Three Day Grace Period

[Nick_A]

So we know that a mother’s bad mood could justify an abortion while legislation can justify abortions. So what is the bottom line?

Er, no. If you had the ability to read you would know there was provision in the bill for medical review.
You are just blowing hot air up everyone's rear end.

You have to be street smart. If the doctor believes in abortion they will sign off on anything.

[Steve3007]

This is a strawman topic.

Yes, I think its technical term in philosophy is what we call a croc of excrement.

It's one of those "This is how you all think and these are the consequences. Well I hope you're satisfied!" kind of topics.

[Thomyum2]

It is obvious that there really is no essential difference between a fetus three days before birth and three days after birth. Both are like parasites that feed off of the mother.

So for the sake of the mother's mental health, would you agree that the mother should be given three days after giving birth to decide if she wants to keep or abort it? Since it really doesn't matter, why must she endure what she may not want? Giving her three days to decide is only fair for those who believe in a woman's right to choose.

But there is an essential difference: after birth, the care of the child can be taken over by another individual without any risk of physical harm to either the child or mother. That's not the case prior to birth.

But why bother with a parasite and who cares for it? If it lacks value it is like anything else lacking value. Just throw it away or destroy the larger collective in a genocide

Well that is a different question entirely, isn't it? My point isn't to try to answer the ethical question here, but rather to say that the ethical question changes essentially at birth. Prior to birth, the obligations or claims of the mother are linked in way with those of the child in way that isn't present after birth, after which the ethical question becomes one of the rights of the child weighed against the needs and obligations the larger community. If the community chooses to provide for the needs of the child at that point, it no longer necessarily requires the unwilling participation of the mother.

Incidentally, I think the term 'parasite' is used in a misleading way in this context. Technically speaking, a parasite is one species that lives at the expense of another. The young offspring of one's own species can hardly be called parasites since they are the very means of that species' own propagation. When the term 'parasite' is used to describe human individuals, it has more of a pejorative than descriptive sense.

[Nick_A]

It is obvious that there really is no essential difference between a fetus three days before birth and three days after birth. Both are like parasites that feed off of the mother.

So for the sake of the mother's mental health, would you agree that the mother should be given three days after giving birth to decide if she wants to keep or abort it? Since it really doesn't matter, why must she endure what she may not want? Giving her three days to decide is only fair for those who believe in a woman's right to choose.

But there is an essential difference: after birth, the care of the child can be taken over by another individual without any risk of physical harm to either the child or mother. That's not the case prior to birth.

But why bother with a parasite and who cares for it? If it lacks value it is like anything else lacking value. Just throw it away or destroy the larger collective in a genocide

Well that is a different question entirely, isn't it? My point isn't to try to answer the ethical question here, but rather to say that the ethical question changes essentially at birth. Prior to birth, the obligations or claims of the mother are linked in way with those of the child in way that isn't present after birth, after which the ethical question becomes one of the rights of the child weighed against the needs and obligations the larger community. If the community chooses to provide for the needs of the child at that point, it no longer necessarily requires the unwilling participation of the mother.

Incidentally, I think the term 'parasite' is used in a misleading way in this context. Technically speaking, a parasite is one species that lives at the expense of another. The young offspring of one's own species can hardly be called parasites since they are the very means of that species' own propagation. When the term 'parasite' is used to describe human individuals, it has more of a pejorative than descriptive sense.

I agree from the secular viewpoint. The rights of the fetus are determined first by the mother and then the laws of the government. I am referring to respect for life as a perennial quality independent of the views of mothers and governments. Does life have objective value and can it be felt or remembered by objective conscience rather than debated by subjective morality? That really is the inconvenient question. Can Man consciously evolve to feel respect for the life process itself that runs from conception to death? Because it must be associated with a conscious Source which is emotionally rejected, I can't see it happening.

