the right to life is legally and politically protected by the entire society. A Republic can be totally secular and many of them have been, even going back to ancient Rome. Your repeated references to "value" and "objective value" sounds like some brand of Utilitarianism.


The rights of selective life or life having been decided to have value are protected by law.

First of all genocide has no justification. That's why it is recognized as a crime against humanity by the entire Western World.


People told that to Hitler but he disagreed. The Armenian genocide was denied. Who cares about the genocide in Rwanda? Certain genocide are considered PC so can be complained about. Others are not so are ignored as in Rwanda.

What you are describing here is an extreme , radical form of Utilitarianism. In a more academic context, you would be called out for engaging in a slippery slope argument. I would say you slipped violently into one, by taking its logic to its "ultimate extreme". This type of polar thinking at the extremes is already known in ethics. So for example if you take any ethical framework to its complete pathological climax, you get really disturbing results.


All I’m doing is opening my eyes to the reality of human nature as an expression of the fallen human condition. Do you have any idea of how many “experiments” were carried out on Jews by Nazis during the holocaust in the name of science? Do you have any idea of how food sources are contaminated by scientific experiments in the name of financial profit? Our species is simultaneously capable of the greatest compassion and the greatest atrocities. The weakness of modern philosophy is that it prefers to argue about rather than contemplate how and why it is so.

No. You recoil in terror. Everyone does. Human scientific experimentation is banned in the entire civilized world. You can't strap people into cars and smash them into walls. You can't give people cancer on purpose by irradiating them. You can't dump toxic chemicals on a city to "see how people react." The reason you can't do this legally is because human beings have Rights. Those Rights are protected from the government taking them way, willy-nilly for the "greater good". Long story short, you can take an ethical stance and take it to an extreme and get repugnant results.


No, people do not have rights. We only have obligations. When obligations are pursued they can be expressed as rights. Of course we give cancer on purpose. It is part of the profit motive which serves to poison natural resources. When the dollar is God everything must be sacrificed to it.

Bottom line. Americans did not sit around contemplating the "value of life" and decide "life has no objective value" and so "lets kill the infants." That is insanity. What you are posting on this forum is not rational.


You pursue philosophy through arguing about rights. I pursue philosophy as the love of wisdom and acceptance that “Man is a being in search of meaning” My interests or not rational in secular societies content to argue rights. My concerns are only for those whose interests are in leaving the psychological confines of Plato’s cave rather than becoming attached to them during the struggle for prestige and self justification..
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 12th, 2019, 5:24 pm 

All I’m doing is opening my eyes to the reality of human nature as an expression of the fallen human condition. Do you have any idea of how many “experiments” were carried out on Jews by Nazis during the holocaust in the name of science?

I know Japan and Germany were doing these kinds of experiments. Is it the number of experiments that matters here or rather how recently this happened?

Do you have any idea of how food sources are contaminated by scientific experiments in the name of financial profit?

I understand that it was a fact that this was done with lead in gasoline, and then done again with carcinogens in cigarettes. Industry insiders attempted to conceal the health effects because of profit. Yes.

Our species is simultaneously capable of the greatest compassion and the greatest atrocities. The weakness of modern philosophy is that it prefers to argue about rather than contemplate how and why it is so.

I think we have made some incremental progress. Today we don't say that bad things happen to our societies because the gods are angry because we aren't giving them enough burnt offerings in sacrifice. The romans had republics and the Greeks had democracy hundreds of years before baby Jesus was swaddled in the manger. I only know that they had those, but I don't know why they did. If you look at Kantian ethics for instance, there is a lot of Christianity underlying it. Moreso in Locke. To be less facetious: There is a lot of protestant flavorings mixed into our modern republics -- which could not have been in the ancient ones.

Has protestantism failed? Should we go back to a more medieval system with a State-Sponsored Church and hierarchies of bishops?

No, people do not have rights. We only have obligations. When obligations are pursued they can be expressed as rights. Of course we give cancer on purpose. It is part of the profit motive which serves to poison natural resources. When the dollar is God everything must be sacrificed to it.

But if rights are relative the fact that they collide is just chance. Rights are made possible in a free society only by the acceptance of voluntary obligations necessary to make rights possible. Rights don’t exist in statist slavery. Citizens only have obligations to the state. The right to life is only made possible by the efforts of previous obligations in support of this right.

