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 davidm on March 30th, 2019, 10:17 am 

Nick, tbh, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

You don’t even know the definition of “philosophy of science.” You seem to think it means scientism, which is a philosophical stance that only scientific statements have meaning. Notably, this statement is itself not scientific, so … self-refuting, anyone?

The philosophy of science is NOT scientism. It has nothing to do with either affirming or denying a conscious source behind or upholding reality. It has to do with a systematic study of the means, methods, goals and problems of scientific practices.

Some problems in the philosophy of science include, but are not limited to: The demarcation problem — where, if anywhere, can we draw a line between what is science and what is not science? The pessimistic meta-induction — since all our past theories have been demonstrated strictly to be false, shouldn’t we expect that all our current theories will be shown strictly to be false as well? What is the goal of science — to find Truth, or to make models with more refined predictive power? Does scientific practice converge on truth, or merely refine models? Another issue is theory underdetermination — since in principle one could, by tinkering with underlying assumptions, construct a virtually infinite number of theories to explain any particular observation or phenomenon, how do we privilege one theory over all its competitors? This is tied in with the problem of auxiliary hypotheses — that scientific practice is shot through with underlying assumptions that themselves cannot be scientifically tested. I could go on and on. Hume’s notorious problem of induction also factors in.

There are branches of the philosophy of science that focus on particular subjects, such as the philosophy of time, where the main issue is between eternalists, who say that the past, present and future are all equally real, and presentists, who say that only the present is real. There is the philosophy of biology which focuses on questions like: what, exactly, is a species? What, exactly, is a gene? There are many more such questions besides.

The only real overlap between the philosophy of science and religion, or the philosophy of religion, is the question of metaphysical naturalism: the philosophical claim that the natural world is all that there is, excluding the supernatural and God a priori. But as I have already shown you, philosophers of science diverge on this question. I gave you the example of Brad Monton, whose whole career was in the field of philosophy of science. He has argued against metaphysical naturalism, saying that at most scientists practice methodological naturalism, and should leave open the question of the supernatural. In a paper that Monton wrote criticizing the Kitzmiller decision banning teaching intelligent design in public schools, Monton blasted the judge for presuming, without justification, to solve the aforementioned demarcation problem; Monton went on to outline several ways that science could potentially demonstrate supernaturalism. As I explained to you, Monton is an atheist, but he also wrote a book called Finding God in Science.

Platonism also figures into the philosophy of science and some scientists, like Tegmark, are actually Platonists — Tegmark is a mathematical platonist: reality IS math, according to him; physical entities are isomorphic with underlying mathematical structures that are the true reality.

You are learning all of this for the first time, from me, yet you won’t thank me for teaching you something new, nor will you take any of it on board. You are wedded forever to a mechanical script that you repeat over and over like a well-trained parrot: Weil … Plato … cave … secularism … Einstein. This kind of rote, dogmatic script reciting is the very opposite of good science and of good philosophy.

You also continuously abuse the memory and legacy of Einstein, as I explained to you on the other board. You cherry pick his writings to find stuff that simply isn’t there. Einstein did NOT believe in a personal God, Nick, nor in a realm transcending the physical. His use of terms like “God” or “the Old One” are metaphors. Do you know what a metaphor is? Like his famous line: “God does not play dice.” This is a double metaphor. “God” is a metaphor for nature. “Dice” is a metaphor for the quantum indeterminism that Einstein loathed, even though he was one of the founders of quantum physics. Stripped of metaphor and rendered starkly literally, Einstein is saying: “nature is deterministic and not indeterministic.” But how ever much more memorable it is to say, “God does not play dice!” In addition to being a great scientists and philosopher, with roots in Hume, Einstein was a colorful writer with a firm grasp of literary technique. He often spoke in metaphors, Nick, the way Jesus often spoke in parables.

I have also pointed out to you how you have hijacked the word “secular,” but of course you never take this on board because to do so would interfere with your script. The word actually seems to have been originally hijacked by the odious Newt Gingrich for political purposes, but the bottom line is that strictly, secularism only means the separation of church and state. It has literally nothing to do with any judgment about whether God exists. It was meant to protect religious observance against government interference, while also protecting nonbelievers from being coerced into religious practice. That’s it, Nick. But you will again ignore this and everything else I have written and resume reading from your tired old script, because you ain’t got nothin’ else.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
SerpentBadgerJellyTheVat liked this post


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby davidm on March 30th, 2019, 10:30 am 

Here are some other key issues in the philosophy of science: We often hear about THE scientific method — is there really such a thing, or is it mythical? See: Feyerabend — Against Method. Popperian falsificationism — is it really a sine qua non for any valid scientific theory, or is that a myth too? Maths: are they invented, or discovered?

