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

[Nils]

It appears that Nils suffers from a disconnect - because Nils the man is the very same human as was Nils the baby at one month in his mother's womb. If his mom had aborted him, no NILS. And speaking of an arbitrary assignment of personhood - so now Nils was only human when he began to develop consciousness.

In not certain what your point is, Philip, but if my mother had been told when I was a twelve weeks old fetus that there were a risk that I had Down syndrome and had aborted me, I would have no objections. I didn’t exist as a person that time and I would never had become one.

And when one realizes his arguments why a costly, inconvenient, unborn baby would be better aborted - really, you could (and many would) easily apply his reasoning to a elderly parent with dementia or some medical condition that has rendered them helpless. So, that same mentality logically will lead many to consider euthanasia of the very old and infirm to be equally moral and justified.

This is a slippery slope argument and it is false. In my society free abortion up to the 18th week has been a law since 1974. Despite this I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility. Unfortunately killing them even if they consent is also still forbidden, but that is another story.

By the way, Philip, I address you directly, I don’t talk about you. I think that is more polite.
Nils

[PaulSacramento]

This is a slippery slope argument and it is false. In my society free abortion up to the 18th week has been a law since 1974. Despite this I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility. Unfortunately killing them even if they consent is also still forbidden, but that is another story

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting, I hope, that because infanticide is legal or euthanisia is legal, that people would just start killing off unborn children and the helpless like it was nothing.
No, what we are stating is that you would NOT have a rational grounds NOT to do such.
If taking a life is permissible under the conditions that, that life does NOT have the quality of life as per legal definition A, subsection B, paragraph C, then ANY life that follows under that would be allowed to be terminated by another.

And WHO decides the definition ?

[Philip]

Nils: In not certain what your point is, Philip, but if my mother had been told when I was a twelve weeks old fetus that there were a risk that I had Down syndrome and had aborted me, I would have no objections. I didn’t exist as a person that time and I would never had become one.

But you DID become one because you ALREADY were one! That fetus was YOU! And there is no getting around that for anyone.

Philip wrote: And when one realizes his arguments why a costly, inconvenient, unborn baby would be better aborted - really, you could (and many would) easily apply his reasoning to a elderly parent with dementia or some medical condition that has rendered them helpless. So, that same mentality logically will lead many to consider euthanasia of the very old and infirm to be equally moral and justified.

Nils: I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility.

But that's just a matter of semantics - as the very same reasoning and difficult circumstances that people cite to support the "necessary" killing of the unborn can likewise be applied to the very old, ill or senile. Remember, their level of "consciousness" you speak of - for such old people, it is often severely impaired. My own mother suffered from Alzheimer's for well over 10 years - and that last two years, she didn't recognize me, couldn't say her own name, couldn't use the bathroom without help, and every ability she had before no longer existed. She was entirely dependent upon us and helpless, and was no longer mentally / cognitively in this world. And the time, hardships, money and so much all that required - this lasted for many years. And yet, these are exactly the kinds of reasons put forward by people insisting abortion is necessary. So what's the difference???!!! What do you think makes it wrong to kill an old person that presents such great difficulties and costs for care?

[Nils]

This is a slippery slope argument and it is false. In my society free abortion up to the 18th week has been a law since 1974. Despite this I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility. Unfortunately killing them even if they consent is also still forbidden, but that is another story

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting, I hope, that because infanticide is legal or euthanisia is legal, that people would just start killing off unborn children and the helpless like it was nothing.
No, what we are stating is that you would NOT have a rational grounds NOT to do such.
If taking a life is permissible under the conditions that, that life does NOT have the quality of life as per legal definition A, subsection B, paragraph C, then ANY life that follows under that would be allowed to be terminated by another.

And WHO decides the definition ?

This question is important. Being a theist you are used to think that rationality has to be based on rules given by God. But being an atheist I don’t have that requirement. I don’t think that there are any natural laws either (many atheists do). I rely on what I and others find is the best solution, what “in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. (see Byblos reference Altbregen in #37). So the answer to your question is that WE have do decide the definition. That what we do in a democratic society by voting on politicians that decide the laws.
Nils

[RickD]

This is a slippery slope argument and it is false. In my society free abortion up to the 18th week has been a law since 1974. Despite this I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility. Unfortunately killing them even if they consent is also still forbidden, but that is another story

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting, I hope, that because infanticide is legal or euthanisia is legal, that people would just start killing off unborn children and the helpless like it was nothing.
No, what we are stating is that you would NOT have a rational grounds NOT to do such.
If taking a life is permissible under the conditions that, that life does NOT have the quality of life as per legal definition A, subsection B, paragraph C, then ANY life that follows under that would be allowed to be terminated by another.

And WHO decides the definition ?

This question is important. Being a theist you are used to think that rationality has to be based on rules given by God. But being an atheist I don’t have that requirement. I don’t think that there are any natural laws either (many atheists do). I rely on what I and others find is the best solution, what “in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. (see Byblos reference Altbregen in #37). So the answer to your question is that WE have do decide the definition. That what we do in a democratic society by voting on politicians that decide the laws.
Nils

Nils,

If you lived in the southern US in the 1800's would you have fought for the institution of slavery for the same reason? Slavery in the south kept the economy going. Slavery was the best thing for the society at the time, in the south.

[Nils]

And WHO decides the definition ?

This question is important. Being a theist you are used to think that rationality has to be based on rules given by God. But being an atheist I don’t have that requirement. I don’t think that there are any natural laws either (many atheists do). I rely on what I and others find is the best solution, what “in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. (see Byblos reference Altbregen in #37). So the answer to your question is that WE have do decide the definition. That what we do in a democratic society by voting on politicians that decide the laws.
Nils

Nils,

If you lived in the southern US in the 1800's would you have fought for the institution of slavery for the same reason? Slavery in the south kept the economy going. Slavery was the best thing for the society at the time, in the south.

Yes, Rick, and in the north they thought that slavery wasn’t the best thing for the whole US society and the north states won. So what? No moral system is perfect and values change. As I understand it the churches in the south were not against slavery.

Nils

[RickD]

And WHO decides the definition ?

This question is important. Being a theist you are used to think that rationality has to be based on rules given by God. But being an atheist I don’t have that requirement. I don’t think that there are any natural laws either (many atheists do). I rely on what I and others find is the best solution, what “in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. (see Byblos reference Altbregen in #37). So the answer to your question is that WE have do decide the definition. That what we do in a democratic society by voting on politicians that decide the laws.
Nils

Nils,

If you lived in the southern US in the 1800's would you have fought for the institution of slavery for the same reason? Slavery in the south kept the economy going. Slavery was the best thing for the society at the time, in the south.

Yes, Rick, and in the north they thought that slavery wasn’t the best thing for the whole US society and the north states won. So what? No moral system is perfect and values change. As I understand it the churches in the south were not against slavery.

Nils

Well, then I can only hope that just as we have come to realize that chattel slavery was an incredible evil, so is the murder of the unborn. Even if some who are deluded, and live according to subjective morality, think murdering babies is what's best for society.

[PaulSacramento]

This is a slippery slope argument and it is false. In my society free abortion up to the 18th week has been a law since 1974. Despite this I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility. Unfortunately killing them even if they consent is also still forbidden, but that is another story

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting, I hope, that because infanticide is legal or euthanisia is legal, that people would just start killing off unborn children and the helpless like it was nothing.
No, what we are stating is that you would NOT have a rational grounds NOT to do such.
If taking a life is permissible under the conditions that, that life does NOT have the quality of life as per legal definition A, subsection B, paragraph C, then ANY life that follows under that would be allowed to be terminated by another.

And WHO decides the definition ?

This question is important. Being a theist you are used to think that rationality has to be based on rules given by God. But being an atheist I don’t have that requirement. I don’t think that there are any natural laws either (many atheists do). I rely on what I and others find is the best solution, what “in the long run will benefit the common good of society”. (see Byblos reference Altbregen in #37). So the answer to your question is that WE have do decide the definition. That what we do in a democratic society by voting on politicians that decide the laws.
Nils

I see a few problems with this, the first being that you think that, as a theist I think that rationality is based on rules given by God.
This is not correct.
As a Theist, I believe that the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE truth lies with God ( the ultimate expression of truth). Theists have an OBJECTIVE view of truth.
No silly "your truth" or "my truth", simply TRUTH.
And we get there by a complex understanding of objective values that are present in nature and some that, truth be told, are presupposed because we believe in God ( Sanctify of Life, Inalienable rights, etc).
To rely on OTHERS to give you an understanding of right and wrong is, well, what gets us into so much trouble, so many times.
It happens to Theists to of course, when we forget objective truth and allow others to interpret for us we get stupidity like the Inquisition for example, where as secularists get communism and reigns of terror and stupidities like "ends justify the means".

Yes, we vote on WHO governs but lets not forget how many times that makes a mess of things and let us not forget that when things DO go right, if we look with "right eyes" we see that what made those things go right we adhering to the "values" that have, consistently and constantly allowed us to "raise above the muck", eventually.

[Nils]

Nils: I have never heard anybody advocating killing elderly persons without their consent, not even mentioning the possibility.

