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 TheVat on April 9th, 2019, 12:39 pm 

Hi, Badger. I agree that vigilance for possible bogeymen has value. I was just pointing out that the legal situation should not be misrepresented in its present form. The laws, both state and federal, against actual infanticide may account for the fact that no one has cited one actual example of a healthy full-term newborn being euthanized by a licensed physician. (what happens in black market clinics, or on kitchen tables, will of course remain obscure and unregulated) It's kind of weird that Serpent has to point this out a dozen times, to no apparent effect on his interlocutors.

But, for sure, there are grim Stalinist scenarios and other dark futures that are analogous to the exampled possible threat of AI, and which require constant public awareness and engagement. The real answer to the thread title may be simply: we must not allow it because of what it would do to US. This is similar to arguments against the death penalty that speak of the adverse psychological effects it has on executioners and appointed witnesses. Taking another life is harmful to the killer's soul and to the overall spiritual state of a society.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 9th, 2019, 3:35 pm 

Question to which i do not expect an answer:
Does anyone here believe that men should draft all legislation relating to human reproduction?
Does anyone here think women should draft all such legislation?
Does anyone think all such legislation should be drafted a committee made up of equal numbers of each sex?

Note: I didn't ask who should/could vote on it; just who should write the words.

I've been having this increasingly uneasy feeling that some posters simply do not feel women can be trusted with the important task of gestation and birth. And that gives me a very queasy feeling about how this sentiment could mesh with all manner retrograde executive decisions and formal bills that have been enacted recently, as well as alarming rhetoric from several quarters.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on April 10th, 2019, 10:22 am 

I've been having this increasingly uneasy feeling that some posters simply do not feel women can be trusted with the important task of gestation and birth....


I've had that feeling about humans generally.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on April 10th, 2019, 10:37 am 

But the alternatives that have been tried are horrific, and some of the alternatives currently proposed would utterly halt human evolution.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 10th, 2019, 6:57 pm 

Does anyone here believe that men should draft all legislation relating to human reproduction?


That depends if men are involved or not.

Pertaining to politics, the best persons for the job, should be involved with the legislation. How do you choose the right person? Sweden has chosen to make political parties 50% men and woman. The result is disastrous. Instead of the best person for the job, their politics are dictated by gender.

The only way you can have all woman, on the laws involved, is if you completely exclude men from all responsibility. I don't see that turning out the best for everyone.

In everyone of my child's creation, I was involved. I was also involved in every birth and now the raising of them. Should I be excluded from any of my wife's reproductive decisions (she doesn't think so). Clearly I am responsible for them? If not, then why.
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 10th, 2019, 7:57 pm 

edy420 » April 10th, 2019, 5:57 pm wrote:
Does anyone here believe that men should draft all legislation relating to human reproduction?


That depends if men are involved or not.

What do you mean, involved? As far as I know, men are involved in every government on earth.
A proposed legislation has to be written up in the form of a bill, and in the draft stage, checked for congruence with the constitution and possible conflict with existing laws. Then its written up in the final form and presented to the legislative body - congress or house of parliament. Then the members all vote on it.

Nothing to do with your own personal reproductive activities: I'm asking about who should write the law.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on April 11th, 2019, 2:02 am 

All men, or all woman, or 50/50?

What's the point. The best people to write laws that reflect societies needs, will be a mix of gender.
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 anc0de on April 27th, 2019, 3:02 am 

157 Replies in and nobody has bothered to call out the source National Review for their far right bias, or the massive misinformation in both the article and the original post. It's like people have forgotten how to apply an ounce of common sense and do a little bit of research before jumping to conclusions.

From: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addre ... rtion-law/
Addressing New York’s New Abortion Law

By Angelo Fichera

Posted on February 4, 2019 | Updated on February 11, 2019

Q: Does the new New York law allow full-term abortions?

A: The law permits abortions after 24 weeks if a health care professional determines the health or life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is not viable.
FULL QUESTION

Does the new New York law allow full term abortions?
FULL ANSWER

New York’s Reproductive Health Act was signed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion. It’s a measure that abortion-rights advocates in New York have long sought to pass but couldn’t previously get through a Republican-controlled state Senate. Democrats now control both chambers of the Legislature.

The new law codifies a woman’s right to access abortion in New York — and has also prompted speculation and claims.