Oh, there’s so much stuff, here, Nick, and you know nothing of any of it, and in your profound ignorance you reduce it to a cartoon.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 30th, 2019, 11:23 am 

David, I appreciate your efforts here but they have led you to wrong conclusions. I'm leaving the forum for obvious reasons but before I do let me clarify one thing about the philosophy of science and one thing about Einstein.

First of all the philosophy of science is a bottom up philosophy based on inductive reason. It makes it valuable but limited in pursuit of the love of wisdom. For this the intellect has to be capable of deductive reason which is of no use to the philosophy of Science.

From Rodney Collin’s book: The Theory of Celestial Influence

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."


Secularism being only concerned with reactive life in the world is unconcerned with the conscious potential for our inner life which is an attribute of objective human meaning and purpose. It becomes hostile to deductive reason since it blocks itself from it. I thank the powers that be that impartial conscious contemplation and its tool of deductive reason, though outside of the mainstream, is still alive in the world

Now Einstein

I have never wrote or insinuated in any way that Einstein believed in a personal god. For some reason the defense of secularism requires making stuff up. Anyhow, Everything I've written about Einstein basiclly comes from these articles

https://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

For example from the first article

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

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.



Secularism must deny a cosmic religious feeling since by definition there is nothing conscious beyond the domain of our planet and the evolution of animal life. I tried to raise the question of the cosmic religious feeling on the Conscience thread but it bombed. VAT is right. These ideas do not belong here.

You have your way and I have mine. Don't tell me that I am distorting Einstein since I used his words
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 1st, 2019, 7:04 am 

Why not. It's her choice.

My Mother once said, she brought me into this world, she can take me out.

Ultimately there is no biological markers to differentiate 3 days prior or post birth. Pro choice is accepting abortion up until birth so the real question truly is,

Why not?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 1st, 2019, 10:05 am 

Before all the punitive legal interventions, didn't people take a more practical approach to progeny? If it's defective, let it go. If it's redundant, put it under a hedge for a childless woman or a wolf to find. In any case, don't name it for a year, in case it isn't viable.
Now that we have more effective means of controlling our reproductive processes, I wish we could be sensible about the product itself. I wish we could keep the meddlesome priests, politicians and judges out of women's most intimate lives.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 7th, 2019, 12:24 am 

Serpent,

Priests are against killing a 3 day old baby, this is true. Why is that meddlesome in a bad way?

The State of Kentucky passed a bill that is mostly prolife. New York is trying to pass (passed?) A bill that is pro-choice to the extent that post birth abortion is viable. This topic is legally an issue.

Personally I don't like the idea of Government taking or giving a woman's choice. Law is based on science and science lacks the ability to pinpoint the exact moment when a biological mass becomes human.

If law were based on Christianity, we'd have some consistency between state law (ironic) but instead we trust in logic and reason, which is why this discussion is important.

What is scientific fact, is then interpreted philosophically to produce our governing laws. So let's break it down.

Logically, human life holds value, if we value our own human life. It then follows that human babies lives hold value. At the very least, we must agree that a born human child that is independent of a woman's womb, has value?

Somehow pro-choice are able to argue that it's the Mothers choice to abort a born baby. Thankfully I don't need logic and reason on this topic, otherwise I'd be lost. Meddlesome priests have the answer for me. The only way I can understand this is, if I acknowledge that the baby only holds value to the Mother and no one else... but that leads me down a rabbit hole.

Pro-choice went from first trimester because of a beating heart. To second trimester because of a nervous system. To third trimester because it's her choice, because sciemce is meh, unimportant. To now what we have in New York, pro-choice is post birth, because scientific logic with philosophical reason is meh, unimportant. It's her choice.

I can only guess that next we dehumanize 2 year olds. They are not fully functioning humans, they don't even have the ability to reproduce a human, scientific fact. Let's not forget, it's her choice. She might put it in a basket down a river, otherwise.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on April 7th, 2019, 1:57 am 

Edy -

Pro-choice went from first trimester because of a beating heart. To second trimester because of a nervous system. To third trimester because it's her choice, because sciemce is meh, unimportant. To now what we have in New York, pro-choice is post birth, because scientific logic with philosophical reason is meh, unimportant. It's her choice.


Evidence of this happening is where? Is this really about destroying a human life that can survive off of life support? Are they smothering new born babies or merely discussing where or not to switch off life support for new borns who have severe brain damage and/or no actual functioning brain?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 7th, 2019, 4:09 am 

I predicted the pro-choice model evolving from second trimester to third, once it became normal. I never predicted post birth abortions, based on down syndrome, however, or the mental health of the mother.

If the bill in New York is passed, then it will become a normal way of life for pro-choice supporters, in the way it became normal to kill an unborn child upto 24 weeks.

