A secular arguement for the alteration of existing abortion law

[DogmaticDownSouth]

Hello everybody, I hope some have you have seen my introduction and if not I did want to say Hi before lighting the fireworks. Always good to shake a man's (sorry not trying to be sexist) hand before you punch him in the face you know.

Also, not sure if this the right spot, but have been instructed by some more senior members that this would be a fitting place to start the discussion. If that is incorrect then please let me know and I {or the mods I suppose} will most the conversation elsewhere. I am new here and trying to do things the right way.

Before I begin, I want to make a few things clear, particularly about myself (one area where I can confidently state I more expertise then anyone else in this forum). I am certainly an atheist who interestingly may have thoughts on an issue that is different from the prevailing opinion of the atheist community, this does NOT mean I am insincere  in my atheism {I have previously received ad hominum attacks about that) or that I wish to DICTATE my beliefs on others. I would like to CONVINCE others if possible with rational thought and argument, but I also understand people come to beliefs for rational and irrational reasons, good and bad arguments. If I have a bad argument or irrational logic, I genuinely would like to see ii, people learn from seeing their mistakes and improving on them and learning is always a good thing. However disagreeing because you don't like the conclusion neither addresses the argument nor helps either of us improve. It's really a command theory statement, this is right because this is right and I don't care what you say rather than here is where you are incorrect in your thought process {which forces both of us to look at the actual thought process that got to our conclusions}.

I would politely ask to try to keep the thread on this topic. Ofcourse I have no aurthority to do so, but would implore there are many, many threads on many topics, including those mentioned here that may be better served by off topic remarks and I have created this one with hopes of trying our best to stay on topic. As I stated previously I would very much like to convince others because it validates my argument but I honestly would like direct feedback to my argument.

Thanks in advance.........

Now on to the show....


(By the way I have mentioned that I have an argument against the morality of abortion that I would like to post at somepoint, but this thread is not that one sorry for those of you who
read my introduction)


This argument is generally my fallback to the most common argument for the morality of abortion that I have personally interacted with {I don't have data to say this is the most common overall, only in my limited experience of discussion and hearing debates on the topic} and that is the argument of bodily autonomy. I would like to clarify this position from the outset to the best of my ability to explain it primarily to not create a straw man to attack, ie if you understanding of this argument is flawed I would like to know how so that I may learn from it and so I do not present an argument against an inaccurate point. Attacking straw men is not my intent...




In summary this states that a woman has full autonomy over her own body including both who she chooses to support {ie pregnancy} or any procedure performed upon her. The fetus has or may have human rights, but they would be trumped by the woman's own bodily autonomy. She can decide pretty much anything with regards to her own body.

I acknowledge that Roe v Wade is compromise by the state between a mother's autonomy rights and the fetus's human rights, however I would argue that this compromise is immoral and would actually promote a legal alteration that I think is more morally consistent. --- Let me be clear, I'm here to argue and convince, not dictate and decree.

If a woman has full bodily autonomy then the natural conclusion to that arguement is that a woman can destroy the infant-in-situ at anypoint upto and including mere moments before it's natural delivery. Afterall she should have absolute control over any and all procedures she undergoes then why should this not be permissible for any reason and at all times? If your moral compass leads you to the belief that this outcome is morally acceptable then I would very much like to have a seperate discussion with you (please contact me directly either for a PM or to set up a different thread) as to why and more importantly at what point you believe it would be immoral to destroy an infant {is it the moment they are out of the woman's body or some point after?} This is not an attack, I have heard both arguments and just want to know where you may be coming from.

However, if you do feel that it is immoral to kill the infant/fetus/baby/what ever you want to call him/her {for the remainder of the post I'll refer to him/her as AL) at this point in the pregnancy then you acknowledging that the right to bodily autonomy is NOT absolute. Great, step one then, bodily autonomy is not absolute

Step 2: we use the arbitrary date of 3rd trimester because very old data indicated that we didn't have the ability to salavage a fetus prior to this point. However even then this was not accurate. Pinpointing embroyinic age is inaccurate at best and the point of potential viability is unknown truly. We live in a society where if a person has a >0% chance of survival then unless they or the people who we believe are acting in good faith in their best interests ask us to with hold care we are duty bound to attempt resuscitation.  This is the moral default position. I have personally helped care for a baby born @ just over 24 weeks and now she is a teenager {so my experience is very dated and I can only assume that our technology has advanced in that time}. Therefore I would argue that rather than utilizing a procedure that would necessarily destroy Al, an extraction procedure that allows for an attempt at resuscitation. this may or may not be successful but atleast it honors the rights of the fetus while adhering to the accepted restricted autonomy rights of the mother.