Somewhere the abortion topic de-materalized. Now we are lost in the weeds of the theory of governments and political order.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 12th, 2019, 5:28 pm 

BJ

In this sense I don’t see how “conscience has atrophied” in humans? When we’re in disagreement I would say that it is a sure sign that human empathy is as fresh and alive as ever - we’re still coming to terms with many societal problems though and we’ll always have to adjust our thinking to acccomodate different perspectives alongside new discoveries. Then whole PC cultue thing is something people have been bemoaning since the early 90’s. It’s become an easy target and so more and more people took it up. Even when the actual reality of this PC attitude disappear you’ll no doubt get people who still complain about it.


Consider these two quotations, the first by Einstein and the second by Simone Wei. We normally associate conscience with guilt but this is a mistake which has caused incredible psychological pain. Where guilt is the process of self blame, remorse is the recognition of what we are in context of the potential for human being. Where remorse is healthy humility, guilt as it relates to human being meaningless self blame for what we are

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein


Conscience is what enables freedom from societal conditioning while opening us to a universal human perspective in which life serves a universal purpose we so easily deny

Simone Weil, First and Last Notebooks, translated by Richard Rees (London: Oxford University Press, 1970.)

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.


The value of philosophy isn't in providing answers but raising questions inviting conscious contemplation of our contradictions. In this way we can "remember" the answers.

According to Simone, without inner work we are all in the same position living in self deception in the confines of Plato's cave. Could you look at a tree and at the same offer the higher part of your attention to connecting with reality far greater than self deception? That seems to be our problem. We lose the sense of the forest from being absorbed by details or the trees. If we collectively had the humility to receive the help of conscience to allow us to experience what we are in the context of the potential for human being, then all would be different. The fact that abortions of convenience are so easily justified is just proof of our collective lack of awreness of how we exist in hypocrisy and what we lose by it..
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 12th, 2019, 8:59 pm 

Hykos

Somewhere the abortion topic de-materalized. Now we are lost in the weeds of the theory of governments and political order.


Not really. The topic asks if there is any reason why a three day old baby shouldn't be destroyed as an abortion? If not, why not? What is the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a three day old baby?

The government demands the ability to make this decision. I am questioning why people do not respect the cycle of life beginning with conception that can lead to abortions of convenience

The government by definition is void of conscience yet it is possible that human beings can begin to feel respect for life and not view conception so cheaply. Why should parents send their daughter to college just so she can get her first abortion as a rite of passage? Why deprive her of this right?

We cannot answer these questions and I am suggesting that it is only because objective conscience and its awareness of the universal value of the life cycle beginning with conception has atrophied. Without it, abortion is perfectly natural especially for a college girl indoctrinated into accepting it as such after a few beers.

So the question of the three day grace period to decide life and death invites both a governmental approach and a human approach. We need both to do justice to the question and feel the absurdity of the human condition which enables this situation..
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 12th, 2019, 10:14 pm 

Nick -

What is the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a three day old baby?


Why you asking hyksos this? I told why it is different. Didn’t you understand?

As for “atrophied conscience” I simply don’t think this is true and given that we cannot measure “collective conscience” it’s fairly meaningless. We’ve certainly been through some societal shifts as a species and for the first time in our history we’re actually more of a “collective” group than ever before. Clashes of cultures and ideas, instant communications, medical advances, etc., have certainly changed so quickly that we’re reeling and possibly more than a little a blind-sighted to our sense of individuality and our personal views have become a little tangled in the noise of outrage voiced in global communications about every single subject possible.

If no one was concerned abuot abortion I’d be worried. That simply isn’t the case so it is still considered a topic worth discussing. The push back against the pro-life camp is aimed at the extreme end. Some people are callous and wouldn’t think twice about aborting; so be it. Acting on conscience they are FREE to choose and suffer the possible psychological consequences. I am also FREE to murder people, and if I did then I’d have to suffer consequences.

I certainly don’t act the way I do ike some robot following every given law of the land. Laws, and societal pressures, do certainly impact upon my decisions though - I think about this a lot and try to be honest with myself.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 13th, 2019, 12:51 am 

BJ

What is the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a three day old baby?


Why you asking hyksos this? I told why it is different. Didn’t you understand?


Maybe it’s me but it still isn’t clear as to what the objective difference is and how this difference provides the right to live.