My only evidence is a basic observation of the pro-choice evolution. In the way I can predict a fetus evolved I to a baby, I predict we move from 1 day post birth abortion to 2 years.

Infanticide isn't something new. Many cultures have reasoned it ok to kill an unhealthy child. When the movie 300 was released, the idea of killing a child based on its physical disabilities was a heinous idea. (At least according to the people I spoke to at the time). As little as 150 years ago in my country, infanticide was acceptable by Maori.

Infanticide is not something that's impossible by today's standards, it's actually acceptable according to some pro-choice supporters.

History even shows that children upto 12 years old were not considered human. If they died, it was no big deal. (Biblical time).

What makes you so sure that history will not repeat itself? What evidence is there to support the idea that it's not possible to one day normalize infanticide?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 7th, 2019, 8:57 am 

edy420 » April 6th, 2019, 11:24 pm wrote:Serpent,

Priests are against killing a 3 day old baby, this is true. Why is that meddlesome in a bad way?

Because they, more than any other power-bloc, have kept women subservient, especially in the bedroom. No abortion, no contraception and no refusing a husband marital rights, no matter how much he beats her; marry whomever the father chooses, no divorce - though of course the husband can leave a wife and seven kids if he's dissatisfied - no extramarital sex for women unless they relish being stoned to death, pilloried or branded; no premarital sex - and if she's raped at thirteen, it's still her fault. The little bastard has to pay for it all its life, as well - especially if the mother was desperate enough to seek help from the church - which had a monopoly on charity, so her only other choice was the back alleys or suicide - which are both mortal sins.

Don't pretend you didn't know all this. And don't pretend it's in the distant past: a whole lot of countries in the world are still very much at the mercy of state religions. The US pretends not to be and some states have shaken off the worst of it, but the religious influence is still very much evident in the laws of nations under the Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions. Asia has its own version, with which I'm less familiar.

What makes you so sure that history will not repeat itself? What evidence is there to support the idea that it's not possible to one day normalize infanticide?

History is repeating - not by itself; pushed very hard by the far right in a number of countries. They want their slaves back.
As for infanticide, the OP poster never did elaborate as to how many babies were left to die on which table for what reason, or why a woman who had not wanted a baby in the first place carried it to term. I suspect this was a seriously defective foetus and she was prevented from aborting it in the early stages. I suspect that's what this tea-kettle typhoon is about.


So, let's turn the issue right-side up.
Most women hope, at some point in their lives, to be mothers. They make this huge, lifetime commitment to a foetus before it even moves. They don't go to parties with the intention of having irresponsible sex, because what the heck, they can always abort the result. They don't - not even the very young ones - make the decision to abort lightly or without psychological fallout. The alternatives are limited and fraught with hazard. Suggesting that women all want to go around conceiving and aborting and killing babies is monstrous - deliberately so: they've always made easy scapegoats.

The women who do not wish to be mothers should not be forced to. Those who do, and it happens at the wrong time, with the wrong partner, should not be forced to. No woman should ever be forced to submit to an unwanted sex act. All women should have access to thorough sex education; cheap, safe, effective birth control and quality health care. If they do not want a baby or an abortion, they should have the assurance of good adoptive homes. If they do want to keep an unplanned baby, women and girls should have a safe haven in which to live, work, or go to school, while their child is taken care of.
All infants should have quality perinatal care; all children should have good nutrition, a safe and loving home and a chance to learn.
If, as a society, you can't or won't guarantee those basic requirements, you have no moral right to make laws about other people's reproductive lives. (I usually ask pro-lifers: How many are you willing to adopt? Put your own commitment where your vote is.)
All a punitive society doe is download its inadequacy onto the most vulnerable. (What's new?)

Now, whether we have a right to force a horrible life and painful, protracted death on a defective baby - or sick old person, or accident victim or anybody at all - that's a seperate matter. Mixing the two issues together like this only makes a nonsense of both.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 7th, 2019, 3:31 pm 

[video removed due to violation of forum rules]
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 7th, 2019, 4:16 pm 

edy420 » April 7th, 2019, 2:31 pm wrote:Let's look at what we are dealing with here, infanticide in political discussion.

Why? They have opinions. Who cares?
They're not addressing the issue any more than you are.

If infanticide is "on the table", start dealing with it yourself. Which baby? what circumstances? who decides?

Are you prepared to guarantee a healthy, secure, loving home to every infant born in your country?
If not, why do you want to bring babies into bad circumstances?
Do you want to make babies suffer? If so, why?

Do you believe that women prefer abortions to either healthy pregnancies or safe contraception?
Do you believe that making harsh reproductive laws (which, ?incidentally? affect men in no way at all) you are protecting babies from their mothers? Do you seriously believe that babies need protection from their mothers?
If so, then why do you lose interest 3 days after they're born? Why are you not prepared to protect them from their fathers, from bombs, from illness, from malnutrition, from rat-bites, from prejudice, from street violence and police, from traffic and polluted water and mildew in the walls?
If their future circumstance is none of you business, neither is their present disposition.

