(July 3, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Not about me

Then mind your  own fucking business.  Nothing worse than a jesus-freak busy body.

How does it relate to anyone else and not me. You can hate what you want , but I will speak my mind. If you don't fucking like it then don't read my fucking post you whiny ass bitch. Fuck. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. It doesn't make a shit of difference if you like it or not because it's a fucking opinion. Why so mad anyway. Did someone shit in your cornflakes? Was it me?

Hey, asswipe.  If it isn't your dick knocking her up where the fuck do you get off telling other people how to live their lives?  Fuck you, you miserable busy body.  I repeat, what the fuck does it matter to you?

If you have no answer better than "jesus" then go fuck him too.

@Minimalist. Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument (like snake oil) is don't do it because it's expensive? That does not seem like a moral arguement. It maybe a practical one, but I aske about the morality. There is currently a new treatment for small cell lung cancer (nasty disease) that improves survival dynamically. It costs >$1 million dollars a year. I highly doubt an uninsured patient is getting it outside of a research trial. Is that moral too? I may be real life but does that make it moral ?

@pops. Please stop engaging in this thread. I am specifically staying out of the overall abortion debate and wanted to raise a single moral question to get people thinking. Your preaching is off point and would best be served in its own thread. Thanks

(July 3, 2015 at 10:40 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: @Cato. Thanks at least for seeming to try to clarify. I am intentionally "shrinking my arguement" to this one point. Im not nor have i I tried to on this thread argue either way about the broad term of abortion. I have not addressed anything about a fetus that is completely not viable outside the womb. I have chosen to only ask this one specific question. I have my views and am always interested in getting other people's feedback to either refine, change, or confirm my views. Unfortunately this discussion devolves into a general abortion arguement that i have repeatedly stated I am not making.  
It is sad to see a bunch on atheists react to an arguement because they don't like the conclusions rahter then addressing the points. It's not unlike a hard theist who resorts to name calling when they can't defend their religion any better.
Anyway if you have anything on point I'm interested to listen. Else this is all unfortunately just noise.

I think the problem is how you "shrink the argument". What you've communicated is a desire to take a very complex issue and create a litmus test based on gestation length which in turn hinges on what is medically possible given a few instances and not what is probable or to be expected. The bothersome part, for me, about this is the fact that you don't even consider the 'why'.

Less than 2% of all abortions happen after 21 weeks (if memory serves I think the actual figure is 1.4%). I don't have the definitive statistics to prove this, but such a low percentage suggests to me that these abortions aren't done for the sake of birth control or some other flippant irresponsible reason. We're talking about women that have carried a child for five months and are in most cases looking forward to being a mother. At 2% I envision mothers making an agonizing decision because of what is learned about the health of their baby or sadly a risk to their own health.

That said, let the mothers choose. After five months of pregnancy, there are very few that terminate 'just because'.

(July 3, 2015 at 11:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It's a very biblical outlook, Rex.  Whenever the king fucked up his 'god' always killed a lot of innocent people to punish him.  I bet pops thinks that's a great idea.

Woe man , please do not assume what my beliefs are.
Everyone is responsible for their actions. No bias, no empathy, no favoritism. A king is a man, but with power over others. If they fuck up they should be punished one way or another, the same if not worse than others

(July 3, 2015 at 10:49 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: Perhaps the best way of restating the same question I have been asking is if abortion is moral due to the mothers bodily autonomy and there is a way to terminate the pregnancy to allow the fetus a chance to remain viable ex utero then why is killing the fetus (removing life from a living thing) moral instead of a preterm delivery to attempt to salvage the fetus?

We got it the first time. You just didn't like the answers.

So, here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say you manage to save the "gob of goo" as Min so eloquently put it, what happens now? Is mom suddenly back on the hook for legal and financial responsibility until Goo Jr. is 18? You? The Hospital? A church or a charitable organization? Well? This is where the ethics get sticky because technically you just violated your patient's rights. She came in for an abortion and didn't get one.

@Cato I understand your point, but philosophically what difference does the incidence make? I'm guessing <1% of murders are committed by blowtorch but does that change the morality. I understand that a significant number of later term abortions are due to medical necessity, these are rarely elective or due to reasons of fetal non viability(anacephaly ect) If the fetus is not viable then the issue is mute. But there is some non-zero percentage of viable fetuses that are terminated despite being potentially viable and not given a chance to survive. My point is why should the mother have the right to decide in these situations from a moral standpoint? What moral argument for abortion covers this situation? As I have repeatedly stated it can't be the tried and true bodily autonomy so then what moral arguement justifies this?

(July 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, asswipe.  If it isn't your dick knocking her up where the fuck do you get off telling other people how to live their lives?  Fuck you, you miserable busy body.  I repeat, what the fuck does it matter to you?

If you have no answer better than "jesus" then go fuck him too.

The betterment of all life. To propel life in the right direction. Is someone makes poor life decisions then there are consequences. They must be ready to face there decisions as they are there own, and no one else's. Doesn't have too much to do with Jesus. Who the fuck Said I was Christian anyway, cause it sure in the fuck wasn't me. You seam awfully interested in my perspective for someone who claims they don't want to hear it.

(July 3, 2015 at 11:27 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: Everyone is responsible for their actions. No bias, no empathy, no favoritism.

(emphasis is mine)

So, a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his child is no different than a man who steals for personal gain and comfort? If your empathy doesn't inform your decisions, I hope you are never called to serve a jury.