(July 3, 2015 at 8:38 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(July 3, 2015 at 6:17 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: You sir or madam do not know what you are talking about. Between the 2 of us, one of us has an MD. It's not you. Additionally I agree that development accelerates at 28 weeks, but that does NOT mean that it hasn't already stated. Premature infants are born at < 28 weeks and survive. Some are developmentally delayed, but that is irrelevant to the moral discussion. You are now going into the territory of determining a worthwhile life and that is a different slippery slope. My question was primarily of survival. By the way, I have personally cared for an infant born at 24 weeks due to medical complication /emergency (ecclampsia) she had a Rough initial road but is a very happy 9 year old now.(emphasis is mine)
Again, stick to what you know (it ain't biology) and talk about the morality of allowing a living fetus to die outside the body of another without medical support that isnknown and available. You still haven't given a good Moral arguement for this.
You clearly point out that you're opinion is superior because of your alleged education. Time to put up or shut the fuck up.
I don't know answer's status as a medical professional. However, let me say two things: 1) nothing has been produced yet that can't be googled in about 10 seconds, so that degree isn't really adding anything useful to the discussion; 2) unless that medical knowledge provides some additional insight onto the morality of abortion, then it's irrelevant, even if answer works in the Mayo clinic, which he/she clearly doesn't.
@answer-is-42
I don't think viability is a good moral argument anyway. The philosophical issue is whether the loss of future potential should be equated to the actual loss of a life right now. I don't think so-- the future is undefined, and there is no good reason to think that another person will contribute anything more than methane to the already-crowded culture. Every abortion is a slightly greener Earth, slightly cheaper food, slightly less crowded classrooms, slightly reduced crime rate (because look who usually has abortions), slightly fewer people clogging the highways.
Given overcrowding, I think it's safe to say that MORE crowding is an immoral act-- which we tolerate because of, you know, the human right to reproduce and stuff. But crying over a bundle of cells when real kids in the US are poorly undereducated and suffering malnutrition seems kind of pointless.