If you sincerely believe that women are a danger to to the future of the human race, then you should get busy inventing an artificial womb, rather than relying on force to replicate your DNA.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 7th, 2019, 8:43 pm 

Serpent,

Your perspective on priests and Catholocism is rather skewed. None the less,

I don't see pro-lifers tolerating infanticide. When the English colonized New Zealand, they did not tolerate it (among other things) and it sparked a civil war.

Do you not think that civil war is a possibility in America, with the substantial contrast of divided opinion on the topic of infanticide? Both sides of the debate are incredibly disgusted with each other, I think it likely. I mean it's close to it without this topic(trump supporters vs opposition), this could be the final straw?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on April 7th, 2019, 8:45 pm 

Mod note:

Please offer factual sources on public policy issues.

Opinion infotainment from Rupert Murdoch owned corporations, with a Far Right slant, is not acceptable.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7188
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 7th, 2019, 10:01 pm 

edy420 » April 7th, 2019, 7:43 pm wrote:Serpent,

Your perspective on priests and Catholocism is rather skewed.

I said nothing about Catholicism. I was talking about all priests, of all organized religion. i did admit to knowing more about the track record of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions than about the Asian ones, but I understand that there has been very similar attitude to women and their fertility in China and India.

Do you not think that civil war is a possibility in America, with the substantial contrast of divided opinion on the topic of infanticide?

No, I don't. I don't even believe the pro-lifers really give a damn about the babies they're so loudly defending.

Nor do i any longer believe that you have anything substantial to say on the subject, since you've repeatedly ignored my questions on point in favour of irrelevancies.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 8th, 2019, 12:32 am 

Ok let's keep it factual and stick to what the Governor of Virginia said in own words..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnew ... 019-01-30/
Virginia Govenor Northam: if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.


He's referring to Cathy Trans bill which allows abortion at dilation, based on a Mothers mental health..

At a recent committee hearing, Republican state delegate Todd Gilbert asked Tran to clarify exactly how late in a pregnancy doctors would be able to perform abortions. Gilbert asked if a woman who was about to give birth could request an abortion under Tran's proposed bill.

"She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she is so certified? She's dilating," Gilbert said.

"Mr. Chairman, that would be a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at this point," Tran responded.

"I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that," Gilbert posed.

"My bill would allow that, yes," she said.


This leads us to the OP. Birthday abortions are being pushed from the pro-choice supporters. If 1 day is reasonable, then why not 3 days?

When I search for a reasonable answer I am at a loss. If a mother realises after 3 days post birth, that she can not raise the child, and no one can raise it for her, then why not terminate? My initial answer is, because its madness. My second answer is, its ungodly. Ommitting those to from philosophical discussion by default, I look to pet kittens. There's too many of them and so we put them down.. are we on that level of value for human life?

No serpent, I'm not going to adopt every baby that can't be looked after.

I would hope that consent is given by all the immediate family. The Father, the Grandparents, all of whom could raise it if they felt they were eligible. But also the siblings, because it's their brother or sister who's going to be murdered.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 8th, 2019, 1:08 am 

edy420 » April 7th, 2019, 11:32 pm wrote:Ok let's keep it factual and stick to what the Governor of Virginia said in own words

Have I not made this clear? I do not not now give, nor have I ever given, a flying fig about the opinion of the governor of Virginia or any other state of the disunited.
This leads us to the OP. Birthday abortions are being pushed from the pro-choice supporters. If 1 day is reasonable, then why not 3 days?

Indeed, why not? And why yes? What are the circumstances leading up to this decision? How often has it been made and carried out, so far? How often, and in what circumstances, do you expect that it will be carried out in the future? Who is legally responsible for making the decision?
When I search for a reasonable answer I am at a loss. If a mother realises after 3 days post birth, that she can not raise the child, and no one can raise it for her,

Eh? No takers for a newborn, when childless couples are paying US$20-30,000 a pup through regular channels and illegally?
Tell me where and how it happened that a baby could not be adopted.

My initial answer is, because its madness. My second answer is, its ungodly.

But what you haven't answered were any of my questions.

Ommitting those to from philosophical discussion by default, I look to pet kittens. There's too many of them and so we put them down.. are we on that level of value for human life?

What is the value of human life? Does it come in levels? How is it evaluated? By whom? On what scale?
How come we kill so many on purpose and let so many die through inaction?

No serpent, I'm not going to adopt every baby that can't be looked after.

