(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
If I am understanding you, the way you have constructed your question, I think the question hinges on what amount of development is considered to be a person. That will determine whether or not anything would be required to do for a premature birth (which is what you seem to be asking about rather than an abortion in which the fetus is removed dead). And a related issue would be whether or not inducing a premature birth would have the same impact on the woman as a traditional abortion. If not, then the effects on her would have to be considered (in my opinion, the effects on her would be paramount, though I am aware of the fact that not everyone agrees on such matters).
As for trying to save the life of a fetus born prematurely, that is normally done because the parents wish for it to be done. One would expect that they may have opted for an abortion if they did not desire to have a child. There is also the legal issue (which is obviously different from the philosophical issues), that whenever human life is born, it is legally considered to be a person (I think that is the case in the U.S., but I am no lawyer).
Your question also naturally raises the issue of fertilized eggs that have been started for the purpose of in vitro fertilization. Such fertilized eggs are outside the woman, and so the issue of her bodily integrity is not relevant to what happens to extra fertilized eggs. Such fertilized eggs could be implanted in another woman and so they could live.
Do you think it is wrong to kill the extra fertilized eggs? If so, why, and if not, why not?
My own take on all of this is to suggest that for legal purposes, it would probably be best to only regard something as a person after it is born, to give us a definite point that is relatively unambiguous (though I am fully aware that there is a time when part of the thing is inside the woman and part of it outside; we could select either partway out or fully out for convenience).
As for the moral aspects, again, I think the issue then is going to involve when one is a person. For my part, I am not convinced that a newborn qualifies, but I think that having a definite point that is relatively unambiguous is best for legal purposes, and so I think that regarding a newborn as legally a person is probably best.
Perhaps a better question would be, when is a grouping of human cells a person, and when is a grouping of human cells not a person?
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
