RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
July 3, 2017 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 3, 2017 at 4:16 pm by Mister Agenda.)
DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: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?
At what point is it morally okay to use force to prevent the pregnant woman from having an abortion done? Once you've decided that the woman doesn't have the moral right to choose not to bear the child, a moral obligation to stop her from doing so is inferred. What's permissible here? Can she be restrained for the safety of the fetus, does she have to pay a fine if she's caught having an abortion, what are we talking about here?
Also, I'm not really getting what the 'secular argument' is. The earlier an abortion is carried out, the better morally, IMHO; but later abortions are almost always for medical reasons.
If I was willing to go along with a ban on late third trimester abortions unless done for medical reasons, would that satisfy the OP?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