As for “atrophied conscience” I simply don’t think this is true and given that we cannot measure “collective conscience” it’s fairly meaningless.


I’m using the term objective values and now include objective morality as Plato described them. values such as truth, good, and beauty exist outside of the individual as universal qualities and are not dependent upon our perception or belief. Objective morality is a universal quality existing even if we become extinct. We feel objective morality by means of objective conscience. The human condition has made it so that we do not exercise our ability for objective conscience so it devolves into subjective experiences we define as right and wrong serving egoism and societal beliefs.

If no one was concerned abuot abortion I’d be worried. That simply isn’t the case so it is still considered a topic worth discussing. The push back against the pro-life camp is aimed at the extreme end. Some people are callous and wouldn’t think twice about aborting; so be it. Acting on conscience they are FREE to choose and suffer the possible psychological consequences. I am also FREE to murder people, and if I did then I’d have to suffer consequences.


You are discussing abortion from a societal perspective within which people feel values differently. I’m trying to place abortion into the context of evolved human being or what Einstein called the Cosmic Man.

In order to be an evolved or cosmic man, a person would be governed by more advanced feelings which reflect universal truths as opposed to personal expressions of fear, pride, or vanity. Einstein wrote:

…………………..The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930. <-- Click for complete essay.


This is what I am getting at. As I've experienced it, Plato was right to claim that we live as if in a cave attached to the shadows on the wall completely oblivious of what we are and unable to turn towards the light as the depth of our being is called to do. Einstein asks how to awaken this cosmic religious feeling especially now when the results of technology are doing their best to destroy it in favor of better shadows.

Our collective lack of respect for life including the celebrated acceptance of abortions of convenience within certain circles only indicates how deeply we have sunk into Plato's cave. My guess is that Einstein was right and if we do not collectively grow in emotional quality and into a universal perspective, we will not survive the next war. The question is how it can happen? "Therein lies the rub' Hamlet contemplated suicide but lets not get too drastic.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 13th, 2019, 2:59 am 

Nick -

I can only repeat my previous answer about the difference. That is the risk to mother and baby - that is obvious. Sometimes the mother is unconscious and the next of kin chooses the mothers life over the baby’s life if the doctors say one will die. In other situations the mother may willing give their life to save their child (and sometimes both will die).

It’s a difficult choice. Once born though the risk to mother is independent to the child’s. This is obvious and a distinct diffrence. No doctor would terminate an unborn child if the birth circumstances were relatively risk free. Maybe some hideous sociopathic doctor would, and maybe some guy tomorrow will go out and murder someone. I’d say the later is a far bigger, and realistic, concern wouldn’t you?

As for the Plato and Einstein stuff. Not relevant to me here, so there’s nothing I want to say on the matter. Of course you beliefs and opinions are welcome but I cannot pretend I understand your reasoning nor that I wish to spend the time taking part in a possibly futile task.

As a separate topic I’m more than willing to discuss Plato. Einstein’s personal philosophy you can take up with another.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 13th, 2019, 2:42 pm 

BadgerJelly » March 13th, 2019, 2:59 am wrote:Nick -

I can only repeat my previous answer about the difference. That is the risk to mother and baby - that is obvious. Sometimes the mother is unconscious and the next of kin chooses the mothers life over the baby’s life if the doctors say one will die. In other situations the mother may willing give their life to save their child (and sometimes both will die).

It’s a difficult choice. Once born though the risk to mother is independent to the child’s. This is obvious and a distinct diffrence. No doctor would terminate an unborn child if the birth circumstances were relatively risk free. Maybe some hideous sociopathic doctor would, and maybe some guy tomorrow will go out and murder someone. I’d say the later is a far bigger, and realistic, concern wouldn’t you?

As for the Plato and Einstein stuff. Not relevant to me here, so there’s nothing I want to say on the matter. Of course you beliefs and opinions are welcome but I cannot pretend I understand your reasoning nor that I wish to spend the time taking part in a possibly futile task.

As a separate topic I’m more than willing to discuss Plato. Einstein’s personal philosophy you can take up with another.