Now, this is interesting. A baby that can't be looked after.
Yet you are willing to force a distraught and unwilling mother to look after it, with zero support.
Because that's the sane and godly thing thing to do?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 8th, 2019, 2:12 am 

If you have sex, you are responsible for the baby, especially if it's already born. The case for rape or bullying or accident etc, these can be taken care of withen the first trimester.

Now we are talking about a born baby. If you have a baby, then yes, you most definitely are responsible for it. There's no logical reason why you wouldn't be.

Like kittens, no one wants to adopt a child with down syndrome. If there is a market for it, it's very minute, the demand wouldn't meet supply. People want to adopt fit and healthy babies, especially when spending upwards of 20,000 dollars. The fact that we have orphanages the struggle to adopt out kids is evidence that like kittens, there will undesirables who can not find a home. Adoption as an idea to circumvent post birth abortion is unreasonable.

You asked if I would adopt all the unwanted babies in my country. I was responding to that. I'm not sure which questions your rhetorical or serious about. If I haven't answered, then that's why. We have a firm understanding of each others position from similar threads, so ask plainly if you want an answer.

As for "sticking to the facts" I was responding to Vat deleting my YouTube link discussing what the Governor of Virginia said. So I linked exactly what he said instead. Infanticide is a real proposition, so we need to take the time to annalise and understand the principles involved.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 8th, 2019, 2:20 am 

Again it's important to set a solid scenario of which to annalise.

Her choice scenario:
A mother after 3 days, decides she can't raise her child. It has down syndrome and no one wants it. If she doesn't terminate then she'll either kill it with a coat hanger, put it in a basket and float it out to the wild, or leave it at the entrance of a wolf den.

Should she not just terminate?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on April 8th, 2019, 2:33 am 

edy420 » April 8th, 2019, 2:20 pm wrote:Again it's important to set a solid scenario of which to annalise.

Her choice scenario:
A mother after 3 days, decides she can't raise her child. It has down syndrome and no one wants it. If she doesn't terminate then she'll either kill it with a coat hanger, put it in a basket and float it out to the wild, or leave it at the entrance of a wolf den.

Should she not just terminate?


You’ve given two choices that both lead to the death of the child. What she “should” do given these two options, death at hospital or death by coat hanger(?), only matters to her not the baby. I would imagine the “basket down the river” would be the easiest option.

What is this scenario meant to prove given that you’ve established the two outcomes already?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 8th, 2019, 2:57 am 

Whether or not her potential actions justify an alternate equal outcome. This is a pro-choice argument, hence the coat hanger.

I could ask, if a woman wants to kill her husband with a coat hanger, should we not just change the law to allow a Dr do it, because she's going to do it anyway?

I think it a crime to leave your baby to die, and it should be treated accordingly. Not, make it legal because a Dr can do it for her.

Edit* ok I see what you mean BJ,
Feel free to make a valid scenario.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 8th, 2019, 11:39 am 

edy420 » April 8th, 2019, 1:12 am wrote:If you have sex, you are responsible for the baby, especially if it's already born.

From having sex to already born is a long time. What prevents the decisions being made at the appropriate moment? Contraception, morning-after pill, early abortion, arrangements for adoption.

Now we are talking about a born baby.

Which one? You still haven't told me why it was born, if the mother didn't want it or didn't feel she could take care of it.
Like kittens, no one wants to adopt a child with down syndrome.

Finally! We're talking about a defective baby. As I understand it, Downs is diagnosed in the first trimester, at which time there is little controversy about abortion. (In civilized countries.) In fact, with a half-decent social support network, Downs children are not that big a problem to raise, and can become happy, productive adults. It's a different matter if you cast a young girl off on her own with a Downs baby: she might become desperate enough to kill it, or herself or both.
Not with a coathanger, btw. That was for illegal abortions; the woman would do it to herself and sometimes puncture her uterus and bleed to death in agony. Not a risk most people would take voluntarily - the alternative would have to be pretty bad. The baby-killing methods of choice are suffocation and drowning; the suicide methods of convenience for poor women are hanging or drowning.

I suspect that something far worse is required for termination in the late stages of pregnancy, or withholding life-support after birth. There are birth-defects compared to which Downs is a walk in the park.
How be it we separate abortion from DNR instructions from euthanasia?

You and Nick A have been blathering on about legalized infanticide as if it applied to all babies - and more reprehensibly, as if women, given the right to do so, would routinely kill their newborns.
In fact, when abortion was illegal and motherhood out of wedlock and bastardy were severely punished, infanticide was common.

People want to adopt fit and healthy babies,

No kidding! But those same people are happy to condemn young mothers to raising the unhealthy ones.
(I know, I know: a woman who has sex deserves whatever happens.)
Much more reprehensibly, you and they are happy to condemn those damaged babies to a life of suffering.