Addendum 1: Some have argued that the mother should decide what is best for AL and if she decides that death is better than life she gets that choice. I would argue that by opting to terminate the pregnancy she is necessarily not felt to be advocating for AL. If a wife is divorcing her husband then is she the best person to ask about continuing care, if a child is suing their parents again the same question. If there is a conflict of interest then the traditional surrogates do not apply and they should be considered a ward of the state with the default position being life unless independent information points otherwise. If a man has a clear living will or the parent has widely metastatic cancer that objectively has an objectively short or difficult prognosis then this independent information can justify withholding life support or resuscitation. However in the absense of this the state errs on the side of life and it should be no different with Al. The mother has already demonstrated a conflict of interest, therefor independent evaluation is required, of course there are situations such as patients born with rare genetic or congenital conditions that necessarily lead to sufferring and early demise. But this decision needs to be made independently of the person who had demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, even if the ultimate decision is the same {by the way, the data generally supports that this scenario is the exception rather then the norm).

Therefore I would propose that a more morally consistent position would be to either advocate for the allowance of an abortion at any time for any reason that can result in the destruction of AL {A position I do NOT support but is ethically consistent with the bodily autonomy arguement} OR allow for an extraction procedure that allows for attempt at resuscitation of the infact at the time of termination of the pregnancy that continues to allow the restricted bodily autonomy stance that is necessary to prevent a destructive termination at 39 weeks on an otherwise viabile AL.


Sorry, lots of words, hope it was clear and look forward to an interesting discussion
....

...
...

[Whateverist]

I may have read about the first .. 3/8 or so of the OP, does that count? Boy, you'll have to establish yourself a whole lot more to get most of us to read your term paper, sorry.

Anyhow, my reaction is - fine with me how you justify your decision not to have an abortion. I kind of find them morally icky too. Of course, I fully support the person with the fetus attached in their decision regarding what to do about their abortion too.

Welcome new guy (girl?) (other?).

[DogmaticDownSouth]

By the way, I am not addressing whether or under what circumstances an abortion is moral OR allowable, only HOW the procedure should be peformed. And yes, it is feasible to deliver a <26 week gestation infant.

[Whateverist]

Me neither. I was just endorsing a woman's right to choose regardless of what might have been in the 5/8 of the post I didn't get to.

[brewer]

By the way, I am not addressing whether or under what circumstances an abortion is moral OR allowable, only HOW the procedure should be peformed. And yes, it is feasible to deliver a <26 week gestation infant.

Will you, and others that believe as you, be willing to pay for the heroic measures necessary to continue all of those lives saved by those changed procedures? And then continue to pay and raise the child? 

Or are you one of the "once it's out and alive" it's no longer your concern. Catch as catch can after that.

Edit: What exactly was the extent of your "care" for the 24 week old?

[DogmaticDownSouth]

@Whateverist - not sure what your point is other than to prove my point. The treatise may be long, but you don't have to read it , Not sure what you are adding by stating you don't know what I'm going to say, but I must be wrong. That's not a logical argument. You may want to argue that the world is not flat, but just by dismissing the argument that the world is flat you have not contributed to a rationale discussion. You are addressing a conclusion you don't like rather than the argument that got there. The Church didn't like Gallileo for stating the Earth was not the center of the universe, but you don't have to like the conclusion, if the rationale is sound then it's sound.

@ 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.

---

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

[Minimalist]

If a woman has full bodily autonomy then the natural conclusion to that arguement is that a woman can destroy the infant-in-situ at anypoint upto and including mere moments before it's natural delivery. Afterall she should have absolute control over any and all procedures she undergoes then why should this not be permissible for any reason and at all times? If your moral compass leads you to the belief that this outcome is morally acceptable then I would very much like to have a seperate discussion with you (please contact me directly either for a PM or to set up a different thread) as to why and more importantly at what point you believe it would be immoral to destroy an infant {is it the moment they are out of the woman's body or some point after?} This is not an attack, I have heard both arguments and just want to know where you may be coming from.

This is generally my position although I don't apply "morality" ( WTF you may mean by that ) into it at all.  I submit that it is simply none of my business if a woman does or does not want to have and raise a kid.

And it is none of your business either.

Neither is what consenting adults do in private.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

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?

[The Valkyrie]

I'm pretty much with you, though I tend to say that after viability there are many grey areas.

But, if a women's health is at risk at ANY stage of the pregnancy, her life takes precedence.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

Morality in my opinion is that we should or should not do. Legality is that we must or must not due. See the difference. ?