A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law

[Amarok]

@ mh.brewer - again off topic. I am asking about the moral logic of this argument. Who should pay for the care is not relevant to the morality of this particular argument. Who should pay for the emergency room visits of uninsured motorists involved in a MVA is a different question then should the motorist receive care wouldn't you agree?  {not wanting to open up a single payer argument on this thread, if interested in that discussion let's start another one) Also not your business, nor does it change the validity of my argument but 3rd year med student in the NICU and 4th year on pediatrics. Got to know the family well and still keep in touch. Getting back to my argument, do you have a valid criticism of the argument itself rather then the conclusion that you may not like? that is the question.

---

I concede the earth is round

---

By the way, I am by far from the only one to have expierence with 24 week gestation infants

https://penut-trial.org/node/41
[/url]
[url=https://penut-trial.org/node/41]Just one of many links

Exactly on topic. Is it moral to let a child live in poverty, possibly unloved, and push the financial responsibilities on to individuals/the state who don't hold your agenda? MVA's are not the result of an agenda or intended human intervention, bad analogy. 

Unsupported med student claim, put us or shut up. When/where? And med student care is not care, that's observation and treatment at best. That's not long term care of the premie addressing all of the potential problems (feeding, anemia, BPD, PDA, IVH, NEC, learning disabilities, ROP, psych disorders, .....). 

Pssst, your not the only one who has had time in the NICU. UNMC, class of 1983. And I'm assuming that you did not gone on to practice based on your statement: "so my experience is very dated and I can only assume that our technology has advanced in that time".

Just because humans can do a thing does not mean that they should do a thing. 

My position: I'm OK with the law as it stands with regard to the limitations on fetal age. You understand that your moral position applied to less than 2% of the US abortions right?

My other position: A non viable fetus is not a human and does not have human rights.

If you and others with the same moral abortion agenda want to change the law and force your morals on others, then band together and do it.

---

This is not about what she wants to do. Is it morally permissible for a woman to destroy a viable and otherwise healthy 39 week gestation infant in Situ mere moments before it is naturally delivered  because she does not wish to raise it?
We all have a moral compass. It's important to understand it.
What a person does to themselves I have very little justification in unless it has clear impact on others or society. What one agent does to another and what is moral for one agent to do to another is definitionally my business as part of the society.  More than that you have not addressed my arguments. Only the conclusion you don't like. What is your objection to the arguments that I have laid out?

bold mine

What abortion law on the books allows that (other than risk to the mothers life)? That's a bad point.

Good points