[Thomyum2]

Well that is a different question entirely, isn't it? My point isn't to try to answer the ethical question here, but rather to say that the ethical question changes essentially at birth. Prior to birth, the obligations or claims of the mother are linked in way with those of the child in way that isn't present after birth, after which the ethical question becomes one of the rights of the child weighed against the needs and obligations the larger community. If the community chooses to provide for the needs of the child at that point, it no longer necessarily requires the unwilling participation of the mother.

Incidentally, I think the term 'parasite' is used in a misleading way in this context. Technically speaking, a parasite is one species that lives at the expense of another. The young offspring of one's own species can hardly be called parasites since they are the very means of that species' own propagation. When the term 'parasite' is used to describe human individuals, it has more of a pejorative than descriptive sense.

I agree from the secular viewpoint. The rights of the fetus are determined first by the mother and then the laws of the government. I am referring to respect for life as a perennial quality independent of the views of mothers and governments. Does life have objective value and can it be felt or remembered by objective conscience rather than debated by subjective morality? That really is the inconvenient question. Can Man consciously evolve to feel respect for the life process itself that runs from conception to death? Because it must be associated with a conscious Source which is emotionally rejected, I can't see it happening.

I don't completely follow what you're asking here - can you elaborate? It seems to a respect for life is the very foundation of morality - to have a moral sense and to value life are one and the same thing.

[Sculptor1]

So we know that a mother’s bad mood could justify an abortion while legislation can justify abortions. So what is the bottom line?

Er, no. If you had the ability to read you would know there was provision in the bill for medical review.
You are just blowing hot air up everyone's rear end.

You have to be street smart. If the doctor believes in abortion they will sign off on anything.

So, in your opinion you can't trust the mother. And in your opinion you cannot trust the doctor.
But we are supposed to consider your hysterical and hyperbolic claims of paracitism, eventhough it is clear you have not aquainted yourself with the basic facts.

[Sculptor1]

This is a strawman topic.

Yes, I think its technical term in philosophy is what we call a croc of excrement.

It's one of those "This is how you all think and these are the consequences. Well I hope you're satisfied!" kind of topics.

The hyper exaggeration that started the thread was a risible appeal to emotion which was a fail.
Then it moved on to simply misrepresenting the fact of the case.
All the while masking some (presumably religious) prejudice.

[Nick_A]

Well that is a different question entirely, isn't it? My point isn't to try to answer the ethical question here, but rather to say that the ethical question changes essentially at birth. Prior to birth, the obligations or claims of the mother are linked in way with those of the child in way that isn't present after birth, after which the ethical question becomes one of the rights of the child weighed against the needs and obligations the larger community. If the community chooses to provide for the needs of the child at that point, it no longer necessarily requires the unwilling participation of the mother.

Incidentally, I think the term 'parasite' is used in a misleading way in this context. Technically speaking, a parasite is one species that lives at the expense of another. The young offspring of one's own species can hardly be called parasites since they are the very means of that species' own propagation. When the term 'parasite' is used to describe human individuals, it has more of a pejorative than descriptive sense.

I agree from the secular viewpoint. The rights of the fetus are determined first by the mother and then the laws of the government. I am referring to respect for life as a perennial quality independent of the views of mothers and governments. Does life have objective value and can it be felt or remembered by objective conscience rather than debated by subjective morality? That really is the inconvenient question. Can Man consciously evolve to feel respect for the life process itself that runs from conception to death? Because it must be associated with a conscious Source which is emotionally rejected, I can't see it happening.

I don't completely follow what you're asking here - can you elaborate? It seems to a respect for life is the very foundation of morality - to have a moral sense and to value life are one and the same thing.

It is the foundation for subjective moral values. Humanity respects and values one part of life but kills another. Einstein wrote

"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."

I think it has been proven in life and on web sites that respect for and valuing the whole of life or conscience is not possible for Man as a whole. The battle rages on about subjective morality and parts we believe worthy of life and those we don't. The question if we should value in our hearts a fetus 3 after before birth like we do three days before birth is impossible for most since we are incapable of understanding life as a continuum so are governed by pragmatism and debate it in Plato's cave..

