(July 3, 2015 at 4:55 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: Let me begin by stating that I am not a theist (the most common as-homin attack I get when opposing abortion on secular grounds is that I am secretly a theist again I am not).
Most people oppose abortion based in the right to bodily autonomy. Regardless of your beliefs on that, once the fetus is out of the maternal womb, bodily autonomy no longer applies. 20 weeks has arbitrairly been considered the limit of viability, however infants born at 21 weeks have clearly survived and case reports of younger (less developed) infants surviving are also available. Additionally not all abortions occur before 20 weeks.
Therefore my moral question is why is resuscitation and medical support with held from an aborted fetus if there is a chance of survival? We do not allow this in any other situations. certainly we would not allow a parent to stop feeding or withhold medical care from a child because they simply do not want the child. It is actually considered child abuse even if they want the child and are following their misguided religious convictions
this is not a financial question so I would ask that cost not be an arguement. We use more expensive therapies for similar success rates all the time. This is a moral and philosophical question
I have no problem with doctors reviving an aborted fetus, as long as they accept legal and financial responsibility. The mother (and usually both parents) have, for whatever reasons, decided that they cannot or are unwilling to assume these responsibilities. It would be unethical to force them to accept those responsibilities after taking proper, legal action.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.