Leave the kittens out of it. Most pro-lifers don't even consider the lives of other species.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 8th, 2019, 1:25 pm 

edy420 » April 8th, 2019, 1:12 am wrote:You asked if I would adopt all the unwanted babies in my country.

No, I didn't. I asked: How come you're prepared to make someone else look after a baby that, according to you, can't be looked after?

I'm not sure which questions your rhetorical or serious about.

I'm dead serious about all of these:

- Why do you want to bring babies into bad circumstances?
- Do you want to make babies suffer? If so, why?
-Do you believe that women prefer abortions to either healthy pregnancies or safe contraception?
- Do you believe that making harsh reproductive laws (which, ?incidentally? affect men in no way at all) you are protecting babies from their mothers?
- Do you seriously believe that babies need protection from their mothers?
- Why are you not prepared to protect them from their fathers, from bombs, from illness, from malnutrition, from rat-bites, from prejudice, from street violence and police, from traffic and polluted water and mildew in the walls?

The central, elaphantine question:

- Are you prepared to guarantee a healthy, secure, loving home to every infant born in your country?
I didn't ask you personally to adopt them all, only to create a social environment wherein no child is abused, deprived or neglected.
What, aside from punishing sexually active women, is your real concern?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 8th, 2019, 3:49 pm 

Why do you want to bring babies into bad circumstances?


It's normal. There is no baby who has not suffered. No child who has not suffered. No adult. Whether or not we want to suffer, should be upto the individual who has to endure the suffering. Right now my wisdom tooth is killing me, I could just end all the suffering and end my life, but I would think that my mother doesn't have the right to end my life because I am in a bad circumstance.

Do you want to make babies suffer? If so, why?


No. But I think it necessary to suffer a little bit to become human. The question i ponder, is how much suffering is too much(to the extent that other people can terminate against their will). I don't possess the knowledge to make a definitive answer, so I leave it to God to decide. If you have the answer, please share.

Do you believe that women prefer abortions to either healthy pregnancies or safe contraception?


No. I believe most woman who get an abortion, regret it. I only know two woman, both of them regret it. One has only sons but really wanted a daughter. She feels like she killed her daughter.

Do you believe that making harsh reproductive laws (which, ?incidentally? affect men in no way at all) you are protecting babies from their mothers?


I want the law to stay out of it, upto 24 weeks. Mothers sanity is important and their circumstances are theirs to dictate. But science tells us around 24 weeks gestation, a nervous system is developed. At this point it's fair to say abortion is potentially hurting the unborn child. This should be illegal.

As for affecting men, it does affect them. To the point they commit suicide. If my child was murdered at the hands of my wife, I'd probably consider it.

Do you seriously believe that babies need protection from their mothers?


The best person to ask, is the aborted baby. Melissa Ohden, is a survivor of late term abortion. She asked, where is my choice? She says her mother did not have the right to terminate her life, only she did.

It turns out, she was a human, not a lump of cells.

Melissa thinks she needed protecting from her mother which is why she's now a pro-life activist.

So yes, I seriously believe babies need protection from their mothers.

Why are you not prepared to protect them from their fathers, from bombs, from illness, from malnutrition, from rat-bites, from prejudice, from street violence and police, from traffic and polluted water and mildew in the walls?


I am prepared. I don't have jurisdiction in other people's homes. I don't have the right to raise other people's children with my values instead of their own. As a member of a men's group, I try my best to keep young men out of prison. I do my best to educate others on the issues you mention. I'm allergic to mould, so I'm big on ridding the walls of mildew.

Are you prepared to guarantee a healthy, secure, loving home to every infant born in your country?


What makes you think this is even possible. Statistically, it's an impossibility. History shows, it's never been possible. You are asking for heaven on earth.

Give me all the parameters that difine a healthy secure home. Then let's look at it statistically. Most li,ely less than 1% of homes meet all the requirements ts. Two same parents who aren't addicted to anything. Good neighborhood. Healthy food lifestyle. Good income. No mildew... sounds like heaven.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 8th, 2019, 5:19 pm 

I had half a post an lost it somehow.
edy420 » April 8th, 2019, 2:49 pm wrote:[bad circumstances?]

It's normal. There is no baby who has not suffered. No child who has not suffered. No adult. Whether or not we want to suffer, should be upto the individual who has to endure the suffering.

Upto presupposes choice. Nobody chooses to enter the world with polycystic kidneys or alcoholism or a malformed heart.
Right now my wisdom tooth is killing me, I could just end all the suffering and end my life, but I would think that my mother doesn't have the right to end my life because I am in a bad circumstance.

Suffering pain or topping yourself are only two of the options; you can also dose up on painkillers or go to a dentist or have your barber yank the offending tooth. Babies have none of these options.
Anyway a toothache is not your circumstances; it's your current condition. By circumstances, I meant squalor, poverty, chronic illness, malnutrition, violence, fear, hate - you know, all the carp two thirds of the world's children are experiencing.

