Abortion: Three Day Grace Period

[Nick_A]

We are making progress in our moral discrimination and gradually outgrowing old fashioned ideas, As you know, the question of abortion has been debated including partial birth abortion where the baby is legally killed because the head has not yet emerged. Here is a description of the process:

Partial Birth Abortion Diagrams

We are still caught up in the debate as to when a baby becomes a baby. But we are now educated enough to make the transition into appreciating the real essence of the debate which is when we have the right to kill.

We kill in wars and executions so why not kill unwanted babies? It seems that this idea of partial birth abortion just confuses the question and prevents real choice.

Would you find a three day grace period acceptable after the birth of a baby within which the mother could have its life terminated. Within three days she should be able to decide if she wants this burden or would perhaps eliminate it as her right of choice.

It is obvious that a baby three days before birth is really the same as a baby three days after birth. So rather make lawyers rich with fighting over late term partial birth abortions in the future, why not just give the mother the right of choice to terminate the baby within three days of its birth?

Of course there are laws against it now but regardless of them, is there any reason why a mother's right of choice should not be extended to three days after birth so that her choice could be made with a clear head? The baby is the same so it doesn't make a difference. It would clear up this problem as to legality and the time within a pregnancy the fetus could be terminated. By extending the right to abortion for three days after birth would really be respecting choice and clear out a lot of read tape and foolish debate.

Is there any reason excluding legality, you would object to the three day grace period after birth within which the baby could be terminated for the sake of the mother and in respect to her choice?

[lunamoth]

I don't know about that, but I bet there are some parents who might want the choice when their kids hit driving age...

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I don't know about that, but I bet there are some parents who might want the choice when their kids hit driving age...

I find it interesting that so many hinge their votes on whether the candidate is pro choice (for abortion) or pro life (against abortion). When the President's viewpoint on this matter will actually have very little impact on the debate.

Roe v. Wade has stood for a while and will most likely stand for years to come. The biggest impact the President or legislature will probably do in my opinion is enforce it.

As I understand it Roe V. Wade just about eliminates all late term and partial birth abortions, and whenever that challenge gets to the court we'll see them eliminated.

[seattlegal]

This is not really a valid argument, as the baby has already been born, and is not within the confines of the mother's body.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

This is not really a valid argument, as the baby has already been born, and is not within the confines of the mother's body.

Hi SG

The whole idea is that there is really no essential difference between a baby 3 days before and 3 days after birth. They are both completely dependent. So why is birth considered so important in determining whether the baby lives or dies? If the important consideration is "choice," why not extend the time of choice so that the mother can make a more relaxed, intlligent decision if she wants to keep the baby or have it terminated?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Hi SG

The whole idea is that there is really no essential difference between a baby 3 days before and 3 days after birth. They are both completely dependent. So why is birth considered so important in determining whether the baby lives or dies? If the important consideration is "choice," why not extend the time of choice so that the mother can make a more relaxed, intlligent decision if she wants to keep the baby or have it terminated?

Actually, there is a difference--inside a woman's body and outside a woman's body. I consider a person to have sovereignty over one's body. (Don't get me wrong--I find partial birth abortion to be totally repugnant, and consider it to be murder if the baby can live outside the womb.)

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Actually, there is a difference--inside a woman's body and outside a woman's body. I consider a person to have sovereignty over one's body. (Don't get me wrong--I find partial birth abortion to be totally repugnant, and consider it to be murder if the baby can live outside the womb.)

Hi SG

What is the essential difference between being in the womb and outside the womb that determines whether a baby can be killed or not?

You are using secular words like "murder" that allows society to prohibit certain killings but I'm stating the question from the point of view of impartial ethics. The essential question asks what is wrong with killing babies and giving the mother the right to kill within a three day period after birth?. The bird throws the hatchling out of the nest if it doesn't like the chick.

