The abortion paradox

[festive1]

Well, we haven't established what medical means are to be gone to in order to keep those born prematurely alive. A baby born at 24 weeks gestation has a 50% chance of survival, but that's with round the clock advanced medical care, and the child that survives rarely does so without significant long-term problems.

That decision would be up to the the person who has then taken up the responsibility of caring for the child. They'd be the ones paying for it after all.

That's fair, but still problematic. For instance the family is poor and has no health insurance, should their infant receive less care? Who pays for the multi-million dollar NICU bill? Is it even moral or ethical to put the infant through months of intensive treatment? What about the child's future medical bills? What about a family that can't shell out $5-10k for IVF to get pregnant, should they just have to face the fact that they'll never have kids (adoption isn't cheap either)? Is that moral or ethical (assuming that the family could provide a decent home, but just can't scrape together the cash)?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I'm attempting to explore these issues to figure out where I stand on them, but there are a lot of tough questions that don't get to be asked very often. Perhaps these are questions for a new thread...