Of course there can be extenuating circumstances. The idea of the thread suggests that we don't feel that a baby three days after birth is the same as baby a day before birth. We don't feel the value of the life cycle. Instead we ignore it and allow the state to decide life and death based on pragmatic concerns. Does this seem normal to you? For me it suggests that as advanced as we are intellectually, we are equally shallow emotionally. This is dangerous situation.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 14th, 2019, 12:07 am 

Nick -

I don’t think you have any justification for suggesting this. You can ignore the possible medical complication of birth if you want, but really that is the reason there is a difference.

Much like if there is an accident and 50% chance to save one life or a 5% chance to save two, we go for the most likely outcome - unless the person in the situation persuades the rescuers otherwise. These are the kind of “pragmatic” concerns we’re talking about. It is left to professional opinion based on the circumstances. If every medical case had to be overseen by a judge we’d end up with surgeries being postponed and people dying needlessly (baby, adults and eveyone else too).

Basically, you can “suggest” something you feel. It appears no one else here agrees and you cannot offer anything that backs up your thoughts.

If you can point us to a specific case (that is genuine) do so. If not I’ve no idea where this thread can go from here as you seem to want/expect us to say killing new borns babies is all fine and dandy? That’s just plain ridiculous.

Killing newborns is not something anyone here would agree with. I’d also say that killing a mother against her will to save her unborn child is also something people here wouldn’t agree with. It is slightly more nuanced though so focus there and on the circumstances of those tragic sitiations if you wish to.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 14th, 2019, 12:34 am 

BJ

Basically, you can “suggest” something you feel. It appears no one else here agrees and you cannot offer anything that backs up your thoughts.


A feeling cqnnot be proven. A person either has it or they don’t. I remember reading that the difference between animal and conscious love is that animal love is selective while conscious love is the love of life itself. This quality seeks to help life reach its potential. Where a mother bear loves its cubs, it doesn’t love you. Conscious love or respect for life exists in us as a potential. Naturally it includes supporting the human life cycle beginning with conception and ending in death. We have selective love. I’m not being critical. It is what we are. A philosopher will admit it and ponder why it is so.

Killing newborns is not something anyone here would agree with. I’d also say that killing a mother against her will to save her unborn child is also something people here wouldn’t agree with. It is slightly more nuanced though so focus there and on the circumstances of those tragic sitiations if you wish to.


It’s not about killing newborns but pondering why late term abortion including up to the time of birth is worth a law to protect it, yet killing a three day old bby which is the sme as this fetus just before birth is considered reprehensible. Something is wrong with this picture we do not want to admit. The principle of respect for life becomes ignored in favor of pragmatic egoistic concerns. Again I’m not being critical but just admitting what and how we are.

What would it take for our species to emotionally develop in quality with the speed our intellect is growing to become capable of a love for life itself? I can’t see it happening which just means for me that the next war is inevitable as the modern expression of selective love which eliminates the unloved.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on March 14th, 2019, 12:51 am 

Nick_A » March 13th, 2019, 11:34 pm wrote:I remember reading that the difference between animal and conscious love is that animal love is selective while conscious love is the love of life itself.

Reference, please. Whoever wrote that must have had a reason for making that distinction, and they must also have had some explanation for what they meant.
"Love of life itself" sounds rather too abstract to correspond to any emotion experienced by normal people in the ordinary course of events.

...[killing full-term babies] The principle of respect for life becomes ignored in favor of pragmatic egoistic concerns.

Still haven't seen a concrete example. Where, when, how, why and to whom did this happen?

What would it take for our species to emotionally develop in quality with the speed our intellect is growing to become capable of a love for life itself?

How would this manifest?
Universal veganism; no leather garments; no fossil fuels; no wars, capital punishment or violence of any kind; destroy all the weapons; end all toxic effluents and stop using pesticides; shut down industry, mining, hunting, factory farming and motorized transportation...
Sounds fine. Are you up for it?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 14th, 2019, 3:36 am 

Nick -

What are talking about?

It’s not about killing newborns but pondering why late term abortion including up to the time of birth is worth a law to protect it, yet killing a three day old bby which is the sme as this fetus just before birth is considered reprehensible. Something is wrong with this picture we do not want to admit.


This is like me saying “it isn’t worth making a law to protect the rights of vegetables, and/or against genocide toward imagary beings that don’t and won’t ever exist”.

Law are not “pondered” based on fantastical propositions.

The issue with the while “abortion” argument is quite simple. The religious believe the value of a human life begins at conception, whilst others believe a human life is not really present until neurogenesis has reached s certain stage. People will always argue about pushing this line forward or back by x number of days.