But that's just a matter of semantics - as the very same reasoning and difficult circumstances that people cite to support the "necessary" killing of the unborn can likewise be applied to the very old, ill or senile. Remember, their level of "consciousness" you speak of - for such old people, it is often severely impaired. My own mother suffered from Alzheimer's for well over 10 years - and that last two years, she didn't recognize me, couldn't say her own name, couldn't use the bathroom without help, and every ability she had before no longer existed. She was entirely dependent upon us and helpless, and was no longer mentally / cognitively in this world. And the time, hardships, money and so much all that required - this lasted for many years. And yet, these are exactly the kinds of reasons put forward by people insisting abortion is necessary. So what's the difference???!!! What do you think makes it wrong to kill an old person that presents such great difficulties and costs for care?

The difference is that the young fetus has never been conscious, has never lived a life, has no memories of a life and has never had the possibility to worry about what will happen when he/she grows old. Besides the young fetus belongs to a group that it is easy to define so there are no border problems.
Nils

[Nils]

Yes, Rick, and in the north they thought that slavery wasn’t the best thing for the whole US society and the north states won. So what? No moral system is perfect and values change. As I understand it the churches in the south were not against slavery.

Nils

Well, then I can only hope that just as we have come to realize that chattel slavery was an incredible evil, so is the murder of the unborn. Even if some who are deluded, and live according to subjective morality, think murdering babies is what's best for society.

I note that you insist in the terminology “murder the unborn” and “murdering babies” in spite of that seems to include killing not only young fetus but living babies for instance. Also, it’s not a matter of “murdering” a young fetus if killing it is permitted, “murdering” is defined as “unlawful premeditated killing”.

If you think that I am deluded you have to explain why and how. You say that killing a young fetus is evil. I see some possibilities that I list below with my comments (C) :

1. Some persons feel uneasy hearing of abortion.
C: This is a bit circular. If abortion is approved by the society and there were no pro-life organisations few would feel uneasy. This is the case in some European countries. A version of the argument is the slippery slope argument but I have explained earlier why that isn’t valid.
2. The society needs the resource that a newborn baby is.
C: This is the motive of some governments to restrict abortion. They think that more births is a good thing.
3. The parents usually regrets the decision to abort the fetus.
C: This is probably false but I don’t know any statistics
4. The fetus suffers during the abortion
C: The young fetus hasn’t evolved the nerves that conduct pain sensation and even less the cognitive capabilities to feel pain.
5. The fetus suffers after the abortion.
C: I think this is the most common objection but I don’t understand it. After the abortion the fetus doesn’t exist mentally and it has never existed mentally, not before the conception or after it. It is sometime said that an abortion kills an innocent child that never will be loved. This is meant to indicate that the fetus suffers in some way but that assumes that the fetus has capabilities to feel and remember but a young fetus don’t have that.
6. There are religious feelings that do not rely on any of the reasons above.
C: As I understand it there are no clear writings in the Bible that states that abortion is evil, but I asked about that earlier in this thread but got little response.

I don’t find any of these arguments convincing. The question is still valid: Why is it “insane” to believe that the world is a better place when abortion is permitted?

Finally, ****, I would appreciate an answer to my question to you in my last post to you. What would you say to the woman I wrote about.

Nils

[abelcainsbrother]

I remember years ago debating abortion and Christians were pointing out that abortion leads to justification for murder and yet people who are for abortion would claim we were crazy asnd that this is not true,this is just about a woman's right to choose.However fast forward and here is Nils justifying the murder of babies as life has been demeaned by propaganda in our society and Nils and people like him are products of the state,even when it comes to atheism.Propaganda is real and those who have been propagandized don't even realize it.Bottom line Christians have been proven correct.Next Nils will be trying to justify how there is nothing wrong with marrying animals because of gay marriage. There is no slippery slope for people who have no conscience and reject God's ways of thinking.

[abelcainsbrother]

Bad Things For A Good Time
https://youtu.be/NXzaN7d5YV8

[Philip]

Clearly, "if" God exists, then abortion is murder!

Nils: 4. The fetus suffers during the abortion
C: The young fetus hasn’t evolved the nerves that conduct pain sensation and even less the cognitive capabilities to feel pain.

False: https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet- ... etal-pain/

Outtakes:

The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks .[1] The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks .[2] Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks .[3] Sensory receptors for pain (nociception) develop first around the mouth at 7 weeks , and are present throughout the skin and mucosal surfaces by 20 weeks .

Fetal reactions provide evidence of pain response. The unborn baby reacts to noxious stimuli with avoidance reactions and stress responses. As early as 8 weeks the baby exhibits reflex movement during invasive procedures.

The leading textbook on clinical anesthesia says: “It is clear that the fetus is capable of mounting a physiochemical stress response to noxious stimuli as early as 18 weeks.”

Nils: C: As I understand it there are no clear writings in the Bible that states that abortion is evil, but I asked about that earlier in this thread but got little response.

Here you go: https://carm.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion and: https://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/ ... t-abortion

[Nils]

Clearly, "if" God exists, then abortion is murder!

If it is clear, why not explain why. “Murder” is defined as unlawful killing. If abortion is murder only if God exists there has to be a godly law saying that it is prohibited. As I am not talking about young fetuses, less than about 20 weeks, there has to be a law saying that it is unlawful to kill fetuses younger than 20 weeks. Please, describe that law.
Also, if there only is a godly law, how can pro-lifers claim that there should be a secular law prohibiting atheists to abort?

Nils: 4. The fetus suffers during the abortion
C: The young fetus hasn’t evolved the nerves that conduct pain sensation and even less the cognitive capabilities to feel pain.

False: https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet- ... etal-pain/

Outtakes:

The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks .[1] The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks .[2] Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks .[3] Sensory receptors for pain (nociception) develop first around the mouth at 7 weeks , and are present throughout the skin and mucosal surfaces by 20 weeks .

Fetal reactions provide evidence of pain response. The unborn baby reacts to noxious stimuli with avoidance reactions and stress responses. As early as 8 weeks the baby exhibits reflex movement during invasive procedures.

The leading textbook on clinical anesthesia says: “It is clear that the fetus is capable of mounting a physiochemical stress response to noxious stimuli as early as 18 weeks.”

The reference also says “Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus (which functions in pain perception in fetuses as well as in adults[5]) are relatively complete by 20 weeks“. That what’s important.

Nils: C: As I understand it there are no clear writings in the Bible that states that abortion is evil, but I asked about that earlier in this thread but got little response.

Here you go: https://carm.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion and: https://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/ ... t-abortion

Most of the references is about fetuses generally, not about young fetus. For instance Luke 1:41 is about a leap in the womb by a six month old fetus. Only one argument is about a young fetus:
“Jesus: A Baby at Conception
Third, regarding the conception of Jesus, Matthew 1:20 says, “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’”  The fact that the angel tells Joseph that “the Child who has been conceived” is “of the Holy Spirit” indicates that Jesus certainly was a person at the moment of conception.”
Certainly Jesus was valuable to God from the day of conception but there is no reason to call him a “person” from the conception and still less reason to call other embryos and small fetuses persons.
I find no indication of a godly law about young fetuses.
Nils

[Nils]

Clearly, "if" God exists, then abortion is murder!

If it is clear, why not explain why. “Murder” is defined as unlawful killing. If abortion is murder only if God exists there has to be a godly law saying that it is prohibited. As I am talking about young fetuses, less than about 20 weeks, there has to be a law saying that it is unlawful to kill fetuses younger than 20 weeks. Please, describe that law.
Also, if there only is a godly law, how can pro-lifers claim that there should be a secular law prohibiting atheists to abort?

Nils: 4. The fetus suffers during the abortion
C: The young fetus hasn’t evolved the nerves that conduct pain sensation and even less the cognitive capabilities to feel pain.

False: https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet- ... etal-pain/

Outtakes:

The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks .[1] The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks .[2] Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks .[3] Sensory receptors for pain (nociception) develop first around the mouth at 7 weeks , and are present throughout the skin and mucosal surfaces by 20 weeks .

Fetal reactions provide evidence of pain response. The unborn baby reacts to noxious stimuli with avoidance reactions and stress responses. As early as 8 weeks the baby exhibits reflex movement during invasive procedures.

The leading textbook on clinical anesthesia says: “It is clear that the fetus is capable of mounting a physiochemical stress response to noxious stimuli as early as 18 weeks.”

The reference also says “Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus (which functions in pain perception in fetuses as well as in adults[5]) are relatively complete by 20 weeks“. ... but apparently not at younger age. That what’s important.

Nils: C: As I understand it there are no clear writings in the Bible that states that abortion is evil, but I asked about that earlier in this thread but got little response.

Here you go: https://carm.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion and: https://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/ ... t-abortion

Most of the references is about fetuses generally, not about young fetus. For instance Luke 1:41 is about a leap in the womb by a six month old fetus. Only one argument is about a young fetus specifically:
“Jesus: A Baby at Conception
Third, regarding the conception of Jesus, Matthew 1:20 says, “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’”  The fact that the angel tells Joseph that “the Child who has been conceived” is “of the Holy Spirit” indicates that Jesus certainly was a person at the moment of conception.”
Certainly Jesus was valuable to God from the day of conception but there is no reason to call him a “person” from the conception and still less reason to call other embryos and young fetuses persons.

I find no indication of a godly law about young fetuses.
Nils