Readers have sent us a number of questions, including: “Is it true that the NY state abortion law allows an aborted infant who is born alive to be killed?” and “What are the facts about the new abortion laws in New York state?”

We address those and more here.
What the law says

The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk — which was inconsistent with a part of the Roe decision, as we explain later.
Change in criminal statutes

Under the old law, New York criminalized abortion unless it was a “justifiable abortional act” — meaning it was within 24 weeks of the commencement of pregnancy or necessary to “preserve” the mother’s life.

The RHA removes abortion from the state’s penal code altogether; the homicide statute still defines a “person” as “a human being who has been born and is alive.” Killing a baby once born was and is still considered a homicide.

Proponents of the bill argued that abortion should be treated as a health care matter, not as a criminal one. Some pointed to examples of women being forced to travel out of state to terminate pregnancies with fetuses that doctors said would not survive outside the womb. Opponents, on the other hand, said the change removes an important prosecutorial power — such as being able to fully charge a domestic abuser for ending a woman’s pregnancy.
Defining ‘health’ and ‘viability’

Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”
National data on ‘late-term’ abortions

“Late-term” abortions are defined in different ways; some states ban abortions after 20 weeks. National data indicate such abortions are relatively rare.

According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country — 65 percent — were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks.

Those national statistics incorporate data provided by New York City, which accounted for about two-thirds of abortions reported by New York state in 2015, but do not include abortions outside of the city. In New York City, 2.3 percent of abortions were performed after 21 weeks. (Of note: New York counts pregnancy from fertilization, while the CDC’s measure includes the two weeks before.)

The CDC also noted that, between 2006 and 2015, less than 9 percent of abortions were performed after 13 weeks.

As of Jan. 1, 43 states prohibited “some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy,” according to the Guttmacher Institute, which conducts research on sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Change in public health code

New York’s RHA also repealed a section of the public health law that required the following: that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”

There appears to be very little in the way of statistics about such scenarios.

A spokesperson for the Guttmacher Institute, for example, told us she was not aware of any data on the topic “because if it happens, it would be extremely rare.”

Asked about the rationale for removing the section from the law, Justin Flagg, a spokesman for New York State Sen. Liz Krueger, who sponsored the new law, said that “the requirement that a second physician be present … did not reflect medical realities of abortion later in pregnancy nor modern standards of medical care, and was legally redundant and unnecessary.”

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”

New York defines a live birth as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born.”
Other states

The abortion debate continues to be waged on a number of fronts, including in state legislatures. In Virginia, for example, Democrats have moved to ease the requirements for late-term abortions by reducing the number of doctors required to certify such an abortion, from three to one.

Update, Feb. 11: We clarified that the CDC’s national statistics cited include data provided by New York City, where two-thirds of abortions reported by the state occurred, but not the rest of the state. We also added the percentage of New York City’s abortions that were performed after 21 weeks.

Sources
“Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 23 Nov 2018.
Doe v. Bolton. No.70-40. Supreme Court of the U.S. 22 Jan 1973.
Flagg, Justin. Spokesman, New York State Sen. Liz Krueger. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 4 Feb 2019.
“Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Protecting Women’s Reproductive Rights.” Press release, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. 22 Jan 2019.
New York State Senate. “S. 240, Enacts the reproductive health act; repealer” (as signed by Governor 22 Jan 2019).
Roe v. Wade. No. 70-18. Supreme Court of the U.S. 22 Jan 1973.
“State Policies on Later Abortions.” Guttmacher Institute. Accessed 1 Feb 2019.
Wind, Rebecca. Spokeswoman, Guttmacher Institute. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 4 Feb 2019.



someguy1 » March 10th, 2019, 8:43 pm wrote:I never imagined that the underlying logic of my silly joke would become the rationale for legalizing post-birth abortion. A two-minute old baby isn't fully human yet, and the feelings of the mother are all that matters. Read the text of the laws.

You fell for the bait. Don't worry, you can sleep easy knowing we're not killing children over any one's feelings :)
User avatar
anc0de
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 05 Mar 2012
Location: United States of Israel former United States of America


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on May 2nd, 2019, 2:00 pm 

You fell for the bait. Don't worry, you can sleep easy knowing we're not killing children over any one's feelings :)


How long until we start killing them over feelings.

