Abortion: Three Day Grace Period

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
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?
 
I don't know about that, but I bet there are some parents who might want the choice when their kids hit driving age...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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?)
 
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?


 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
. 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

Hi Wil

You are referring to debating tactics, Roe vs. Wade, and what seems "obvious " to uou but 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 termination?
 
Nick_A said:
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?
What is wrong is that a mother wants to terminate her child, which is a horrible catastrophe. The greatest tragedy is her desire. The child's death is the second catastrophe. The third catastrophe is that we cannot produce appropriate legislation to prevent such a thing. Legally a mother terminating a child should be a question of incompetence and not of murder. It should come under abuse statutes, perhaps.

Nick_A said:
...Why not extend the time of the mothers right to to termination?
The state should never be considered a person's mother but a ward at most, and such a time limit does not recognize that. There is no time limit on motherhood, ethically speaking, unless the mother separates the child from herself. The three days limitation you mentioned doesn't recognize the authority vested in a mother.
 
Hi Wil

You are referring to debating tactics, Roe vs. Wade, and what seems "obvious " to uou but 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 termination?
When dealing with The State, it is unwise to "put legality aside."
 
Please remember that when I write the following it isn't to be critical of anyone but just my perception regarding the human condition. I am not placing blame but just introducing something into the question that is not normally described in this way.

The reason this question is so hard to answer in a rational way IMO is because it first must be put into a higher perspective that I call "respect for life."

We normally think we have it and we do in select incidents. I am referring to respect for life as a whole and that includes the life process itself and its connection to a greater good from Gaia to the newborn.

Do we respect and value the process of collective human life as a process from conception to death and from generation to generation and the need to further its psych/spiritual quality? It is easy to say yes with platitudes but I contend that in reality we don't

Consider the difference if we had respect for life as an objective process not considered from a secular mindset. Rather than the usual a f-ck is a f-ck mentality, people would know that the psycho/spiritual "quality" of conception has an effect on the inner quality of conception itself. Loose negative sex wouldn't be attractive since the real value of sex, sex, energy, and quality of conception would be part of our emotional awareness. Since we lack respect for the life process, sex education is meaningless other than in matters of health and "technique"

The fetus itself would be considered from a higher perspective as part of what connects one generation to the next rather than the inconvenience it often is. It would be respected as part of the life process itself. The baby it becomes would be loved as an individual and seen also as part of connecting generations.

Without becoming able to emotionally feel respect for life as a process and recognizing the necessity and value of each stage there is no reason not to kill babies. A baby is just a step along this process and without being able to feel respect for life as part of our objective morality, we can easily kill it for egotistical purposes. We have become so emotionally crippled that this is often the case.

When an animal kills its young it does so to keep the gene pool strong. Man is the only animal that kills to sustain our ego, our image.

Some of you will not like the following either but I believe that the woman of quality has the necessary spiritual awareness and obligation to sustain inner "quality" of our species. The man will get anything pregnant, but a woman of a certain quality, only wants to be impregnated by a man of a certain inner matching quality.

It is like Beauty and the Beast. The man loses his way and turns into something of lower quality. The Beauty begins to feel the worth inside of him and through her love allows him to regain what was lost and they join at a higher place.

In these times many women have allowed secularism to influence them to seek the lower values and be equal to men in them rather then develop their inner emotional qualities vital for men to learn from and for society to prosper psychologically and spiritually.

I believe this is why so many people are now being attracted to Sarah Palin. They feel that she has become able to function well in society without sacrificing her inner worth which is vital for so many as inspiration. She has "respect for life."

Do we not kill babies because of the law or because of respect for life? Is it possible this society could ever develop respect for life so that the entire life process from birth to death would be respected as something connected to a greater good and nurtured as such? I don't know. I do know that the question of abortion or baby killing is rarely if ever considered in the context of respect for the process of life as a value in itself. Such thought is often considered "insulting" and that is not an optimistic sign
 
Nick_A said:
The reason this question is so hard to answer in a rational way IMO is because it first must be put into a higher perspective that I call "respect for life."

We normally think we have it and we do in select incidents. I am referring to respect for life as a whole and that includes the life process itself and its connection to a greater good from Gaia to the newborn.

Consider the difference if we had respect for life as an objective process not considered from a secular mindset.

Do we not kill babies because of the law or because of respect for life? Is it possible this society could ever develop respect for life so that the entire life process from birth to death would be respected as something connected to a greater good and nurtured as such?
You make a good point, that respect for life is the issue, however all of the respect for the life process that you could ever want is already present, naturally, in a birth mother. It is found nowhere else. Legislating mothering decisions is beyond the capability of non-mothers, since mothers have no equal in respect for life. A mother dotes upon the future of children in a fervent way, and it is presumptuous for a non-mother to consider themselves a higher authority. That is why the law oversteps its boundaries when it interferes. Should a lower court overrule a higher court? The mother is a higher court when it comes to a child's life.
 
Back
Top