If you hold to human life beginning as conception does this mean wome can be accused of manslaughter when they miscarry? This opens up a whole new can of worms about intent. I do believe there was a caase not to long ago where a man physically abused a pregnant woman. She lost her baby and the guy was convicted of manslaughter - correct me if I am wrong because I don’t feel the need to do a search for this online.

Terminating a pregnancy is not the same as aborting. The first is done to save the mother’s life the later is illegal. The issue is certain camps like to twist the facts in order to push this or that agenda based on this or that belief. It appears you may have been misinformed about what the laws are and what most people think about this subject - maybe you’re probing for facts? If so remove cookies fro your searches and look at a variety of arguments on the subject. The extreme ends/cases are often used to muddy the facts of the matter, and they’re usually attached to selective quotes and misinterpretations/slander (as you’ve been victim to on this forum to some degree, as are we all, and that experience if taken into consideration should keep you on your guard about the validity of te arguments you’ve read and/or are reading).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 14th, 2019, 11:01 am 

BJ

Yes, fetal homicide is another of these concepts which prove our ignorance.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fet ... -laws.aspx

Fetal homicide requires that the fetus be considered a person while abortion requires that a fetus be considered a parasite or zef. Does this seem a sign of intelligence to you or just proof of our ignorance as to what we are?

The issue with the while “abortion” argument is quite simple. The religious believe the value of a human life begins at conception, whilst others believe a human life is not really present until neurogenesis has reached s certain stage. People will always argue about pushing this line forward or back by x number of days.


I agree that the majority are influenced by indoctrinated beliefs. Some believe this and others believe that. But the hidden truth is that it is only a small minority who “feel” anything. Their beliefs prevent it. Under these circumstances respect for life as an objective universal value is impossible.

1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948)


We are governed by emotions which justify beliefs which keep us in psychological slavery. Only a few have acquired the freedom to “feel” including the ability to feel respect for life. People who feel have no reason to fight over beliefs since their universal foundation is the same.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 14th, 2019, 12:34 pm 

I’m not up for a discussion about when a “fetus” is classed as “alive” or not. Sorry, bark up another tree.

I will say that given that all we know a functioning brain is required for consciousness. Three months seems reasonable and even though a case by case approach would be better it is required of the law to make some kind of delineation. I’m interested in neurology and neurogenesis so I do understand a little about what we consider conscious and the development of a fetus. We may learn that 3 months is too late, but to date it is a very conservative choice from my understanding - meaning it is more likely that 16 weeks, or a couple more, would be kn the ballpark for when a conscious being begins to emerge.

If others say from the point of conception then that’s their view. Unfortunately the science doesn’t back them up.

Nothing more to say on the subject. Seriously, NOTHING. Maybe someone else will take you up on your strange tangent about Einstein or whatever that is you’ve posted above - frankly it seems completely out of place so I wouldn’t hild your breath.

If you wish to delve into other ethical issues and definitions of “life” and such, I’m sure some here would be interested to hear your thoughts and views.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 14th, 2019, 10:51 pm 

So the bottom line is that most do not "feel" the objective value of the human life cycle. Parts of the cycle are considered by society to have value and the rest is just a nuisance.

The ones I feel for most in these times of spiritual deprivation are the young girls. There is something within them that feels the objective value of the potential for a new life within them. Normally a young girl would respect it with modesty. But this is un hip in these times when the cultural emphasis is either on being an angry feminist or a super c_nt. Those who feel the objective value of the human life cycle beginning within her are made to feel obsolete. Sometimes they even lose their human instinct for respect for life and accept the modern belief in abortion as rite of passage into a real independent woman..

Those who understand know they can't fight city hall. The loss of ability to feel respect for life is a dominant trend. All that can be done is to keep the paths open for young girls to meet women who understand what it means to feel respect for life as a normal woman and not fall victim to denying what they are for the sake of public acceptance.

Such women who can teach in this way by example are worth their weight in gold.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on March 14th, 2019, 11:06 pm 

Nick_A » March 14th, 2019, 9:51 pm wrote:So the bottom line is that most do not "feel" the objective value of the human life cycle.

Feeling isn't objective - by definition.