Before considering when to abort, it seems that the first ethical question of the right to kill must be agreed upon. That is why I ask if anyone in this day and age built on the values of education would have anything against a three day grace period to preserve the mother's
right to kill since life and death could be considered in a more rational mindset.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Hi SG

What is the essential difference between being in the womb and outside the womb that determines whether a baby can be killed or not?

You are using secular words like "murder" that allows society to prohibit certain killings but I'm stating the question from the point of view of impartial ethics. The essential question asks what is wrong with killing babies and giving the mother the right to kill within a three day period after birth?. The bird throws the hatchling out of the nest if it doesn't like the chick.

Before considering when to abort, it seems that the first ethical question of the right to kill must be agreed upon. That is why I ask if anyone in this day and age built on the values of education would have anything against a three day grace period to preserve the mother's
right to kill since life and death could be considered in a more rational mindset.

Reality check: the secular is part of the world that we have to deal with.

Allowing The State an "in" that would set a precedent where it can be argued that The State, and not the person, is sovereign over their own bodies could open the way for all sorts of malignant abuses on the part of The State.

Now, when it comes to a woman deciding to have a living baby removed from her body artificially, I am all in favor of requiring those involved with the procedure to preserve the life of the baby if at all possible. I am not in favor of compelling anyone (such as a doctor) to perform such a procedure, nor am I in favor of compelling anyone to undergo such a procedure. I am not in favor of deliberately killing a baby in utero that is capable of surviving outside of the womb. I am in favor education and counseling those considering such a thing, and having alternatives presented wherever possible. The bottom line would be that a person has the final authority over their own body. (Is that rational enough for you?)

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Reality check: the secular is part of the world that we have to deal with.

Allowing The State an "in" that would set a precedent where it can be argued that The State, and not the person, is sovereign over their own bodies could open the way for all sorts of malignant abuses on the part of The State.

Now, when it comes to a woman deciding to have a living baby removed from her body artificially, I am all in favor of requiring those involved with the procedure to preserve the life of the baby if at all possible. I am not in favor of compelling anyone (such as a doctor) to perform such a procedure, nor am I in favor of compelling anyone to undergo such a procedure. I am not in favor of deliberately killing a baby in utero that is capable of surviving outside of the womb. I am in favor education and counseling those considering such a thing, and having alternatives presented wherever possible. The bottom line would be that a person has the final authority over their own body. (Is that rational enough for you?)

Hi SG

Allowing The State an "in" that would set a precedent where it can be argued that The State, and not the person, is sovereign over their own bodies could open the way for all sorts of malignant abuses on the part of The State.

I am asking what is wrong with the state only entering the picture after the third day. It keeps the state even further from the question of a woman being sovereign over her body during her pregnancy and being inflicted with a burden after birth. Would you object to this freedom?

Now, when it comes to a woman deciding to have a living baby removed from her body artificially, I am all in favor of requiring those involved with the procedure to preserve the life of the baby if at all possible. I am not in favor of compelling anyone (such as a doctor) to perform such a procedure, nor am I in favor of compelling anyone to undergo such a procedure. I am not in favor of deliberately killing a baby in utero that is capable of surviving outside of the womb. I am in favor education and counseling those considering such a thing, and having alternatives presented wherever possible. The bottom line would be that a person has the final authority over their own body. (Is that rational enough for you?)

You are defining quite well the terms by which you find abortion acceptable. I'm asking a more basic question. I'm asking regardless of the conditions, what is wrong with killing babies? What is wrong with a woman being allowed to kill her baby for whatever reason up until three days after birth?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Hi SG



I am asking what is wrong with the state only entering the picture after the third day. It keeps the state even further from the question of a woman being sovereign over her body during her pregnancy and being inflicted with a burden after birth. Would you object to this freedom?

That would allow the State an opportunity to refuse treatment of any needy newborns under the age of three days, including babies that were naturally born prematurely.

You are defining quite well the terms by which you find abortion acceptable.

I'm not saying that it is acceptable.

I'm asking a more basic question. I'm asking regardless of the conditions, what is wrong with killing babies? What is wrong with a woman being allowed to kill her baby for whatever reason up until three days after birth?

The baby is outside of her body.

[Dream]

I think I am persuaded by what SG said: By this reasoning the baby is in ownership of its own body once it is viable on its own, although it becomes the ward of an adult. Purposeful termination by the ward would be neglect, making either the state, the guardian, or both officially incompetent to be wards until proven otherwise.

Additionally:
I disagree with suggesting any number of days grace period for killing the child, yet I don't think the natural mother can be accused by the law of murdering any child of hers. There is a unique relationship a mother shares with a child that no one else has, because the child is not ever completely separate from a mother even after birth. The love of natural mothers for their children is a more effective deterrent to killing than the laws on the books could ever be. Not only is the mother's instinct the best (and only real) deterrent, but a mother's decision to kill her own child is ethically both a judgment against the child and a punishment to the mother.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

That would allow the State an opportunity to refuse treatment of any needy newborns under the age of three days, including babies that were naturally born prematurely.

I'm not saying that it is acceptable.
The baby is outside of her body.

That would allow the State an opportunity to refuse treatment of any needy newborns under the age of three days, including babies that were naturally born prematurely.

No because the woman has the right to either choose to raise the baby or terminate it within three days. Without treatment, the baby might die inhibiting her right of choice to raise it.

The baby is outside of her body.

So even though the baby is essentially the same three days before and three days after birth, once outside the body for some reason, it no longer can be killed. But you haven't answered the essential question: why not kill babies and avoid all this confusion? Why draw this distinction between inside and outside the woman's body? The baby is the same. Why not just lengthen the time within which babies can be killed after leaving the womb to further assure that the woman makes the right choice.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

. But you haven't answered the essential question:

If you care to go back and read my posts, you will see that I did, indeed, answer the essential question.

why not kill babies and avoid all this confusion?

Your confusion is yours to own.

Why draw this distinction between inside and outside the woman's body?

Answered in my previous posts.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Dream

I think I am persuaded by what SG said: By this reasoning the baby is in ownership of its own body once it is viable on its own, although it becomes the ward of an adult. Purposeful termination by the ward would be neglect, making either the state, the guardian, or both officially incompetent to be wards until proven otherwise.

Additionally:
I disagree with suggesting any number of days grace period for killing the child, yet I don't think the natural mother can be accused by the law of murdering any child of hers. There is a unique relationship a mother shares with a child that no one else has, because the child is not ever completely separate from a mother even after birth. The love of natural mothers for their children is a more effective deterrent to killing than the laws on the books could ever be. Not only is the mother's instinct the best (and only real) deterrent, but a mother's decision to kill her own child is ethically both a judgment against the child and a punishment to the mother.

Hi Dream

I ask you the same essential question. Legality aside, what is wrong with killing a completely dependent baby up until three days after its birth if the mother wants it teminated? Why not extend the time of the mothers right to to termination?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Hi Dream

I ask you the same essential question. Legality aside, what is wrong with killing a completely dependent baby up until three days after its birth if the mother wants it teminated? Why not extend the time of the mothers right to to termination?

Namaste Nick,

When is the last time you beat your wife?

Hate to be that way. But that is the argument that I see. I don't know all the debate tactics but this just seems to be one.

It is obvious the difference, and it is obvious the argument. And if extended it would go all the way back to not using birth control because you are impeding the sperm from fertilzing the egg.

I'm not fond of abortion...News Flash...Nobody is!! Nobody thinks it is a method of birth control...it is a method to correct an error and not magnify it. Having a child born into a family that doesn't want it is an incredible injustice. I'd go as far as to say that many of our societal issues are due to just that, children that don't get the love, attention, caring and concern they deserve. Again that being said, I am not saying abort the lot of them. Although I do believe as a man I have less right to say about this than a woman. I'll also say that a woman has less right to say anything about this over the woman who is in the predicament.

All that being said, I can agree with Roe v. Wade properly administered...and I don't believe partial birth or most late term abortion would pass must muster.