Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[Nihilist Virus]

No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.

So then, it must be true that you don't also want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months.

After all, your not wanting to be a life support system for a baby, is completely understandable. But it would mean (in this scenario) certain death for that baby.

It's a simple bodily autonomy issue. Why is it ok for you to want the rights to keep your bodily autonomy in the hypothetical I poste, but not ok for a women to not have the same rights to her bodily autonomy?

And thank you very much for being a donor!

I received a kidney transplant back in 1989, that is certainly responsible for my continuing survival.

That is the compelling case that has been made for why abortion should be legal.  I'm asking why it's morally correct.

We already know that the law is not reflective of morality.  There are things which are legally permissible which we all agree are immoral, such as shady business practices, adultery, etc.  These things cannot be made to be illegal, but they cannot be argued as morally acceptable.

Where the law has tried to be morally correct, it has often failed.  Such as slavery, rights of women, etc.

I'm of the a priori opinion that it is wrong to kill anything that is alive.  Here are my reasons... EDIT: well, there cannot be reasoning to support something if it is a priori. Let's say that these are thought experiments which are consistent with my a priori opinion:

1.) If I were a deity, I would ensure that no living being would suffer or die unless they wanted to.  What do we have instead? A world not only wherein everything dies, but a world with obligate carnivores.  A world in which nearly every living thing with a central nervous system dies in terror and agony.  Any deity who would create such a world would be stupid, evil, or simply unable to do better.

But you don't have to be a deity to consider your participation here.  While you are obviously incapable of being omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, you actually are capable of being omnibenevolent.  Certainly, it would not be evil for you to be such, or to make such an attempt.  Would an omnibenevolent pregnant woman have an abortion?  I'd think not.  Would an omnibenevolent person use their body as a host for a fetus for 7+ months, assuming it's medically possible?  Absolutely.

And if omnibenevolence is not the the ultimate "goal" of morality, then what is?  Equality?  I'd be interested in your take on defending that or something else.

2.) If we extend the idea of the veil of ignorance further to encompass any living thing, how would you feel about being a pig?  Or a chicken?  Or a human fetus?

The fact that we must kill living things in order to survive does not make it morally acceptable to kill living things.  That would be an appeal to consequences fallacy, often called "rationalization."  The best we can do, assuming we aren't going to just allow ourselves to starve to death to spare vegetables, is to live a vegan lifestyle so that we ensure we do not contribute to the death or suffering of any living thing which has a nervous system.

So I guess the next question is, "When does a fetus develop a nervous system?"  Except that's irrelevant if we are omnibenevolent, isn't it?  And that's what the conversation boils down to: the ideals of morality.  Certainly NOT the ideals of legality.