And the BS about women was both over the top and aesthetically offensive.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby PaulN on March 15th, 2019, 10:08 am 

deleted
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 15th, 2019, 11:03 am 

Serpent » March 14th, 2019, 11:06 pm wrote:
Nick_A » March 14th, 2019, 9:51 pm wrote:So the bottom line is that most do not "feel" the objective value of the human life cycle.

Feeling isn't objective - by definition.

And the BS about women was both over the top and aesthetically offensive.


Women like Simone Weil are threatening to the educated who have lost the ability to feel. They must be banished

"We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again."
-- C. Bouglé, Director of Career Placement
Ecole normale supérieure


"V's muse is Simone Weil... in V, Strickland's
elegy for Weil
is widened to include
a longline of known
and conjured women:
prehistoric skywatchers
& cave inscribers,
accused witches,
upper class 18th century women
trying to gain access to
Newtonian knowledge,
and women like Weil who
thought about
technology and economics
and justice
in the same breath"

What could be more offensive than a woman denying indoctrination for the sake of feeling the objective truth of the human condition? It is too offensive to consider. Yet some do and will suffer the consequences of refusing indoctrination.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on March 15th, 2019, 11:34 am 

Aren't you late for your train back to the 18th century?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
TheVat liked this post


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on March 15th, 2019, 11:44 am 

The ones I feel for most in these times of spiritual deprivation are the young girls. There is something within them that feels the objective value of the potential for a new life within them. Normally a young girl would respect it with modesty. But this is un hip in these times when the cultural emphasis is either on being an angry feminist or a super c_nt.


SPCF is for literate and factually supported discussion. Foul mouthed and defamatory comments, and generalization offered without citing evidence, may be grounds for banning. This needs to stop.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7087
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 15th, 2019, 3:14 pm 

I am questioning why people do not respect the cycle of life beginning with conception that can lead to abortions of convenience

The government by definition is void of conscience yet it is possible that human beings can begin to feel respect for life and not view conception so cheaply.

Who are you talking to on this forum? Who expressed these views here?

We cannot answer these questions and I am suggesting that it is only because objective conscience and its awareness of the universal value of the life cycle beginning with conception has atrophied.

"...has atrophied.."? Do you think that abortion was invented in the 1920s?
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 15th, 2019, 5:58 pm 

Serpent » March 15th, 2019, 11:34 am wrote:Aren't you late for your train back to the 18th century?


Why stop there? If Simone was open to the idea of a perennial tradition why should I deny it? It makes too much sense. But come to think of it, when ideas begin to mke too much sense they must be objected to. they disturb the peace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

Perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis),[note 1] also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in modern spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

Perennialism has its roots in the Renaissance interest in neo-Platonism and its idea of The One, from which all existence emanates. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) sought to integrate Hermeticism with Greek and Jewish-Christian thought,[1] discerning a Prisca theologia which could be found in all ages.[2] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) suggested that truth could be found in many, rather than just two, traditions. He proposed a harmony between the thought of Plato and Aristotle, and saw aspects of the Prisca theologia in Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Quran, the Kabbalah and other sources.[3] Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) coined the term philosophia perennis.[4]

A more popular interpretation argues for universalism, the idea that all religions, underneath seeming differences, point to the same Truth. In the early 19th century the Transcendentalists propagated the idea of a metaphysical Truth and universalism, which inspired the Unitarians, who proselytized among Indian elites. Towards the end of the 19th century, the Theosophical Society further popularized universalism, not only in the western world, but also in western colonies. In the 20th century universalism was further popularized in the English-speaking world through the neo-Vedanta inspired Traditionalist School, which argues for a metaphysical, single origin of the orthodox religions, and by Aldous Huxley and his book The Perennial Philosophy, which was inspired by neo-Vedanta and the Traditionalist School.


It is bad enough that a man bothers with this but for a woman to stop fighting about womens rights, gender rights, and abortion rights in favor of contemplating perennial wisdom and human rights is intolerable and questions the whole purpose of secular progressive education
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 15th, 2019, 11:10 pm 

David

I emailed him back to go eff himself and called him a “miserable cretin” to boot. That felt good! :-) Needless to say, I have never even tried to log in again to that sewer. Feel free to share this anecdote at Philosophy Now. ;-)

Nick, I’ve read your posts at that forum. I’ve read your posts bragging about grabbing women’s asses, your bigotry and intolerance; I know that you are a sexist and a homophobe and probably a racist; I know that you support Trump. I know that you think women should be meek, submissive, baby-making machines for their menfolk.



