Three Day Grace Period

[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.

[Sculptor1]

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.

SInce there is little difference between a 3 day old baby and a foetus three days before birth, you would not abort a foetus at three days before, nor should you three days after. A grace period is irrelevant.
What is VERY different is the mother. The act of birth has massive hormonal and psychological effects, making significant changes in how the mother might view the foetus/baby.

Has there been something in the news that has stimulated this odd post?

[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.

SInce there is little difference between a 3 day old baby and a foetus three days before birth, you would not abort a foetus at three days before, nor should you three days after. A grace period is irrelevant.
What is VERY different is the mother. The act of birth has massive hormonal and psychological effects, making significant changes in how the mother might view the foetus/baby.

Has there been something in the news that has stimulated this odd post?

Just trying to understand the objections

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad ... 0at%20risk.

What did the bill propose?

Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed.

The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk .

The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law.

If the fetus is considered anything but a parasite there would be massive objections to late term abortions. They would be illegal and immoral which is clearly not the case. Now that we know what a fetus is by the attitudes towards it, What then is so wrong about a mother seeking to rid herself of a parasite and given three days to decide if for some reason she wants to keep it. Can you explain the logic behind this.

[LuckyR]

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.

SInce there is little difference between a 3 day old baby and a foetus three days before birth, you would not abort a foetus at three days before, nor should you three days after. A grace period is irrelevant.
What is VERY different is the mother. The act of birth has massive hormonal and psychological effects, making significant changes in how the mother might view the foetus/baby.

Has there been something in the news that has stimulated this odd post?

Just trying to understand the objections

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad ... 0at%20risk.

What did the bill propose?

Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed.

The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk .

The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law.

If the fetus is considered anything but a parasite there would be massive objections to late term abortions. They would be illegal and immoral which is clearly not the case. Now that we know what a fetus is by the attitudes towards it, What then is so wrong about a mother seeking to rid herself of a parasite and given three days to decide if for some reason she wants to keep it. Can you explain the logic behind this.

This entire thread, since it is based on a low controversy 2019 proposal that was taken out of context by, you guessed it: politicians with massive axes to grind, is basically meaningless.

The idea of not requiring parents and doctors to "resuscitate" babies born with lethal anomalies is something that most agree is reasonable, and very few (not pandering for votes) would call the practice "abortion".

[Sculptor1]

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.

SInce there is little difference between a 3 day old baby and a foetus three days before birth, you would not abort a foetus at three days before, nor should you three days after. A grace period is irrelevant.
What is VERY different is the mother. The act of birth has massive hormonal and psychological effects, making significant changes in how the mother might view the foetus/baby.

Has there been something in the news that has stimulated this odd post?

Just trying to understand the objections

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad ... 0at%20risk.

What did the bill propose?

Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed.

The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk .

The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law.

If the fetus is considered anything but a parasite there would be massive objections to late term abortions. They would be illegal and immoral which is clearly not the case. Now that we know what a fetus is by the attitudes towards it, What then is so wrong about a mother seeking to rid herself of a parasite and given three days to decide if for some reason she wants to keep it. Can you explain the logic behind this.

The bill only represents a small change in existing legislation
You did not mention the article in full and you chose to ignore other provisions of the bill.:


The paediatric neurologist said the measure allowed termination "in cases where there may be severe deformities" or when there is a "foetus that's not viable" outside the womb.

"So in this particular example, if a mother's in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he told WTOP's Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

"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."

So - given these factors. I say Meh.
I think it is a welcome change to the obsession with the foetus. Legislation tends to be foetus centred, this shifts the emphasis towards the pregnant woman, which I welcome.

[Nick_A]

The bill asserts that: “The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk .”

LuckyR wrote: The idea of not requiring parents and doctors to "resuscitate" babies born with lethal anomalies is something that most agree is reasonable, and very few (not pandering for votes) would call the practice "abortion".

Sculptor wrote: “Legislation tends to be foetus centred, this shifts the emphasis towards the pregnant woman, which I welcome.”

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

“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

Who decides if a life has value? We know that the mother decides if a fetus has value. The government decides if a fetus has value after birth. So the value of a fetus is determined by the mother first and then a government.

Which government determines the value of a Jew during the holocaust or an Armenian during the Armenian genocide? Obviously we can’t trust governments to determine value. Value can only be decided by the power an adult has acquired. It gives them the ability to shoot back. It is the ultimate expression of value and protection from the decisions of mothers and governments which question their value.

Is there a better way?

[Nick_A]

So what have we learned? Life has no objective value. Fetuses, Jews, and Armenians for example have no objective value. They only have value when it is given to them by others. When life is not given value, nothing is easier than murder. Well I'm glad we finally clarified this

[Steve3007]

Is there a better way?

Based on some of your previous posts I'd guess that your answer to this question is "yes". I think your purpose in starting this topic was essentially to say: "If you deny objective morality then the result is a slippery slope including infanticide, genocide, etc. Happy now?".

Am I right?

If so, how would the assertion of objective morality change things? What would be the difference between me saying "abortion is wrong" and "God (or whatever we're calling our source of objective moral truths) has told me that abortion is wrong"? They'd both constitute me expressing a personal view about abortion wouldn't they? Asserting "my views are backed by an objective source of moral truths" is still me expressing my views, isn't it?

If my view is that my personal views are not just my personal views, that's my personal view about my personal views isn't it?

[Steve3007]

Who decides if a life has value?

In my view, as with all values, that is decided by the life itself (if it is sentient) and other sentient living things. On this planet that means people and other animals. We all value the lives of ourselves, other humans and other animals to a continuously varying degree on an individual basis.

We know that the mother decides if a fetus has value. The government decides if a fetus has value after birth. So the value of a fetus is determined by the mother first and then a government.

The government, by passing legislation, decides when and whether a foetus has legal protection from harm. That's not the same as deciding whether it has value. Laws may be enacted as an attempt to reflect what a group of people regard as the commonalities in the values of a larger group of people. I don't think that can be described as the government deciding if a foetus has value.

Is there a better way for governments to pass legislation? Should it be on the basis of what somebody claims a source of objective moral authority has told them? Or some other way?

[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.

[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

[Steve3007]

This is a strawman topic.

[Nick_A]

Steve

Nick_A wrote:
Is there a better way?

Based on some of your previous posts I'd guess that your answer to this question is "yes". I think your purpose in starting this topic was essentially to say: "If you deny objective morality then the result is a slippery slope including infanticide, genocide, etc. Happy now?".

Am I right?

No. You are referring to objective morality which doesn't exist. Morality is a subjective devolution or interpretation of objective conscience.

Einstein wrote

“We must create a cosmic man, a man ruled by his conscience.”

"Create a community which develops the highest of man's qualities based on conscience. You must warn people not to make their in­tellect their god. The intellect knows methods but it seldom knows values, and they come from feeling. If one doesn't play a part in the creative whole, he is not worth being called human. He has betrayed his true purpose." Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 135.)

Ouspensky wrote

Conscience is the emotional aspect of Consciousness. When Conscience wakes up we see ‘what we are not’.

Conscience has nothing to do with guilt or remorse – Conscience is entirely positive. It is the inner capacity for the emotional realization of truth. It is entirely personal and particular to oneself and has no negative aspect. Conscience must wake up before we can be Conscious.

Morality is subjective and indoctrinated while objective conscience is a perennial attribute so can be remembered. People confuse them which just means that we don't know and haven't experienced what arouses the feeling of objective value or conscience so become lost in arguments over subjective indoctrinated morality.

[Sculptor1]

This is a strawman topic.

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

[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.