N.Y. adopts law allowing abortion up to nine months

[Nils]

It is important for people to understand what it is they're advocating. Not all abortions are the same.

Curious Nils, where would you draw the line?

Where to draw the line is a compromise between setting the line as low as possible to limit the danger of relativizing the respect for life on one hand and as high as possible to permit the families or individuals that don’t want a child to be able to interrupt the pregnancy on the other. In Sweden abortion is free up to the 18th week and after special permission up to the 22nd week. Any time after the 18th week The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare may permit abortion if there are particularly important reasons for instance if the life of the mother is in danger. I find those rules reasonable and I don’t see any need of free abortion up to 9 months.

There are similar limits in many European countries.

3rd trimester abortions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=r5Af8vIym2o (NY allows)
2nd trimester abortions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
1st trimester abortions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THDmys8z30

As I understand it most abortions are done medically not by a surgical procedure. What I found is that the risk of abortion e.g. not being able to get pregnant again is very low, 0.1%.

But what’s your answer to the question in my last post?

Nils

I listed the procedures done in my last post for 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters as many will use the term abortion this and abortion that, heck in Australia we had philosophers in ethics calling infanticide post-birth abortions. So abortion itself is just an ambiguous guise as I see for what actually takes place.

The videos I linked to above were put together by a doctor who has performed 100s of abortions. They illustrate what takes place during an abortion based upon how far along the pregnancy is. Watch them (there are no real life images), and it is in reference to them I wish to know where you might draw the line.

I don’t draw the line referring to your videos, I use a more careful evaluation, see above.
I have watched the videos but the don’t reflect the way abortions are usually done, at least in Sweden.

Re: Scripture, your question, it's a lie perpetuated by pro-aborts that only Christians believe abortion is wrong because the Bible tells them so. Rather the strongest arguments against killing an unborn baby are found in biology and science. Check out www.secularprolife.org

As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

[Nils]

Some years ago I debated with a person that had published a video on the net where he argued against abortion. He is a teacher in theology and philosophy and a smart guy so I thought it was interesting to debate his view. He answered that in a debate with an atheist the religious arguments aren’t important, there are other, secular, arguments against abortion. We debated them for a while but I didn’t find them convincing. However, when I looked at his religious arguments I noticed that he only had three references to the Bible and I found them rather weak (I don’t remember them in detail). So I ask you, what are your arguments and where in the Bible do you find them?
Do you find them conclusive and why?

Note that I want other arguments than the simplified “thou shalt not kill” that assumes that abortion is equivalent to killing. My question is: Where does the Bible say so?

Nils

What's your opinion on abortion right up to 9 months?

Why would anyone use a religious argument from the Bible, about abortion, with someone who doesn't believe in the authority of the Bible?

Now I don’t ask anyone to use the religious arguments but I am is interested in them for several reasons.
- I know the secular arguments for and against abortion but I don’t know the details of the Christian arguments and I am a bit curious about them and Christian opinion about their validity.
- As a defender of the right to abortion it is also important to know the arguments of those that are against abortion and they are often Christians.
- It can be claimed that the Christian arguments are private matter of the Christians but it isn’t. The conclusion the Christians often draw is that abortion should be prohibited not only for Christians but also for atheists so this isn’t an internal Christian question, unfortunately.
Nils

[Byblos]

As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

The Christian argument (if one could even call it that) against abortion is not a theistic argument at all but a philosophical one. The two are most often conflated (see my friend Kenny's most recent posts in the PROOF thread). I don't know to what extent you know the argument since you claim to know well the Christian argument but it starts with the theory of natural law. If you're familiar with that, you should know that it's not a religious argument at all.

[Nils]

Some years ago I debated with a person that had published a video on the net where he argued against abortion. He is a teacher in theology and philosophy and a smart guy so I thought it was interesting to debate his view. He answered that in a debate with an atheist the religious arguments aren’t important, there are other, secular, arguments against abortion. We debated them for a while but I didn’t find them convincing. However, when I looked at his religious arguments I noticed that he only had three references to the Bible and I found them rather weak (I don’t remember them in detail). So I ask you, what are your arguments and where in the Bible do you find them?
Do you find them conclusive and why?

Note that I want other arguments than the simplified “thou shalt not kill” that assumes that abortion is equivalent to killing. My question is: Where does the Bible say so?

Nils

Here is one:

Jeremiah 1:4-6 New International Version (NIV)
The Call of Jeremiah
4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
6 “Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”

This seems to be a good reason not to abort this fetus. But in general… ?

Thou shalt not kill... if this is not a small human being then I don't know what is.
12 week old baby

If we had to decide only from looking at the fetus there would be no problem in making a decision but I claim that we have to look for all arguments. Is it human? In some sense yes but in another sense no.
Nils

[Nils]

As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

The Christian argument (if one could even call it that) against abortion is not a theistic argument at all but a philosophical one. The two are most often conflated (see my friend Kenny's most recent posts in the PROOF thread). I don't know to what extent you know the argument since you claim to know well the Christian argument but it starts with the theory of natural law. If you're familiar with that, you should know that it's not a religious argument at all.

Oops, I was unclear. What I meant that I know the secular arguments well not the Christian arguments. I’m not certain which argument you refer to. Please explain.
Nils

[melanie]

I think the nuances of such laws are relevant. Do I think third trimester abortions are ethical, no I don't. The mere suggestion is confronting. But when I read the parameters of the bill, from a medical perspective I understood a little more.

"when the mother’s life was in danger or the fetus was no longer viable."
What that means is the fetus is dead. No one could legitimately hold it against anyone medically or ethically for aborting a dead child. Secondly if the mother's life is at risk then that's between herself, her partner, her baby, her other children and God.
If it were me, in that position I'm not sure what I would do. I will say a mothers instinct to protect her children is greater than any force of nature. I trust that any woman placed in that awful predicament for health reasons would make the best decision for her family.

The bill also says for mental reasons you can abort at nine months.

And that's the problem with the bill. Mental health? Who decides the mental health of the mother? Does she? If she's having hormonal problems in her pregnancy, that cause her "mental health" problems, does the bill allow her to be able to decide legally, to have an abortion?

So I’ve done some research on this bill regarding mental health and it seems that it is at the discretion of the doctors if it could result in extreme adverse mental health.
The example used was an 11yr old who was molested and became pregnant, an actual case. Her body could not naturally give birth but caesarean was an option, at that point the mental health and well being of the child had to seriously be taken into consideration.
The difference in the change to the law is that under previous legislation she could not lawfully get an abortion because the baby wasn’t at direct risk neither was the molested child but
it was high risk. The bigger concern was the mental well-being of the girl.

Doctors are not monsters who take any thrill in late term abortions, I would imagine those kinds of decisions would be difficult and not measured by a fatigued woman saying she just doesn’t know if she can do it at 36 weeks. So whilst I do have some faith in the integrity of doctors it’s still a slippery slope, I can see that.

But if that were my 11yr old baby, I’ll be honest and admit I’m not sure what I’d advocate for.

[Byblos]

As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

The Christian argument (if one could even call it that) against abortion is not a theistic argument at all but a philosophical one. The two are most often conflated (see my friend Kenny's most recent posts in the PROOF thread). I don't know to what extent you know the argument since you claim to know well the Christian argument but it starts with the theory of natural law. If you're familiar with that, you should know that it's not a religious argument at all.

Oops, I was unclear. What I meant that I know the secular arguments well not the Christian arguments. I’m not certain which argument you refer to. Please explain.
Nils

The argument against abortion based on Natural Law theory is not dissimilar to the secular argument and, to a large extent, it can be called as such (secular) if it weren't for the law's origins (the divine law). Taken on its own, natural law theory is arrived at by reason and reason alone. First I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the Natural Law Theory. Then look up arguments against abortion based on the natural law (like here and here).

[melanie]

Thanks Byblos, I appreciate the links. I am familiar with the Natural Law Theory and think it’s a sound philosophy but I’ve always been quite alarmed how people use that for their own spiritual shortcomings. In regards to suicide and the hypocrisy of capital punshiment.
People take a “theory” or philosophy and apply it as they see fit.
I’m digressing.....I don’t know how I feel about late term abortions let alone abortions in general. I personally have never and would never have an abortion. As I would never commit suicide or ever advocate for capital punishment.
I don’t need a theory to tell me life is sacred.
It is.

Where I take issue is the legislating of such issues. It’s adhering to the law without practising any empathy behind it. That does not work.
Capital punshiment does not lessen crime, every credible statistic shows that and making criminals out of women does not lessen abortion.
Some of the strictest nations regarding abortion have high instances of abortion in backyard alleys, using primitive means and endangering not only the child but the mother.

I think the way to lessen abortion is to actively educate people, teens included against unwanted pregnancy. I get angered by the fact that the best way to avoid abortion is prohibited by those that claim to be so against it.
Prevention and education is the key to stopping unwanted pregnancy.
If that fails then offering women real viable options...supported maternal care, affordable daycare, job security and a change in the stigma of young and/or single mums. Why would anyone want to have their baby if society judges them as a failure for having done so.
Don’t have an abortion but suffer the wrath of society and be marginalised if you do.

We can hypothesise all we like but in real world terms we need real world solutions to help and support mothers. Women are not the child killing, inherently wrong enemy.

[Byblos]

Thanks Byblos, I appreciate the links. I am familiar with the Natural Law Theory and think it’s a sound philosophy but I’ve always been quite alarmed how people use that for their own spiritual shortcomings. In regards to suicide and the hypocrisy of capital punshiment.
People take a “theory” or philosophy and apply it as they see fit.
I’m digressing.....I don’t know how I feel about late term abortions let alone abortions in general. I personally have never and would never have an abortion. As I would never commit suicide or ever advocate for capital punishment.
I don’t need a theory to tell me life is sacred.
It is.

Where I take issue is the legislating of such issues. It’s adhering to the law without practising any empathy behind it. That does not work.
Capital punshiment does not lessen crime, every credible statistic shows that and making criminals out of women does not lessen abortion.
Some of the strictest nations regarding abortion have high instances of abortion in backyard alleys, using primitive means and endangering not only the child but the mother.

I think the way to lessen abortion is to actively educate people, teens included against unwanted pregnancy. I get angered by the fact that the best way to avoid abortion is prohibited by those that claim to be so against it.
Prevention and education is the key to stopping unwanted pregnancy.
If that fails then offering women real viable options...supported maternal care, affordable daycare, job security and a change in the stigma of young and/or single mums. Why would anyone want to have their baby if society judges them as a failure for having done so.
Don’t have an abortion but suffer the wrath of society and be marginalised if you do.

We can hypothesise all we like but in real world terms we need real world solutions to help and support mothers. Women are not the child killing, inherently wrong enemy.

Not just marginalized but many (I would say the majority of women who do seek abortions) are afflicted with a disproportionate burden of child rearing. It is literally a decision that will affect the rest of the woman's life whereas the man in those cases simply walks away. Unless and until society finds a way to distribute the burden equally, the decision cannot be expected to be made equally either.

Our first instincts as Christians is to protect life. In a complex society such as ours, however, there are no easy answers.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks to my wife I've seen many stories where abortion is a tool that gives men and unforgiving families who wish to hide "the shame" more power over the woman. No child support, no evidence of rape, no being judged out of wedlock, no ties to the woman one is suppose to love, etc. It is why many feminists, and I not talking those who show their tits and wear pussy hats but the truer early feminists (and those like such today) saw abortion in society as a failure to women.

[RickD]

Guys,

This subject is very divisive. Feelings are strong on both sides of this issue. Maybe we shouldn't discuss this here. Someone might get offended at the mere mention of the topic.

[PaulSacramento]

Remember when it was right to PROTECT children? to PROTECT life ?
Times, they are a changing.

[Kurieuo]

Remember when it was right to PROTECT children? to PROTECT life ?
Times, they are a changing.

I don't know, I think humanity largely stays the same because humans tend to be self-seeking, selfish, and everything self. Things may have been worse morally I'd think 200 years ago, even 100 years if we consider the wars -- in so many respects. Life today has certain comforts, at least in more stable and developed societies. But, I don't necessarily agree with the view that things are much worse today. Bad is always bad and as I see exists worse in some forms and at different times than others.

[PaulSacramento]

Remember when it was right to PROTECT children? to PROTECT life ?
Times, they are a changing.

I don't know, I think humanity largely stays the same because humans tend to be self-seeking, selfish, and everything self. Things may have been worse morally I'd think 200 years ago, even 100 years if we consider the wars -- in so many respects. Life today has certain comforts, at least in more stable and developed societies. But, I don't necessarily agree with the view that things are much worse today. Bad is always bad and as I see exists worse in some forms and at different times than others.

Yes, infanticide used to be acceptable.
We have go beyond that and are now going back it seems.

[Nils]

As I described in my first post #17, I know that Christians also have other reasons but the religious arguments and I am well acquainted with those arguments but I have noticed that Christians generally are more against abortion that atheists so I think the Christian arguments are of general interest.
Nils

The Christian argument (if one could even call it that) against abortion is not a theistic argument at all but a philosophical one. The two are most often conflated (see my friend Kenny's most recent posts in the PROOF thread). I don't know to what extent you know the argument since you claim to know well the Christian argument but it starts with the theory of natural law. If you're familiar with that, you should know that it's not a religious argument at all.

Oops, I was unclear. What I meant that I know the secular arguments well not the Christian arguments. I’m not certain which argument you refer to. Please explain.
Nils

The argument against abortion based on Natural Law theory is not dissimilar to the secular argument and, to a large extent, it can be called as such (secular) if it weren't for the law's origins (the divine law). Taken on its own, natural law theory is arrived at by reason and reason alone. First I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the Natural Law Theory. Then look up arguments against abortion based on the natural law (like here and here).

The description of Natural Law Theory in your reference is a bit vague so I concentrate on your last reference. It is interesting that in the last section V Evaluation and Recommendation the author summarizes that both the pro-life and pro-choice side can refer to the Natural Law. He doesn´t accept the pro-choice argument and instead recommends a modified pro-life policy. He argues that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest and when the mothers life is in danger. About the first two cases he writes: “There is a good preserved reason allowing women in these situations to have an abortion. The author agrees with pro-choice advocates in this matter because the fundamental inclination to self-preserve the woman’s quality of life by aborting a fetus of rape or incest in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. This is exactly the same argument I use for advocating free abortion up to week 18 and in special cases week 22. The reason for this liberty is that in the long run it will benefit the common good of society. Of course this can be debated but it is not an ideological debate, it is a debate about the pros and cons of the benefits to the society.

However I don´t like the NY law. There will be many problems both practical and philosophical.
Nils