David, have you ever felt for people in psychological pain. Why try to cheapen what should be a normal human response? I remember once I mentioned that behind pinching can mean many things. As a woking musician and having worked in many clubs, people like to play. Women have pinched me and I have pinched them. It is all in fun. This is far different than people abusing one another. Playing is one thing and abuse is another. That is the point

None of what you have written is true. You just are copying those like Greta. The point is why think this way? If it makes you happy I’ve also been kicked out of that site and I’ll show you what Amod wrote about me:

Really!? Nick_A, Really!!? Repeating all this again after the discussion we had last time where I told you why what you were doing in that thread was politics, where I pointed out that the majority of your diatribes have been left alone, where I said that pretty much any ideas can be discussed here but they must have at least a modicum of philosophising involved and most importantly where I pointed out that you were pissing me off!!! You really are one of the most dense cloth-earred narcissistic twits I've met in a while and I can tell you that over the years on this forum I've met a few. Take a short break Nick_A and my advice to you is to practice this 'conscious attention' you've been yakking on about as your basic attention and listening skills are woeful.

AMod.


I defy anyone to find an attack against another that could be called a diatribe. This is my favorite: “You really are one of the most dense cloth-earred narcissistic twits I've met in a while and I can tell you that over the years on this forum I've met a few.” Sheesh, thank God we’re not married. Actually I can advertise myself as a keyboard entertainer as the "Deplorable Narcissistic Twit" I'll be a rock star.

Philosophy worthy of the name is not possible with such people in charge. Never let common sense piss off a mod. Simone’s common sense pissed off a lot of people. Philosophy as the love of wisdom requires emotional impartiality. Secularism is peculiar in that it believes itself superior so has become increasingly emotionally hostile towards the essence of religion which it doesn't understand. So those like me who bring up ideas associated with Plato and Plotinus must be rejected even violently enough to piss off mods.

I practice on a site like this. I introduce questions and contemplate how to answer rejections. I’d like to eventually encourage the American Weil Society to open a students branch where her ideas could be discussed and occasionally one of the many PhDs can even chime in. I learn on sites like this. So if (horrors) I feel for the young who are being harmed on the inside by spirit killers in universities, why not support those like Simone who rose above the spirit killers as a seeker of truth and provide inspiration.

The funny thing is that my great great grand uncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and friendly with Helena Blavatsky the founder of Theosophy. Can you imagine these blind deniers trying to digest some of their conversations. It cannot happen. Their attitudes will never allow it So there is no sense in returning. Meaningful philosophy cannot exist in such a hostile environment.

So to make it simple I’ve learned that I’m a svoloch which takes in all the details. But when I remember that Simone caught hell for these ideas and Jesus and Socrates were killed for them, maybe being considered a svoloch is an indication that you’re doing something right.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby someguy1 on March 16th, 2019, 1:39 am 

davidm » March 15th, 2019, 3:50 pm wrote:
Big difference between Philosophy Now and here: Here we have TheVat, a genuinely good and very intelligent guy who doesn’t put up with this crap.


Yet he puts up with you.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 16th, 2019, 1:57 am 

Someguy -

That made me chuckle! A great thing to see on forums is two people going at each other. Usually some genuine concern is being expressed and sometimes we even get lucky enough to see one or both get some better idea of why the other thinks they way they do.

I have to admit I’m finding it very hard to understand what it is Nick thinks or why he thinks it. I’m not entirely convinced he’s here to preach, yet some of his words have been just as tainted with venom as davidm’s.

It would be more productive, I believe, if Nick stuck to one point at a time rather than weaving some vague notion of something together and insinuating x,y or z whlist diverting from any particular item of investigation. On the one hand he seems to be arguing about some law that doesn’t exist and on the other he’s questioning the difference between scientific definitions of “life” and equating it with human consciousness. More precise and focus on the latter area may yield some common ground if they’re willing to work it out rather than sling poop at each other.

Anyway, I think conflict is good stuff for the “soul” as long as it can be worked past at some point.

Note: fully aware of how patrionizing I’m being. Just hoping it will stop any possible looming “ban”. It does seem Nick is coming here from a philosophical stance so he may not realise this is primarily a “science” site and so attitudes here will reflect that.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests