Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:12 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
#11
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
Quote:This is not about what she wants to do. I

We then disagree fundamentally on your basic premise.  I say it is.
Reply
#12
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
@the Valkyrie thanks. I don't address if abortion Is moral (stay tuned I have a different argument for that that addresses many of the common concerns with logic inherent to the argument rather than adhoc or posthoc. ) however I do address how. And hopefully argue against the full bodily autonomy argument that is the crux of most of the abortion morality advocacy that I have personally interacted with. Thanks for the feedback

@ minimalist
Then again as I asked in the body ;assuming you read it ) and my reply. I assume you feel it morally permissible to allow the termination of an otherwise healthy, term infant moments from natural delivery? As a caveat do you believe in the termination of such an infant mere moments after delivery? Yes or no is initially sufficient
Reply
#13
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
DDS, you are correct in that all things in life ultimately come down to fine granularity. Both morally and legally.
I really never pondered the difference between "just before" and "just after" birth.

Technically, if a child is delivered after, one may ask why not just before? It makes no biological difference to the baby's growth or health?
This moral dilemma reminds of this.

[Image: 1rwgvk.jpg]

Completely unrelated but with a similar point. Why should something insignificant like "which side" of the mother's skin dictate whether we take a life or spare it?
DDS, I cannot answer it! I'm not comfortable either way.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#14
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
I can conceive of no desirable outcome on abortion

A world bodily autonomy is not absolute is unacceptable . Even the current restriction have proven a too easy for anti choice advocates to manipulate . On the other hand I agree unrestricted abortion is uncomfortable . But forced medical procedure to extract the fetus is just  unacceptable .  And opening legality to our insides as a legal protection zone is also unacceptable.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
#15
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
Oh great. An abortion thread. Lol

My apologies, your op was tldr for me. I did read some of though.

It seems like you're asking what I find to be morally permissible and I think that's the wrong question to ask.

I believe a woman should have the right to abort at any point in her pregnancy and I believe that whether or not it is morally permissible is entirely up to the individual women who are making the decision.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
#16
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
(July 2, 2017 at 9:45 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: <snip for brevity>

My response to that big long yoke: If you don't want an abortion don't have one. Don't force your personal view on others.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#17
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
(July 3, 2017 at 6:06 am)Losty Wrote: Oh great. An abortion thread. Lol

My apologies, your op was tldr for me. I did read some of though.

It seems like you're asking what I find to be morally permissible and I think that's the wrong question to ask.

I believe a woman should have the right to abort at any point in her pregnancy and I believe that whether or not it is morally permissible is entirely up to the individual women who are making the decision.

No arguments there. Let's say the woman is a drugo in custody and the law will take her child from her when born? To give the kid a better life.
This drugo hears about it and starts punching it only days before the birth to kill it. Are you guys ok with this? I mean, it's her baby, she can do what she wants, right?

Does the law need to ever step in in any circumstance regarding a mother and her unborn child. That is the question.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#18
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
(July 3, 2017 at 6:53 am)ignoramus Wrote:
(July 3, 2017 at 6:06 am)Losty Wrote: Oh great. An abortion thread. Lol

My apologies, your op was tldr for me. I did read some of though.

It seems like you're asking what I find to be morally permissible and I think that's the wrong question to ask.

I believe a woman should have the right to abort at any point in her pregnancy and I believe that whether or not it is morally permissible is entirely up to the individual women who are making the decision.

No arguments there. Let's say the woman is a drugo in custody and the law will take her child from her when born? To give the kid a better life.
This drugo hears about it and starts punching it only days before the birth to kill it. Are you guys ok with this? I mean, it's her baby, she can do what she wants, right?

Does the law need to ever step in in any circumstance regarding a mother and her unborn child. That is the question.

I'm not a fan of wild made up stories of what if. What if you didn't know it, but she was actually only punching her late term fetus because she was desperate to avoid alien butt munching anal monkies?
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
#19
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
(July 2, 2017 at 10:57 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: @ mh.brewer - again off topic. I am asking about the moral logic of this argument. Who should pay for the care is not relevant to the morality of this particular argument. Who should pay for the emergency room visits of uninsured motorists involved in a MVA is a different question then should the motorist receive care wouldn't you agree?  {not wanting to open up a single payer argument on this thread, if interested in that discussion let's start another one) Also not your business, nor does it change the validity of my argument but 3rd year med student in the NICU and 4th year on pediatrics. Got to know the family well and still keep in touch. Getting back to my argument, do you have a valid criticism of the argument itself rather then the conclusion that you may not like? that is the question.

[Image: 200.gif#2-grid1]I concede the earth is round

By the way, I am by far from the only one to have expierence with 24 week gestation infants

https://penut-trial.org/node/41
[/url]
[url=https://penut-trial.org/node/41]Just one of many links

Exactly on topic. Is it moral to let a child live in poverty, possibly unloved, and push the financial responsibilities on to individuals/the state who don't hold your agenda? MVA's are not the result of an agenda or intended human intervention, bad analogy. 

