(July 4, 2015 at 4:43 pm)answer-is-42 Wrote: @Cato. A moral question is not predicated on the incidence of the issue but the intrinsic moral question at hand. If it happens at a rate >0 then addressing it on its merits is worthwhile in a philosophical sense (This is a philosophy forum). I am sure the incidence of being murdere by a blowtorch is low compared to the overall murder rate, but does that
somehow change it's morality?
Next you add conditions I have never specified such as carrying to full term. When did I propose this in this discussion? My only question was regarding a fetus that had been taken to the point of potential viability when the decision for abortion is made. You have made a straw man arguement. Next I would like you to demonstrate when I have ever attributed any motivation to the mother's decision to end her pregnancy. I have neither stated it was well thought out nor have I stated it was willy nilly. You are arguing suppositions that you made not arguement said I have asserted. These are again straw men. I have not asked that women be saved from them selves nor have I asserted a superior conscious. My simple arguement is if a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy (as is her right based on a bodily autonomy arguement - I may not fully subscribe to this arguement but that is irrelevant as I will grant it for the sake of the discussion) how does that extend to necessarily terminating the fetus (not her body just located within it ) if a means of removal that could potentially allow the fetus to survive is available ? For the trolls out there that symbol is called a question mark, it denotes a question NOT a statement. The question is what MORAL PRINCIPLES justify this action. The most common retorts I have heard are she doesn't want (why should that matter once it is out of her bodily autonomy does not apply), outcomes based (who is going to pay, overcrowding, ect. However outcome based morality leads to slippery slope arguement such as genocide to prevent overcrowding and k already addressed the payer question on multiple occasions) , or special pleading. Finally, as I stated before the incidence of the issue is irrelevant to its morality. It may effect its practicality or ability to legislate but it doesn't change the intrinsic Moral questions In play. This is a thought exercise to see if moral principles are rationally justified.
I have not made a straw man argument. I invoked term pregnancies for to establish the mother as the normal moral actor on behalf of the child. I thought that was pretty clear.
To argue that a mother has forfeited her position as the moral decision maker for the child she carries simply because the fetus reaches a stage of some non zero chance of viability with no regard as to why she is seeking an abortion is absurd. This is the basis for my term willy-nilly and is an apt description of what you are doing; therefore, not a straw man.
To argue that the abortion is immoral you would have to establish a victim. Without access to relevant information, some low non zero chance of survival is insufficient justification to render the fetus a victim. A scenario in which there was nothing wrong with mother or child, but the child was extracted due to some unfortunate accident would set up a scenario where it would be immoral not to assist the fetus in surviving. Arbitrarily attempting to assist fetus survival outside the womb based solely on gestation length can easily be immoral if efforts prolong needless suffering.
The short answer to your question regarding the morality of abortion at 21 weeks due to the small chance of fetus survival is "there is insufficient information to make a judgement" if all that is considered is gestation length.