We live in a society where men break all the woman's world records, because they feel like they are a woman. I dont trust societies ability to make the right decisions.
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 May 2nd, 2019, 2:42 pm 

edy420 » May 2nd, 2019, 1:00 pm wrote:I dont trust societies ability to make the right decisions.

You don't trust society, the legislature, the medical profession or women to make the right decision.
So, if decisions have to be made, that just leaves men to make them. Does that sound familiar?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on May 3rd, 2019, 5:14 am 

I dont trust any person or group of persons, to make decisions for another person/s based on a subset of values unrelated to the subjects values.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, I trust her family to help her make the right decision. To be more specific, I dont trust that I as a Male, have the ability nor authority to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body.

As a husband however, I feel I have the right to make decisions with my wife. As a Father, I have the right to raise my children in a way that reflects my views on abortion. Same as a Grandfather. But, as a next door neighbor to an unrelated family, it's none of my business.

Gender has nothing to do with it. I thought that would be clear by now. The right people to help make the right decision, are those closest to the situation. Ie, family. A group of male and female senators who live in another city, are the wrong people.
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 May 3rd, 2019, 9:31 am 

If a woman wants to have an abortion, I trust her family to help her make the right decision....


I trust the woman. Many people have family members they can't trust.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on May 3rd, 2019, 11:47 am 

edy420 » May 3rd, 2019, 5:14 am wrote:I dont trust any person or group of persons, to make decisions for another person/s based on a subset of values unrelated to the subjects values.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, I trust her family to help her make the right decision. To be more specific, I dont trust that I as a Male, have the ability nor authority to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body.

As a husband however, I feel I have the right to make decisions with my wife. As a Father, I have the right to raise my children in a way that reflects my views on abortion. Same as a Grandfather. But, as a next door neighbor to an unrelated family, it's none of my business.

Gender has nothing to do with it. I thought that would be clear by now. The right people to help make the right decision, are those closest to the situation. Ie, family. A group of male and female senators who live in another city, are the wrong people.


“When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder.” ~ Simone Weil



I dont trust any person or group of persons, to make decisions for another person/s based on a subset of values unrelated to the subjects values.


IYO opinion whose life has value and how is it determined? A fetus has its own unique DNA as a living being but does it have value? Do you or I have value? Who should make the decision? Victims of a genocide were believed not to have value so nothing is easier than murder.

Laws concerning fetal homicide assumes the fetus has value. Why would a parasite have value. So in order to understand you better, how do you determine whose life has value?
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on May 3rd, 2019, 12:38 pm 

edy420 » May 3rd, 2019, 4:14 am wrote:If a woman wants to have an abortion, I trust her family to help her make the right decision.

You don't trust anybody to make a law, but you trust every family to "help" a woman decide.
Even if they're fundamentalist Christian or Muslim?
Gender has everything to do with legal and social empowerment.
Okay, so nobody enforces their own preference as a Male....
only as a Husband, Father and Grandfather; as long as these guys are okay with it, the woman is free to do what she wants.
Gender has nothing to do with that.

(As a neighbour and senator, nobody asked you to do anything but mind your own business.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on May 3rd, 2019, 3:22 pm 

Serpent » May 3rd, 2019, 12:38 pm wrote:
edy420 » May 3rd, 2019, 4:14 am wrote:If a woman wants to have an abortion, I trust her family to help her make the right decision.

You don't trust anybody to make a law, but you trust every family to "help" a woman decide.
Even if they're fundamentalist Christian or Muslim?
Gender has everything to do with legal and social empowerment.
Okay, so nobody enforces their own preference as a Male....
only as a Husband, Father and Grandfather; as long as these guys are okay with it, the woman is free to do what she wants.
Gender has nothing to do with that.

(As a neighbour and senator, nobody asked you to do anything but mind your own business.)


So the value of a thing or a living being is determined by women and politicians. Sounds reasonable.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Serpent on May 3rd, 2019, 4:32 pm 

Nick_A » May 3rd, 2019, 2:22 pm wrote:So the value of a thing or a living being is determined by women and politicians. Sounds reasonable.

That would be reasonable. Not the politicians so much, but if it were up to women, we wouldn't waste nearly so many people on wars and crimes.
What Edy420 advocates is that this value be set by husbands, fathers and grandfathers.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby edy420 on May 3rd, 2019, 4:51 pm 

Wrong. Woman are family members too. I was simply talking from my perspective, which happens to be Male. I dont see why my gender takes away my rights as a family member?
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 May 3rd, 2019, 5:55 pm 

IYO opinion whose life has value and how is it determined? A fetus has its own unique DNA as a living being but does it have value? Do you or I have value? Who should make the decision? Victims of a genocide were believed not to have value so nothing is easier than murder.