No. But I think it necessary to suffer a little bit to become human. The question i ponder, is how much suffering is too much(to the extent that other people can terminate against their will). I don't possess the knowledge to make a definitive answer, so I leave it to God to decide. If you have the answer, please share.
In this case the victim has no will to express, unless you count incessant wailing a plea for release. Doctors, parents and caregivers are capable of assessing the individual situation: how bad is it? What corrective, therapeutic or palliative measures are available? What is the probability of this particular infant of "becoming human"?
God's way of dealing with this problem is usually to take the child in His own sweet time - days or weeks or months or years. I don't have God's patience with the suffering of helpless creatures.

No. I believe most woman who get an abortion, regret it.

So, why not make better alternatives more readily available to all of them?

I want the law to stay out of it, upto 24 weeks.

Okay. With decent perinatal health-care, most birth defects are diagnosed by then.
But all you've done was shove the undiagnosed ones over into the DNR or euthanasia category, where some other law applies. I imagine this why the pro-choice faction in the US wants to see such decisions under abortion law: because that already exists; they're a long way from rational legislation about deliberate endings to life.

As for affecting men, it does affect them.

The law is what I was talking about. Not your sentiments about your seed.

So yes, I seriously believe babies need protection from their mothers.

Well, that's the bottom line, isn't it?

I am prepared.

Most "pro-life" voters also tend to favour funding cuts to school lunch programs and family clinics.

[Are you prepared to guarantee a healthy, secure, loving home to every infant born in your country?]
What makes you think this is even possible.

Of course it's possible. We'd have to give up nuclear warheads, supertankers and owning 24 Rolls Royces.

All I'm saying is: since you don't make sure their world is good, you have no moral right to force other people to bring babies into the world.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 8th, 2019, 7:07 pm 

Most "pro-life" voters also tend to favour funding cuts to school lunch programs and family clinics


I don't see how you've come to this conclusion. I think its smart to nourish children, they are the next generation.

Of course it's possible. [Good living conditions for all babies] We'd have to give up nuclear warheads, supertankers and owning 24 Rolls Royces
.

These are relatively new, historically. Still there is no point in time where we had ideal conditions for all babies.

All I'm saying is: since you don't make sure their world is good, you have no moral right to force other people to bring babies into the world.


I didn't force them to have sex. I didn't force them into their circumstances. But if they have sex and give birth, then they should look after it, until its able to decide whether or not the suffering is worth enduring.

I have the moral right to protect the lives of my fellow countrymen from all threats both foreign and domestic. It's what soldiers do, police officers, paramedics and Dr's etc.

If a mother wants to start beating her children every night, to the point they eventually die, I feel like I have the right to intervene. Why is infanticide any different?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 8th, 2019, 7:47 pm 

edy420 » April 8th, 2019, 6:07 pm wrote:
Most "pro-life" voters also tend to favour funding cuts to school lunch programs and family clinics


I don't see how you've come to this conclusion. I think its smart to nourish children, they are the next generation.

It may be smart, but it ain't on the conservative agenda. Check the spending records of the most anti-abortion party, in any country.

[We'd have to give up nuclear warheads, supertankers and owning 24 Rolls Royces]

These are relatively new, historically. Still there is no point in time where we had ideal conditions for all babies.

Of course not. So, it was siege engines, galleons and golden chariots.

Before civilization, nobody interfered with anyone's reproductive options, and God mostly decided who would die of what how soon - but I wouldn't be surprised if kind primitive people put their relatives to death rather than watch them suffer.

[All I'm saying is: since you don't make sure their world is good, you have no moral right to force other people to bring babies into the world.]
I didn't force them to have sex.

You're back to that.
The damaged babies didn't have sex. They're also being punished - and most of them will never have the ability to decide anything, or articulate their desires.
If a mother wants to start beating her children every night, to the point they eventually die, I feel like I have the right to intervene. Why is infanticide any different?

That's been covered three or four times. Often - perhaps mostly, it' not a matter of killing the baby, but simply refraining from medical intervention. If infanticide is actually in question, it's the need to interfere when God is beating them to death too slowly.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 9th, 2019, 1:54 am 

Of course not. So, it was siege engines, galleons and golden chariots.

Before civilization, nobody interfered with anyone's reproductive options, and God mostly decided who would die of what how soon - but I wouldn't be surprised if kind primitive people put their relatives to death rather than watch them suffer.


These materialistic societal needs, are a reflection of human nature. There's pros and cons to having nuclear energy and siege engines etc. But even removing all of them, society still wants to find ways to make life better at the cost of having to mitigate the downsides. Society will never remain stagnant in growth nor in technological development, its human nature. What your suggesting is we rid ourselves of human nature, so we can focus on good environments for raising babies. While it's an admirable venture, its unrealistic.