Unsupported med student claim, put us or shut up. When/where? And med student care is not care, that's observation and treatment at best. That's not long term care of the premie addressing all of the potential problems (feeding, anemia, BPD, PDA, IVH, NEC, learning disabilities, ROP, psych disorders, .....). 

Pssst, your not the only one who has had time in the NICU. UNMC, class of 1983. And I'm assuming that you did not gone on to practice based on your statement: "so my experience is very dated and I can only assume that our technology has advanced in that time".

Just because humans can do a thing does not mean that they should do a thing. 

My position: I'm OK with the law as it stands with regard to the limitations on fetal age. You understand that your moral position applied to less than 2% of the US abortions right?

My other position: A non viable fetus is not a human and does not have human rights.

If you and others with the same moral abortion agenda want to change the law and force your morals on others, then band together and do it.

(July 3, 2017 at 12:17 am)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: This is not about what she wants to do. Is it morally permissible for a woman to destroy a viable and otherwise healthy 39 week gestation infant in Situ mere moments before it is naturally delivered  because she does not wish to raise it?
We all have a moral compass. It's important to understand it.
What a person does to themselves I have very little justification in unless it has clear impact on others or society. What one agent does to another and what is moral for one agent to do to another is definitionally my business as part of the society.  More than that you have not addressed my arguments. Only the conclusion you don't like. What is your objection to the arguments that I have laid out?

bold mine

What abortion law on the books allows that (other than risk to the mothers life)? That's a bad point.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#20
RE: A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law
(July 3, 2017 at 7:28 am)mh.brewer Wrote:
(July 2, 2017 at 10:57 pm)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: @ mh.brewer - again off topic. I am asking about the moral logic of this argument. Who should pay for the care is not relevant to the morality of this particular argument. Who should pay for the emergency room visits of uninsured motorists involved in a MVA is a different question then should the motorist receive care wouldn't you agree?  {not wanting to open up a single payer argument on this thread, if interested in that discussion let's start another one) Also not your business, nor does it change the validity of my argument but 3rd year med student in the NICU and 4th year on pediatrics. Got to know the family well and still keep in touch. Getting back to my argument, do you have a valid criticism of the argument itself rather then the conclusion that you may not like? that is the question.

[Image: 200.gif#2-grid1]I concede the earth is round

By the way, I am by far from the only one to have expierence with 24 week gestation infants

https://penut-trial.org/node/41
[/url]
[url=https://penut-trial.org/node/41]Just one of many links

Exactly on topic. Is it moral to let a child live in poverty, possibly unloved, and push the financial responsibilities on to individuals/the state who don't hold your agenda? MVA's are not the result of an agenda or intended human intervention, bad analogy. 

Unsupported med student claim, put us or shut up. When/where? And med student care is not care, that's observation and treatment at best. That's not long term care of the premie addressing all of the potential problems (feeding, anemia, BPD, PDA, IVH, NEC, learning disabilities, ROP, psych disorders, .....). 

Pssst, your not the only one who has had time in the NICU. UNMC, class of 1983. And I'm assuming that you did not gone on to practice based on your statement: "so my experience is very dated and I can only assume that our technology has advanced in that time".

Just because humans can do a thing does not mean that they should do a thing. 

My position: I'm OK with the law as it stands with regard to the limitations on fetal age. You understand that your moral position applied to less than 2% of the US abortions right?

My other position: A non viable fetus is not a human and does not have human rights.

If you and others with the same moral abortion agenda want to change the law and force your morals on others, then band together and do it.

(July 3, 2017 at 12:17 am)DogmaticDownSouth Wrote: This is not about what she wants to do. Is it morally permissible for a woman to destroy a viable and otherwise healthy 39 week gestation infant in Situ mere moments before it is naturally delivered  because she does not wish to raise it?
We all have a moral compass. It's important to understand it.
What a person does to themselves I have very little justification in unless it has clear impact on others or society. What one agent does to another and what is moral for one agent to do to another is definitionally my business as part of the society.  More than that you have not addressed my arguments. Only the conclusion you don't like. What is your objection to the arguments that I have laid out?

bold mine

What abortion law on the books allows that (other than risk to the mothers life)? That's a bad point.

Good points
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Abortion and Population SimpleCaveman 143 6171 December 18, 2023 at 4:00 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Assisted suicide and pro abortion. ignoramus 17 1776 June 20, 2019 at 5:55 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
Lightbulb Abortion/Consciousness/Life TheGamingAtheist 244 40370 October 4, 2014 at 11:06 pm
Last Post: Chas
  A very cool photo shoot involving abortion Shell B 11 8385 June 20, 2012 at 5:59 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)