Laws concerning fetal homicide assumes the fetus has value. Why would a parasite have value. So in order to understand you better, how do you determine whose life has value?


God determines whose life has value.

Quite simply, if I end a life, I have ended a life. If I kill a being, I have killed. When it comes to animals, I admit, I killed an animal. I wish people who kill unborn human beings had the same honesty.

But it seems they are being honest most of the time. Just a difference in opinion I guess?
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 May 3rd, 2019, 9:30 pm 

A difference in how "human being" is defined, perhaps. I rather doubt anyone would have a third trimester abortion if they believed the fetus to be a citizen, possessed of sentience and humanity. Even in some progressive nations, like in Scandinavia, third trimester abortion is not legal because people mostly agree there is some possibility of sentience. Very few women, where the fetus is normal and viable, ever request a third trimester abortion, due in part to the powerful sense of moral doubt.

In confronting the moral implications, most people prefer to have their metaphysical beliefs about fetal status err on the side of caution. As someone who believes in the value and dignity of every life, I would not want to deny a third trimester baby the benefit of the doubt. It would be my wife's decision, and I would hope she would share my moral qualms about ending a late term pregnancy. This is something couples usually, one hopes, work out before such a fraught choice presented itself.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on May 5th, 2019, 11:17 am 

TheVat » May 3rd, 2019, 9:30 pm wrote:A difference in how "human being" is defined, perhaps. I rather doubt anyone would have a third trimester abortion if they believed the fetus to be a citizen, possessed of sentience and humanity. Even in some progressive nations, like in Scandinavia, third trimester abortion is not legal because people mostly agree there is some possibility of sentience. Very few women, where the fetus is normal and viable, ever request a third trimester abortion, due in part to the powerful sense of moral doubt.

In confronting the moral implications, most people prefer to have their metaphysical beliefs about fetal status err on the side of caution. As someone who believes in the value and dignity of every life, I would not want to deny a third trimester baby the benefit of the doubt. It would be my wife's decision, and I would hope she would share my moral qualms about ending a late term pregnancy. This is something couples usually, one hopes, work out before such a fraught choice presented itself.


The great question: what is human being? Our species has so much knowledge and so many skills yet we do not know what we are sufficient to either intellectually grasp or feel the objective value of life. Visitors from another world would ask themselves how these earth people can live like this and without any concept of what they are. In this condition they are forced to seek immediate gratification or a belief in some sort of fantasy. How sad when we consider the suffering caused by this ignorance.

This raises the obvious question if we can grow in our collective understanding to know what "being" is and in particular "human being" sufficient to value life? If we can grow to understand what human being is, how can it be done? The sad truth is that if it is known it must remain hidden and available only for those who can profit from it rather than seek to ridicule and destroy it.
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on May 14th, 2019, 12:07 pm 

I find this article interesting, as a window into a religious mindset that seems to take a very different view of a common method of contraception. It hinges on the particular religious belief (which sort of belief is not, in the U.S., constitutionally seen as what our laws should be based upon) that a zygote is instantaneously, by being a fertilized egg, a human being.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anti-cho ... 5e64bf9590

It's amazing to me that this program reduced the rate of abortions in teens by 64% and yet those opposed to abortion are quite angry about it. For those who are concerned about 3rd trimester abortion, when there is genuine concern, with a basis in real physiological evidence, as to the sentience of the fetus, this great reduction in unwanted teen pregnancies would seem to be progress.

The Cult of Unreason is thriving in the USA.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby PaulN on May 16th, 2019, 1:18 pm 

They're angry because the program admits a reality their tiny brains can't handle: teens are going to rebel and do things their parents told them not to do....like have sex. And, yes, they're angry because, in spite of Himalayan mountains of developmental evidence to the contrary, they think a newly-fertilized egg is a person. They're angry because the Middle Ages ended, we had the Enlightenment, and it's getting so much harder to shove medieval ideas down everyone's throat. There are all these crazy fucked-up people out there who actually want EVIDENCE for your supernatural beliefs about magic Sky Daddy dropping a soul down into every new zygote.
PaulN
 


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests