Indiana Becomes Second State to Protect Down Syndrome Babies From Abortion

[Dingbat]

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states. Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

[LL]

On Mar 28, 2016, at 4:25 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states.

No they are not. Many Down's syndrome fetuses are aborted every year in nearly all states. 

There is no baby involved in an abortion. 

Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

Please explain how an adult can be aborted? Why would an adult--or even a baby that's been born, need protection from abortion? 

Do you know what abortion is? 

That there are people willing to adopt children with Down's syndrome shoukd have no effect on abortion laws. Abortion is a decision to be made by the woman carrying the fetus, sometimes with input from her family or the father, though the final decision should be hers alone. Whether there are outsiders willing to adopt is not a factor. Women are wellaware that there may be people willing to adopt, but it may have no bearing on her decision. If she doesn't want to continue a pregnancy she should not be forced to do so. The chance of adoption has no vald bearing on the case. 

LL

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dingbat]

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 8:59:40 PM UTC+5:30, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 4:25 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states.

No they are not. Many Down's syndrome fetuses are aborted every year in nearly all states. 

There is no baby involved in an abortion. 

Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

Please explain how an adult can be aborted?

A sarcastic response. Babies and adults are protected from abortion because they can't be aborted.

 

Why would an adult--or even a baby that's been born, need protection from abortion? 

Do you know what abortion is? 

That there are people willing to adopt children with Down's syndrome should have no effect on abortion laws. Abortion is a decision to be made by the woman carrying the fetus, sometimes with input from her family or the father, though the final decision should be hers alone. Whether there are outsiders willing to adopt is not a factor. Women are wellaware that there may be people willing to adopt, but it may have no bearing on her decision. If she doesn't want to continue a pregnancy she should not be forced to do so. The chance of adoption has no vald bearing on the case. 

[GT]

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from the wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

[GT]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:29:40 AM UTC+11, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 4:25 AM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states.

No they are not. Many Down's syndrome fetuses are aborted every year in nearly all states. 

There is no baby involved in an abortion. 

Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

Please explain how an adult can be aborted? Why would an adult--or even a baby that's been born, need protection from abortion? 

Do you know what abortion is? 

That there are people willing to adopt children with Down's syndrome shoukd have no effect on abortion laws. Abortion is a decision to be made by the woman carrying the fetus, sometimes with input from her family or the father, though the final decision should be hers alone. Whether there are outsiders willing to adopt is not a factor. Women are wellaware that there may be people willing to adopt, but it may have no bearing on her decision. If she doesn't want to continue a pregnancy she should not be forced to do so. The chance of adoption has no vald bearing on the case. 

LL

A woman's right will, in the next few decades, become a mother's right. But don't panic, I'm figuring the oldest aged child aloud to be signed into a termination clinic will be around four years.
 

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dingbat]

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

Consider this scenario involving what would become a healthy baby. A housewife gets dumped while 7 months pregnant. She no longer particularly wants a child by "that man". OTOH, it's already in the oven. Suppose these are her thought processes:

Abort it? A disagreeable prospect; at 7 months, it's almost like a baby. 

Keep it? She no longer can afford to raise a child in the style she thinks it ought to be raised.

Give it away? Too likely that it would get parents who wouldn't raise it the way she wants it raised. 

She hasn't yet made a decision. Now, where's the wrath?

[LL]

Wherever it is she wouldn't be able to find a legitimate doctor to do it. At that stage it would not be an abortion, per se, but an induced labor, and the baby would be likely to survive. She also wouldn't be able to get a legitimate doctor to induce labor at that stage, so it would never happen. The scenario is  completely invalid and so is the idea behind it. Only a mentally deficient woman would even suggest such a thing. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 5:08:20 AM UTC+5:30, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 3:06 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:15:34 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:25:43 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states. Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

Consider this scenario involving what would become a healthy baby. A housewife gets dumped while 7 months pregnant. She no longer particularly wants a child by "that man". OTOH, it's already in the oven. Suppose these are her thought processes:

Abort it? A disagreeable prospect; at 7 months, it's almost like a baby. 

Keep it? She no longer can afford to raise a child in the style she thinks it ought to be raised.

Give it away? Too likely that it would get parents who wouldn't raise it the way she wants it raised. 

She hasn't yet made a decision. Now, where's the wrath?

Wherever it is she wouldn't be able to find a legitimate doctor to do it.

There must be doctors who'll do it, since politicians seek to keep (or make) the grisly procedure called partial birth abortion legal. And if it is (or becomes) legal, then a doctor who does it is (or will be), by legal definition, a legitimate doctor.

Hillary Clinton Defends Partial-Birth Abortions

Loretta Lynch Defended Partial-Birth Abortions

Motivation for Partial Birth Abortion: Money

Partial Birth Abortion Spin Still Going Strong

 

At that stage it would not be an abortion, per se, but an induced labor, and the baby would be likely to survive. She also wouldn't be able to get a legitimate doctor to induce labor at that stage, so it would never happen. The scenario is  completely invalid and so is the idea behind it. Only a mentally deficient woman would even suggest such a thing. 

So, should late term abortion be illegal, to keep mentally deficient women from having such procedures performed? 

[LL]

--

[LL]

On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:14 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 5:08:20 AM UTC+5:30, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 3:06 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:15:34 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:25:43 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states. Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

Consider this scenario involving what would become a healthy baby. A housewife gets dumped while 7 months pregnant. She no longer particularly wants a child by "that man". OTOH, it's already in the oven. Suppose these are her thought processes:

Abort it? A disagreeable prospect; at 7 months, it's almost like a baby. 

Keep it? She no longer can afford to raise a child in the style she thinks it ought to be raised.

Give it away? Too likely that it would get parents who wouldn't raise it the way she wants it raised. 

She hasn't yet made a decision. Now, where's the wrath?

Wherever it is she wouldn't be able to find a legitimate doctor to do it.

There must be doctors who'll do it, since politicians seek to keep (or make) the grisly procedure called partial birth abortion legal. And if it is (or becomes) legal, then a doctor who does it is (or will be), by legal definition, a legitimate doctor.

No, you don't know what late term abortion is. It is done on a emergency basis. No doctor worth his or her salt or who cares about losing his or her license would do one in a healthy pregnancy. It is also often a great  risk to the pregnant woman.  Do some research, and maybe you'll even learn the correct medical terminology if you try really hard. 

LL

Hillary Clinton Defends Partial-Birth Abortions

Loretta Lynch Defended Partial-Birth Abortions

Motivation for Partial Birth Abortion: Money

Partial Birth Abortion Spin Still Going Strong

 

At that stage it would not be an abortion, per se, but an induced labor, and the baby would be likely to survive. She also wouldn't be able to get a legitimate doctor to induce labor at that stage, so it would never happen. The scenario is  completely invalid and so is the idea behind it. Only a mentally deficient woman would even suggest such a thing. 

So, should late term abortion be illegal, to keep mentally deficient women from having such procedures performed? 

--

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 6:53:52 AM UTC+5:30, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:14 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There must be doctors who'll do it, since politicians seek to keep (or make) the grisly procedure called partial birth abortion legal. And if it is (or becomes) legal, then a doctor who does it is (or will be), by legal definition, a legitimate doctor.

No, you don't know what late term abortion is. It is done on a emergency basis. No doctor worth his or her salt or who cares about losing his or her license would do one in a healthy pregnancy. It is also often a great  risk to the pregnant woman.  Do some research, and maybe you'll even learn the correct medical terminology if you try really hard. 

I haven't seen any proof that late term abortions are not being performed in non-emergencies or that anyone is prosecuted for its being performed in non-emergencies. Read the articles I gave links to; one says partial birth abortions are overwhelmingly elective procedures, not emergency procedures. 

[LL]

If they call it a "partial birth abortion" it comes from a religious crap website, makes up its "facts" and I know it's not worth reading.

 I don't waste my time reading garbage. If you want to read a legitimate article on late term abortion, with an interview with one of only FOUR doctors that do the procedure in the whole United States, read the following. "There are only four American doctors left who openly include third-trimester abortion in their practice. They’re profiled in the new documentary After Tiller, which opens in New York tonight. All four of these doctors were close friends and colleagues of Dr. George Tiller, who was assassinated in Kansas in May 2009, and they take on significant personal risks in their fight to keep late abortion available; they believe in their work deeply, while understanding that many people view it as murder. Fewer than 1% of abortions in this country are performed in the third trimester."

http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson/

[GT]

The "woman's right" claim is one made by feminists not by women themselves as individuals. And the fact that you appear to accept there is an option that allows the aborting of a 7 month old healthy fetus, still would not allow for the exercising of any wrath, but instead show the limits of respect for human life that someone from your culture has. You would see nothing wrong with this, nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example. Children would be chattel there to be sold or put down if not sold, from your arrogant self indulgent perspective. Sorry Ranjit, but you are dealing with a clash of cultures here, the Christian concern for human life and your cultures concern for making money.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:52:52 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:06:34 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:15:34 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:25:43 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states. Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

Consider this scenario involving what would become a healthy baby. A housewife gets dumped while 7 months pregnant. She no longer particularly wants a child by "that man". OTOH, it's already in the oven. Suppose these are her thought processes:

Abort it? A disagreeable prospect; at 7 months, it's almost like a baby. 

Keep it? She no longer can afford to raise a child in the style she thinks it ought to be raised.

Give it away? Too likely that it would get parents who wouldn't raise it the way she wants it raised. 

She hasn't yet made a decision. Now, where's the wrath?

The "woman's right" claim is one made by feminists not by women themselves as individuals.

Oh, so you agree that it's not the product of the would-be mother's wrath? The following reference says that women who decide to abort because of an abnormality are just as distraught as women who have a miscarriage:

"Women who terminate a pregnancy because of abnormalities discovered through fetal screenings have a similar risk of negative mental health outcomes as women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or experience a still-birth or the death of a newborn."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

Being distraught is not consistent with being wrathful. Can you blame a decision to abort on the wrath of feminists if the decision to abort was entirely the would-be mother's? The woman's right is exercised by her, not by feminists.

 

And the fact that you appear to accept there is an option that allows the aborting of a 7 month old healthy fetus, still would not allow for the exercising of any wrath, but instead show the limits of respect for human life that someone from your culture has.

What are the limits of respect of someone from my culture? Abortions after 20 weeks of gestation are not allowed under India''s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Now, what are the limits of respect for a would be mother's life that someone from your culture has? For instance, must she decrease the probability of her own survival from 90% to 60% in order to increase the probability of her fetus' survival from 60% to 90%, if the choices available are such?

 

You would see nothing wrong with this,

Where did I say I see nothing wrong with late term abortion for convenience as opposed to health reasons?

Consider a circumstance where a fetus is viable outside the womb. Suppose it is a health threat to the mother inside the womb. Who should pay for getting it outside the womb and providing neonatal services to keep it alive (in its premature condition)? If the mother can't pay for it and if no one else will provide the infrastructure or pay for it, do you expect her to not abort and put her life at risk? And if she does abort to save her life, why do you expect anyone to believe you when you claim it's the consequence of someone's wrath?

nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example.

The circumstance of children is a red herring and moreover a digression (outside the scope of this discussion). In the circumstance of a late term abortion, there are two lives at stake, a woman and a fetus. In the case of a child, there is only one life at stake.

[GT]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:14:31 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:52:52 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:06:34 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:15:34 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:25:43 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

There is a waiting list of parents hoping to adopt children with Down syndrome. 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-second-state-protect-down-syndrome-babies-from-abortion-160100/

Actually, all babies, including Down's syndrome babies, are protected from abortion in all states. Down's syndrome adults too, like everyone outside a womb, are protected from abortion.

When is a Down's Syndrome fetus aborted?