[Gee]

It is obvious that there really is no essential difference between a fetus three days before birth and three days after birth. Both are like parasites that feed off of the mother.

I really don't like you calling a fetus a parasite. This does not look like a simple misrepresentation, it gives the appearance of serious bias.

So for the sake of the mother's mental health, would you agree that the mother should be given three days after giving birth to decide if she wants to keep or abort it? Since it really doesn't matter, why must she endure what she may not want? Giving her three days to decide is only fair for those who believe in a woman's right to choose.

I think she had nine months, not three days for her "right to choose". If we are talking about a development that showed up after delivery, what would you suggest? Maybe a week? A month? Or maybe she should wait for the infant to show some personality so the Mom can decide if she likes the child? What would be "fair" for the infant? What would be "fair" for the father, brother, or sister, of the infant?

Gee

[Nick_A]

Hi Gee

I really don't like you calling a fetus a parasite. This does not look like a simple misrepresentation, it gives the appearance of serious bias.

Why else would a woman abort a fetus for convenience if it has any worth. And without worth it is nothing more than a parasite. You have avoided the basic question: Does a fetus have objective value?

I think she had nine months, not three days for her "right to choose". If we are talking about a development that showed up after delivery, what would you suggest? Maybe a week? A month? Or maybe she should wait for the infant to show some personality so the Mom can decide if she likes the child? What would be "fair" for the infant? What would be "fair" for the father, brother, or sister, of the infant?

Yes, this is what we do. What is the reason for a time limit of three days or three years? Why else do we justify genocides which is nothing more then the attempt to abort a race. What gives a race value?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It is obvious that there really is no essential difference between a fetus three days before birth and three days after birth. Both are like parasites that feed off of the mother.

I disagree that there is no essential difference.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between an embryo one week after conception versus ten days after conception.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between an embryo one week after conception versus ten days after conception.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between a living sperm versus a dead sperm.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between a living sperm versus a fertilized egg.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between a rape-caused pregnancy versus one that resulted from unprotected consensual sex.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between an ant and a dog.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between a mouse and a dog.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between a bacterium and a virus.


Of course, I think it's safe to say your goal is for me to disagree with you, so presumably we agree that your statement in the OP is disagreeable.

In any case, I think reality is not black and white and not simplistically pixelated in the way human conception works. Instead, reality is never truly figuratively black or white but always simply various infinite shades of gray. How parasitic a creature is, or much like the average born human a creature is, are each a continuum, not binary discreet states. Even whether or not something is alive, or how alive it is, is a continuum, not a truly discreet binary black-and-white state.

So for the sake of the mother's mental health, would you agree that the mother should be given three days after giving birth to decide if she wants to keep or abort it?

Can you define "should"?

[Nick_A]

Hi Scott

Of course, I think it's safe to say your goal is for me to disagree with you, so presumably we agree that your statement in the OP is disagreeable.

Yes but why? What is the deeper point of the thread? It is associated with process theology and the idea that the purpose of existence and Man within it is found by studying the process of existence rather than results..

The cycle of human life begins at conception and ends at death. This is what our senses see. But what if human life is a cycle? then the process of the whole cycle must be appreciated to sense its value. It is like a ladder that continues in a cycle. Some argue the third step is most important while some argue the fifth and the seventh and so on.

The objective value of a fetus is not determined by abortion or infanticide. To do so means Man can only live by subjective values which includes the inevitability of wars.

But suppose the process of the human life cycle has objective value? then the question isn't abortion vs infanticide but rather the objective value of the whole cycle. Man in society as a whole is becoming less capable of grasping the big picture and becomes identified with details and opinions which support them.

Plato understood:

Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

It makes sense that the inner man should be drawn to universal values. But the sad reality is that the outer man or our personalities have been conditioned to value pragmatism which serves our interests. Yet some are able to sense the absurdity of it and live in accordance with the meaning and purpose of the inner man.

To Simone Weil's gravestone was attached a small plaque written in Italian which translates: "My solitude held in its grasp the grief of others till my death."

She was one of the rare ones who could still see the big picture. Society IMO is losing the ability to contemplate the big picture in favor of arguing fragmentation or details. Nothing good can come from this loss.

[LuckyR]

Hi Gee

I really don't like you calling a fetus a parasite. This does not look like a simple misrepresentation, it gives the appearance of serious bias.

Why else would a woman abort a fetus for convenience if it has any worth. And without worth it is nothing more than a parasite. You have avoided the basic question: Does a fetus have objective value?

I think she had nine months, not three days for her "right to choose". If we are talking about a development that showed up after delivery, what would you suggest? Maybe a week? A month? Or maybe she should wait for the infant to show some personality so the Mom can decide if she likes the child? What would be "fair" for the infant? What would be "fair" for the father, brother, or sister, of the infant?

Yes, this is what we do. What is the reason for a time limit of three days or three years? Why else do we justify genocides which is nothing more then the attempt to abort a race. What gives a race value?

You don't seem to understand that worth is generally used as a relative rather than absolute term. That is, when decision making (keep or lose a pregnancy, for example), the issue is conflicting interests, all of which have worth/value. This it isn't about value: yes or no, but value of one interest compared to that of other interests.

[Steve3007]

It is obvious that there really is no essential difference between a fetus three days before birth and three days after birth. Both are like parasites that feed off of the mother.

I disagree that there is no essential difference.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between an embryo one week after conception versus ten days after conception...

I think the fallacy in Nick's position is in looking at a continuum, picking two relatively close together points on that continuum, concluding that there is no essential difference between those two points, and thinking that says something about the continuum. It is in the nature of continua that, no matter how different the conditions at either end, the difference between two arbitrarily close together points is arbitrarily small. To extrapolate from that would be to make the same mistake that Zeno did.

In my view, the underlying reason why abortion has been, and probably always will be, a source of disagreement between people is that it's one of those cases in which we're force to draw a dividing line on a continuum. The position we choose will always, to some extent, be arbitrary.

Crudely speaking, "Pro life" people usually make their point by considering the part of the continuum which is closest to birth ("How can you kill a baby?!?"). "Pro choice" people usually make their point by considering the part of the continuum which is closest to conception ("How can you value a single cell over the life of a fully formed human being?!?").

[Nick_A]

It is obvious that there really is no essential difference between a fetus three days before birth and three days after birth. Both are like parasites that feed off of the mother.

I disagree that there is no essential difference.

I likewise would disagree if you asserted there is no essential difference between an embryo one week after conception versus ten days after conception...

I think the fallacy in Nick's position is in looking at a continuum, picking two relatively close together points on that continuum, concluding that there is no essential difference between those two points, and thinking that says something about the continuum. It is in the nature of continua that, no matter how different the conditions at either end, the difference between two arbitrarily close together points is arbitrarily small. To extrapolate from that would be to make the same mistake that Zeno did.

In my view, the underlying reason why abortion has been, and probably always will be, a source of disagreement between people is that it's one of those cases in which we're force to draw a dividing line on a continuum. The position we choose will always, to some extent, be arbitrary.

Crudely speaking, "Pro life" people usually make their point by considering the part of the continuum which is closest to birth ("How can you kill a baby?!?"). "Pro choice" people usually make their point by considering the part of the continuum which is closest to conception ("How can you value a single cell over the life of a fully formed human being?!?").

You still don't understand the underlying point I was making concerning valuing the process of life itself. The cycle of life is a process. If there is no essential difference between a fetus three days before and after the debate must be bout secular artificial divides rather than and any realistic concern for the life cycle.
itself. The value for life is based on pragmatism which justifies abortions as well as genocides by personal subjective values. If Man is the measure of all things he can make these decisions and does.

What if the process of the life cycle had objective value and people were aware of it? Everything would be different It would be seen as necessary building block for the universe and people would respect its purpose and do what it can to further its quality as the potential for the species. But being fixated on details our species denies the big picture and human universal purpose.

The fact that the three day question seems so absurd is just proof that the world has lost the big picture and its objective universal purpose for the sake of the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.