Sure, kind primitive people would have put down someone who is suffering. The problem is, the act of killing is at the discretion of the killer. Should we let a mentally I'll person perform a mercy killing, because he thinks it's the right thing to do? Or perhaps a sane person misjudged the suffering of a broken leg, thought it was worse so he killed them.

If we leave it to Dr, it needs to be 100% certain. Many people have been told, they will never walk again, or they only have a couple months to live. Drs are not free from error, if you ask 10 Drs you will get 10 different opinions. The bill in Virginia only required the consent from one Dr. This just means the mother has to keep searching till she finds the right Dr, to be able to kill a child she doesn't want.

That's been covered three or four times. Often - perhaps mostly, it' not a matter of killing the baby, but simply refraining from medical intervention. If infanticide is actually in question, it's the need to interfere when God is beating them to death too slowly.


The OP is about infanticide. It poses the question, If abortion is acceptable then why not infanticide. While rare, pro-life advocates are open to third trimester abortion. When I presented the scenario in the other thread of a mother aborting at 9 months to spite her husband, no one was willing to give the father the right to protect his unborn child, because it's her choice. If abortion is acceptable 3 days before, then why not 3 days after?

Simply refusing medication is not the act of killing. I have no issue with that.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on April 9th, 2019, 9:24 am 

It is worth noting that most state laws already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." And federal law, in 2002, banned infanticide in all live-birth abortion situations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Al ... ection_Act

This thread panders to a Strawman depiction of US laws. No one favors infanticide of a viable newborn. Put this boogeyman to rest.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7188
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 9th, 2019, 9:59 am 

edy420 -- These materialistic societal needs, are a reflection of human nature. There's pros and cons to having nuclear energy and siege engines etc.

I didn't say nuclear energy: that has pros and cons. I said nuclear warheads: that has only cons and is a lot more costly in every sense. But that's moot anyway.
The point is, if we didn't waste so much of our social substance - resources, manpower, money, time, energy, concern - on weapons and redundant possessions, we could provide all the children with a healthy environment. You said it's impossible: I maintain that it's possible; it's just not as important as wealth and power.
I'm not convinced 'human nature' requires military capacity to have priority over child welfare.
And as long as the people who serve wealth and power also make the laws, their laws will always be morally bankrupt.

If we leave it to Dr, it needs to be 100% certain. Many people have been told, they will never walk again, or they only have a couple months to live.

Not as many as the movies would have you believe. And they don't kill people who can't walk. But they may - legally or otherwise - kill people who are dying and ask to be spared the last month or two.
This just means the mother has to keep searching till she finds the right Dr, to be able to kill a child she doesn't want.

Why do you keep referring to the "child she doesn't want"? Why doesn't she want it?
Why didn't she exercise the other options: early abortion or adoption?
You're following a scenario set up by Nick A that was implausible from the beginning.

The OP is about infanticide. It poses the question, If abortion is acceptable then why not infanticide.

And I've answered it any number of times. Both are acceptable or unacceptable by the very same set of rules: it depends on the specific case. Repeating a word that sounds bad - though is not, as The vat pointed out, really on the books - doesn't change the facts of each case.

While rare, pro-life advocates are open to third trimester abortion.

And I've suggested why that may be so. The key words in bold there are what you keep ignoring. You keep talking as if women just wanted license to go around killing their babies on a whim.

When I presented the scenario in the other thread of a mother aborting at 9 months to spite her husband, no one was willing to give the father the right to protect his unborn child, because it's her choice. If abortion is acceptable 3 days before, then why not 3 days after?

That wasn't very plausible, either. Tell me all the particulars of the case and I'll tell you what I think is right or wrong.

If women are so vicious, why has all the wonderful technology not yet made the more responsible men capable of gestating their own babies? It looked good on Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Simply refusing medication is not the act of killing. I have no issue with that.

That's what happens in most cases where the baby is not viable: no mechanical interference. Or, in Nick A language: left to starve on a table.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on April 9th, 2019, 11:45 am 

TheVat » April 9th, 2019, 9:24 pm wrote:It is worth noting that most state laws already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." And federal law, in 2002, banned infanticide in all live-birth abortion situations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Al ... ection_Act

This thread panders to a Strawman depiction of US laws. No one favors infanticide of a viable newborn. Put this boogeyman to rest.


I doubt it and I’m perversely thankful that it probably won’t. Those on fringes looking for bogeymen keep us on our toes for actual bogeymen.

It’s maybe worth comparing to people worried about computer consciousness and/or AI taking over the world. Without the genuine concern of people in all manner of human interest we’d likely have been eaten up long ago.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests