A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law

[DogmaticDownSouth]

@ Everyone – I have at no point in THIS argument commented on the morality or permissibility of abortion. If you think I have then I suggest you re-read the argument I have made on post #1. The multitude of statements that generally boil down to “I think abortion is moral because of any reason” simply do not apply to my argument. Again, if you truly wish to engage in a conversation then I think it prudent to know what we are talking about. I have yet to see a single critique of my fundamental argument, which is unfortunate, but I suppose a tacit acceptance that the rational must be sound. Again if the rational is not sound, then I still await an on point rebuttal of my treatise. All I see are criticisms either unrelated to my proposal (ie the overall morality of abotion, which again I do not address!!!!) or a few concerns about potential concerns about financial repercussions of my proposal that I will address below. I have yet to see a direct critique of the proposal itself.
I
 will summarize it again as succinctly as possible.
IF the moral rational for abortion is the concept of bodily autonomy THEN
EITHER bodily autonomy is absolute and it is therefore moral to terminate a term infant immediately prior to delivery (complete bodily autonomy of the mother) and therefore morally consistent legislation should support this right at all times → this is the necessarily conclusion to the absolute bodily autonomy argument as far as I can see, if you have a logical rational for why it is not then please let me know.
OR bodily autonomy is NOT absolute.


If you suscribe to the former then I personally find your moral compass lacking and would like to have an independent conversation on how you came to your conclusion on a seperate thread or as PM. If you subscribe to the later then bodily autonomy is NOT absolute and I would propose that a more morally consistent position would be allowance of termination of the pregnancy (bodily autonomy of the mother to not continue a pregnancy) while respecting the bodily autonomy of the growing human organism by delivering the fetus and attempting resuscitation and salvage.


Decision to destroy the fetus should not be given to the mother as she has demonstrated a conflict of interest definitionally by electing to terminate the pregnancy. Independent adjudication on behalf of the fetus may determine that termination is indeed the most moral decision (eg in situations of terminal congenital conditions), but again that decision must be made independent of the incubation vessel who wishes to terminate the pregnancy.


That is as clear as I can make it. I would ask that you engage the topic I have proposed rather than the one you want. Everyone seems to have the right to create their own threads and if you want to discuss why abortion is moral because there are less starving children in Antarctica or whatever then please start that thread and if interested in that topic I will engage you there.


There seem to many of you that do not ascribe to the supposition that a fetus is a right bearer, as such the bodily autonomy argument may not be your rational for abortion. I have created 2 separate threads to engage in these SEPERATE questions – what moral justification besides bodily autonomy do you use to support the position that abortion is moral? I will engage on those questions there. What is required for a human organism to be considered a rights bearer? I will engage those questions there.


Thanks…


Now specific critiques


@Tizheruk – not sure I understand the statement, maybe a typo that is confusing me. Please repost or contact me and would like to address further so I can understand your position.


@ Losty – You haven’t read my post nor addressed my argument. Read above and try again. Comment#2 – was at ignoramus not me but the term you are looking for is hypothetical. All situations are hypothetical until they occur. Laws address the hypothetical situations that may arise in the future.
             I personally don’t think the motivation for terminating the pregnancy is salient to it’s permissibility. After all Sandra Yates believed in good faith that drowning her children would allow them to enter heavan and she was willing to sacrifice her own soul to hell and in her rational she was committing the greatest sacrifice, does her motivation absolve her of her culpability?


@ Tazzycorn – You either ignored or didn’t read my post where I specifically posted I AM NOT HERE TO DICTATE MY VIEWS BUT TO PROPOSE A MORAL ARGUMENT that may CONVINCE you.


@ignoramus – I like the quote about what side of the mother’s skin is the baby on. Good imagery. Question is reasonably on point. Essentially the mother is performing a self abortion (method not withstanding) immediately prior to delivery. That was essentially my question as well. I'm not sure I believe motivation shuold have much to do with it. If she has the infant's best interests in mind then independent adjudication should support the decision as well.


@mh brwer – My point is that the question of financial responsibility is a DIFFERENT question from the question of bodily autonomy. You may conceed that my moral argument is sound but that the financial responsibility is too much for society to bear. That is a different argument that I could engage on, however you are there for conceeding that my moral argument is sound and that an another moral question enters the equation. That;s fair, but you cannot logically say that my logic is unsound BECAUSE another moral argument that is unrelated to the foundations of my argument enter the equation. Again back to the MVA example or let's broaden it to ANY medical emergency would you agree that SHOULD we treat someone with a medical emergency is a DIFFERENT QUESTION then WHO should pay for treating a person with a medical emergency?
I would argue that your thought process that it is better for a human right bearer to be destroyed then live a life of potential poverty or reduced emotional support necessarily leads to the question why not destroy any human right bearer that could potentially be in these situations? What is the moral distinction unless you don’t feel the fetus is a right bearer then see my seperate thread above and we can discuss that SEPERATE topic. However if you agree that a fetus is a human right bearer then there is no logical or moral distinction.
         Not sure why you think I didn’t go into practice. What do you practice? I’m a cardiologist so I will freely admit I have NO IDEA about advances in neonatology or pediatric critical care medicine, why should I? Do you keep up with the latest staining techniques in pathology and the current processing algorithms for 3 tesla MRI machines? I don’t and it has nothing to do with my clinical practice.
        What percentage of abortions is irrelevant to the moral argument itself. You do realize that murder accounts for approximately 0.7% of all deaths in America, should we not have laws or moral arguments about that as well?
         How do you know when a fetus is viable. Have you independently developed a fetal viability test? Great vailidate it and publish the results and that would be GREAT tool to help this discussion., Otherwise , if you clinical practice medicine as you also claim then you would know that there are very few absolutes. I can scarcely recall a time when I have told a family that their loved one will certainly not survive unless I have hard evidence that they already havent (ie brain death) and am withholding further care. I have certainly told countless families that the situation is grim or dire and the likelihood of meaning recovery is slight and further resuscitation would most likely be futile. That is subtle to important distinction admitting that our knowledge is not absolute. That is my point with the fetus. We do not definatively know that the fetus is not viable unless we attempt salvage and it proves for itself that it cannot survive. Current laws allows for the termination of 20 week gestation infants where data clearly supports a >0% survival.
         The way you change societal morality to convince people what they once thought may not be correct, this is no different than any other change in societal morality from inter-racial policies to homosexuality to woman’s sufferrage. I agree with you in the sense that if I want to change societal morality then I should band with others, but I disagree with the term force. Again I have expressedly stated my goal is to either have you convince me my argument is not sound (still waiting) or CONVINCE you to reconsider your moral position. NEITHER ONE is forcing anything. So you seem to be making a straw-man attack.
         My point about destroy a viable fetus is not what the law IS but rather what is the logical conclusion of the bodily autonomy argument dictates the law SHOULD BE. If you don’t ascribe to that conclusion then you necessarily don’t believe that bodily autonomy is absolute. I would hope a doctor could keep up. Maybe corn fed doctors can't? Shouldn't joke, the cold weather may freeze your brain. Lot's of friends and some family have been through Creighton medical school and residency/fellowships.


@Mister Agenda – See my point above. This conversation has NOTHING to do with withholding abortions from anyone. Period. If you disagree please point to a single part of the argument that I have made that advocates for withholding abortions. I specifically state that abortions are to be performed but that the more morally consistent position is to either accept that bodily autonomy is not abosolute and consider a procedure that terminates the pregnancy without destroying the fetus OR that bodily autonomy IS absolute and the termination of a viable term infant is therefor moral.


@minimalis assuming you are joking or a psychopath.