Screening can take place between 10 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, where possible, it is usually completed by 14 weeks and 2 days of pregnancy. This is so that you can have the combined test which is the recommended screening strategy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

http://patient.info/health/prenatal-screening-and-diagnosis-of-downs-syndrome

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

Consider this scenario involving what would become a healthy baby. A housewife gets dumped while 7 months pregnant. She no longer particularly wants a child by "that man". OTOH, it's already in the oven. Suppose these are her thought processes:

Abort it? A disagreeable prospect; at 7 months, it's almost like a baby. 

Keep it? She no longer can afford to raise a child in the style she thinks it ought to be raised.

Give it away? Too likely that it would get parents who wouldn't raise it the way she wants it raised. 

She hasn't yet made a decision. Now, where's the wrath?

The "woman's right" claim is one made by feminists not by women themselves as individuals.

Oh, so you agree that it's not the product of the would-be mother's wrath? The following reference says that women who decide to abort because of an abnormality are just as distraught as women who have a miscarriage:

Of course they are distraught. They have made a decision at odds with what would be their actual right as women. Which of course would be to be able to have a baby.
 

"Women who terminate a pregnancy because of abnormalities discovered through fetal screenings have a similar risk of negative mental health outcomes as women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or experience a still-birth or the death of a newborn."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

Being distraught is not consistent with being wrathful. Can you blame a decision to abort on the wrath of feminists if the decision to abort was entirely the would-be mother's? The woman's right is exercised by her, not by feminists.

Not when she is being told it is her right, consequently the right thing to do if she so desires.

 

 

And the fact that you appear to accept there is an option that allows the aborting of a 7 month old healthy fetus, still would not allow for the exercising of any wrath, but instead show the limits of respect for human life that someone from your culture has.

What are the limits of respect of someone from my culture? Abortions after 20 weeks of gestation are not allowed under India''s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Now, what are the limits of respect for a would be mother's life that someone from your culture has? For instance, must she decrease the probability of her own survival from 90% to 60% in order to increase the probability of her fetus' survival from 60% to 90%, if the choices available are such?

We are not talking about the mother's life being at risk. This was not mentioned in the conditions used in your example scenario.
 

 

You would see nothing wrong with this,

Where did I say I see nothing wrong with late term abortion for convenience as opposed to health reasons?

You hadn't brought health into it, but had raised financial stress as a factor.
 

Consider a circumstance where a fetus is viable outside the womb. Suppose it is a health threat to the mother inside the womb. Who should pay for getting it outside the womb and providing neonatal services to keep it alive (in its premature condition)? If the mother can't pay for it and if no one else will provide the infrastructure or pay for it, do you expect her to not abort and put her life at risk? And if she does abort to save her life, why do you expect anyone to believe you when you claim it's the consequence of someone's wrath?

The health of the mother and her financial situation are now dominating your argument. When It's abortion on demand that is the issue, not instead abortion under particular circumstances.


 

nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example.

The circumstance of children is a red herring and moreover a digression (outside the scope of this discussion). In the circumstance of a late term abortion, there are two lives at stake, a woman and a fetus. In the case of a child, there is only one life at stake.

I'd used 'fetus', as a seven month old child would have not accurately describe the age. And you are not suggesting that the life of a 'child' hinges upon some technicality? It's alright to terminate fetuses at seven months? But would not be okay if it were described as a -2 month old baby. 
 

[Dingbat]

That was a different scenario, of a financial dilemma.

This scenario is an example of a late term abortion justified on health grounds. I've kept probabilities above 50% to make it an ethical dilemma. If odds of survival are better than even to start with and abortion increases the probability of remaining alive but not to 100%, should abortion be justifiable in that circumstance? What if the probabilities are intelligent guesswork or the intuition of an experienced physician and not objectively verifiable? Should the physician abort or should he/she have to justify his/her guesswork to a panel of bureaucrats possibly letting his patient die while waiting for their decision. 

In every scenario, there is some ratiocination leading to justification. Except when abortion is used as an alternative to (or as a method of) birth control. But you haven't limited your criticism of abortion to its use as birth control. Perhaps it would be helpful if you would say in what circumstances abortion ought to be allowed.

 

You would see nothing wrong with this,

Where did I say I see nothing wrong with late term abortion for convenience as opposed to health reasons?

You hadn't brought health into it, but had raised financial stress as a factor.
 

The issue here was that financial support that was present has been withdrawn. She wants to keep the fetus and raise the baby in the future. There are people insisting on her keeping her fetus in the present but they are not also insisting that the public give her financial support to raise the baby in the future. This is what puts her on the horns of a dilemma.

Consider a circumstance where a fetus is viable outside the womb. Suppose it is a health threat to the mother inside the womb. Who should pay for getting it outside the womb and providing neonatal services to keep it alive (in its premature condition)? If the mother can't pay for it and if no one else will provide the infrastructure or pay for it, do you expect her to not abort and put her life at risk? And if she does abort to save her life, why do you expect anyone to believe you when you claim it's the consequence of someone's wrath?

The health of the mother and her financial situation are now dominating your argument. When It's abortion on demand that is the issue, not instead abortion under particular circumstances.


 

nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example.

The circumstance of children is a red herring and moreover a digression (outside the scope of this discussion). In the circumstance of a late term abortion, there are two lives at stake, a woman and a fetus. In the case of a child, there is only one life at stake.

I'd used 'fetus',

Sorry; I missed that.

 

as a seven month old child would have not accurately describe the age. And you are not suggesting that the life of a 'child' hinges upon some technicality? It's alright to terminate fetuses at seven months? But would not be okay if it were described as a -2 month old baby. 

Your question is like asking why removing a healthy lung should not be okay if removing a cancerous lung is okay. No case can be made that a 2 month old baby threatens its mother's health and life whereas in the case of a fetus, it can possibly affect her in such ways. 

[Dingbat]

I addressed the health circumstance in the last response. In a financial circumstance, in the viewpoint of a woman who views her late term fetus as a baby, there is no difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby. She views advice to abort as "Kill it before it becomes illegal to kill it." OTOH, she views advice to remain pregnant as "When you can't raise your baby, it will be all ours." What if she wants to neither abort it nor give it away but given only these two choices, prefers to avoid the latter in case an adoptive family or orphanage turns out badly for the child. Do counselors for "life" ever offer an alternative to adoption? How should they respond if she says, "If I can't have it, nobody can have it"?

[GT]

Even hardline feminists would not want actual babies being aborted. But count on you Ranjit to consider financial circumstances enough reason to take a life. That's keeping mind we are not talking someone contemplating not having another child due to their financial situation.
 

This scenario is an example of a late term abortion justified on health grounds. I've kept probabilities above 50% to make it an ethical dilemma. If odds of survival are better than even to start with and abortion increases the probability of remaining alive but not to 100%, should abortion be justifiable in that circumstance? What if the probabilities are intelligent guesswork or the intuition of an experienced physician and not objectively verifiable? Should the physician abort or should he/she have to justify his/her guesswork to a panel of bureaucrats possibly letting his patient die while waiting for their decision. 

I'd imagine a Cesarian would be less risk than an abortion in this situation. But this has nothing to do with anything. You want me to state my position when in some particular as to a particular situation where abortion would appear unavoidable. I don't do this because my personal position does not matter. So, sure in the case of rape victims or those where contraception has failed to keep their planned family on course, it should be allowed.  But still provided those circumstances leading to the pregnancy are not accepted by society as being normal

 

In every scenario, there is some ratiocination leading to justification. Except when abortion is used as an alternative to (or as a method of) birth control. But you haven't limited your criticism of abortion to its use as birth control. Perhaps it would be helpful if you would say in what circumstances abortion ought to be allowed.

If someone has been raped, but then provided the pregnancy is not allowed to proceed to the point it is an actual baby being killed, then it should be allowed. But I'm not going to be drawn into discussing what it is you really want to talk about here with this Ranjit. Okay. 


 

 

You would see nothing wrong with this,

Where did I say I see nothing wrong with late term abortion for convenience as opposed to health reasons?

You hadn't brought health into it, but had raised financial stress as a factor.
 

The issue here was that financial support that was present has been withdrawn. She wants to keep the fetus and raise the baby in the future. There are people insisting on her keeping her fetus in the present but they are not also insisting that the public give her financial support to raise the baby in the future. This is what puts her on the horns of a dilemma.

Needing to support herself financially would not be reason to terminate, as it was her choice to engage in the irresponsible activity that got her pregnant in the first place. And any talk of a pregnancy itself adding to the fincial burden would be silly. A baby does not weigh that much that it's pre-birth existence adds that much to expenses. It's the money of raring a child that brings the burden. But that's not what we are talking about.



 

Consider a circumstance where a fetus is viable outside the womb. Suppose it is a health threat to the mother inside the womb. Who should pay for getting it outside the womb and providing neonatal services to keep it alive (in its premature condition)? If the mother can't pay for it and if no one else will provide the infrastructure or pay for it, do you expect her to not abort and put her life at risk? And if she does abort to save her life, why do you expect anyone to believe you when you claim it's the consequence of someone's wrath?

The health of the mother and her financial situation are now dominating your argument. When It's abortion on demand that is the issue, not instead abortion under particular circumstances.


 

nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example.

The circumstance of children is a red herring and moreover a digression (outside the scope of this discussion). In the circumstance of a late term abortion, there are two lives at stake, a woman and a fetus. In the case of a child, there is only one life at stake.

I'd used 'fetus',

Sorry; I missed that.

Seven month old baby would not have been accurate, was the point.

 

 

as a seven month old child would have not accurately describe the age. And you are not suggesting that the life of a 'child' hinges upon some technicality? It's alright to terminate fetuses at seven months? But would not be okay if it were described as a -2 month old baby. 

Your question is like asking why removing a healthy lung should not be okay if removing a cancerous lung is okay. No case can be made that a 2 month old baby threatens its mother's health and life whereas in the case of a fetus, it can possibly affect her in such ways. 

Doesn't apply to a seven month pregnancy.
 

[GT]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:28:57 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:32:55 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:14:31 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example.

The circumstance of children is a red herring and moreover a digression (outside the scope of this discussion). In the circumstance of a late term abortion, there are two lives at stake, a woman and a fetus. In the case of a child, there is only one life at stake.

I'd used 'fetus', as a seven month old child would have not accurately describe the age. And you are not suggesting that the life of a 'child' hinges upon some technicality? It's alright to terminate fetuses at seven months? But would not be okay if it were described as a -2 month old baby. 
 

I addressed the health circumstance in the last response. In a financial circumstance, in the viewpoint of a woman who views her late term fetus as a baby, there is no difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby. She views advice to abort as "Kill it before it becomes illegal to kill it." OTOH, she views advice to remain pregnant as "When you can't raise your baby, it will be all ours." What if she wants to neither abort it nor give it away but given only these two choices, prefers to avoid the latter in case an adoptive family or orphanage turns out badly for the child. Do counselors for "life" ever offer an alternative to adoption? How should they respond if she says, "If I can't have it, nobody can have it"?

I's used '-2 month old baby'. That is seven months minus the two extra months a pregnancy normally lasts. So, I was not talking about a baby already born.

 

[Timbo]

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:49:44 PM UTC-4, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:51 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 6:53:52 AM UTC+5:30, LL wrote:

On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:14 PM, "'Dingbat' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There must be doctors who'll do it, since politicians seek to keep (or make) the grisly procedure called partial birth abortion legal. And if it is (or becomes) legal, then a doctor who does it is (or will be), by legal definition, a legitimate doctor.

No, you don't know what late term abortion is. It is done on a emergency basis. No doctor worth his or her salt or who cares about losing his or her license would do one in a healthy pregnancy. It is also often a great  risk to the pregnant woman.  Do some research, and maybe you'll even learn the correct medical terminology if you try really hard. 

I haven't seen any proof that late term abortions are not being performed in non-emergencies or that anyone is prosecuted for its being performed in non-emergencies. Read the articles I gave links to; one says partial birth abortions are overwhelmingly elective procedures, not emergency procedures. 

If they call it a "partial birth abortion" it comes from a religious crap website, makes up its "facts" and I know it's not worth reading.

 I don't waste my time reading garbage. If you want to read a legitimate article on late term abortion, with an interview with one of only FOUR doctors that do the procedure in the whole United States, read the following. "There are only four American doctors left who openly include third-trimester abortion in their practice. They’re profiled in the new documentary After Tiller, which opens in New York tonight. All four of these doctors were close friends and colleagues of Dr. George Tiller, who was assassinated in Kansas in May 2009, and they take on significant personal risks in their fight to keep late abortion available; they believe in their work deeply, while understanding that many people view it as murder. Fewer than 1% of abortions in this country are performed in the third trimester."

http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson/

What the sane women of Indiana are doing about the Pence attack on women's rights: 

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/periods-for-pence-page-asks-women-to-tell-the-governor-about-their-periods 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 12:38:19 PM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:28:57 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:32:55 AM UTC+5:30, GT wrote:

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:14:31 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

nothing wrong with the sale of children too for example.

The circumstance of children is a red herring and moreover a digression (outside the scope of this discussion). In the circumstance of a late term abortion, there are two lives at stake, a woman and a fetus. In the case of a child, there is only one life at stake.

I'd used 'fetus', as a seven month old child would have not accurately describe the age. And you are not suggesting that the life of a 'child' hinges upon some technicality? It's alright to terminate fetuses at seven months? But would not be okay if it were described as a -2 month old baby. 
 

I addressed the health circumstance in the last response. In a financial circumstance, in the viewpoint of a woman who views her late term fetus as a baby, there is no difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby. She views advice to abort as "Kill it before it becomes illegal to kill it." OTOH, she views advice to remain pregnant as "When you can't raise your baby, it will be all ours." What if she wants to neither abort it nor give it away but given only these two choices, prefers to avoid the latter in case an adoptive family or orphanage turns out badly for the child. Do counselors for "life" ever offer an alternative to adoption? How should they respond if she says, "If I can't have it, nobody can have it"?

I's used '-2 month old baby'. That is seven months minus the two extra months a pregnancy normally lasts. So, I was not talking about a baby already born.

-2 months is "like a baby" under India's law, where it is illegal to terminate pregnancy after 20 weeks LMP. In most US jurisdictions, it is legal to abort at that time. Now, consider this question. Why not change India's law to make abortion legal till the end of gestation? No problem, indicates LL; ethical physicians would abort only to save a mother's life.

My questions:

1) Whose ethics? If it's the physician's ethics, only some physicians would have the ethics that LL claims all physicians should have.

2) If an abortion would save the mother not from death but from some other disagreeable fate, some otherwise ethical physicians might "take pity" (on the mother, not the fetus) and abort.

3) What penalty for not meeting LL's ethical standards? If late abortion is legal, there would normally be no penalty for performing it.

4) Would it be possible for abortionists to keep aborting without legal penalty while not meeting those standards? Sure, consider George Tiller.

[Lois Lyons]

Yet they can't protect what would have become regular healthy babies from wrath of 'a woman's right'. 

Women's rights really get under your skin, don't they? The nerve of women wanting rights to their own bodies and what they are used for! Wasn't the world a much better place when men ruled women's bodies and lives and women had no say whatsoever? 

Have you ever considered the wrath of 'a man's right'? 

The earth already has more "regular healthy babies" than it can support. Hundreds of thousands of them starve to death every year and many are stunted because of lifelong poor nutrition and unsanitary, dangerous conditions and disease. 

Women should have complete control over how many children they give birth to. If women were in charge there would never be an excess of babies. That only happens when men are in charge of women's bodies and allow babies to die. 

LL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.