What moral justification besides bodily autonomy do you use to support the position t

[DogmaticDownSouth]

This is the first of 2 threads that I am creating to help address specifc topics that seem to be derailing another thread I have created.

Figured 1's and 0's are cheap so creating a few more threads should cost too much.

I would argue that taking a moral position that abortion EITHER is or is not moral both are statements that require some burden of proof.

I should eventually post my moral algorythm for my position, but I have found that my thread becomes inundated with replies that do not address flaws in my arguement but introduce their own moral arguments, many that I may feel are flawed but dilutes the thread that I am hoping to create revolving around that topic so I though it would be better to create a seperate thread where I could address the individual arguments that people make not in critisism of my argument but in support of their own.

I prefer to have the argument I acttually made be critized in threads that I start asking for criticisim of my arguments (crazy right?)

So for everybody who wants to throw their 2Cents in on their beliefs in ways that do not address the arguments I make, I hope that this thread provides that opportunity and I will genuinely try to respond here as much as I can as well. Thanks

[LadyForCamus]

[Ravenshire]

What argument beyond bodily autonomy is necessary?

We don't force people to be living kidney or liver donors.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

What argument beyond bodily autonomy is necessary?

We don't force people to be living kidney or liver donors.

you could see my other thread on atleast one issue with the bodily autonomy argument, but I will make it here briefly.
Is bodily autonomy absolute? If so then it should be morally permissible to terminate a viable term fetus immediately before delivery.
If you don't subscribe to that conclusion then bodily autonomy is at the very least not absolute.

---

If you don't like the topic then why respond? I am not here to FORCE you to respond.

[LadyForCamus]

It wasn't your topic that ruffled me. It was your tone.

[Ravenshire]

What argument beyond bodily autonomy is necessary?

We don't force people to be living kidney or liver donors.

you could see my other thread on atleast one issue with the bodily autonomy argument, but I will make it here briefly.
Is bodily autonomy absolute? If so then it should be morally permissible to terminate a viable term fetus immediately before delivery.
If you don't subscribe to that conclusion then bodily autonomy is at the very least not absolute.

I don't argue against late term abortions and have nothing against birth being the deciding line.

ETA: This is why you should have done one thread.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

you could see my other thread on atleast one issue with the bodily autonomy argument, but I will make it here briefly.
Is bodily autonomy absolute? If so then it should be morally permissible to terminate a viable term fetus immediately before delivery.
If you don't subscribe to that conclusion then bodily autonomy is at the very least not absolute.

I don't argue against late term abortions and have nothing against birth being the deciding line.

OK cool, that's atleast consistent.
Just to be clear, you stated that you have no problem with the late term abortion of a healthy, viable infant at term for any reason correct?
Not trying to trap you or anything, just making sure that's your position.
If it is then I can't argue with your consistency.

My argument with this is obvious. If the infant had been born the day before (exact same infant) it would have full rights but since it is locationally still in the womb then no rights? Then there is nothing fundamental about the fetus allowing it to be a right bearer, rather like real estate it's about location, location, location.

Another hypothetical just to drive a finer point on your position. (not arguing, genuinely clarifying) If a woman was pregnant with twins, I assume you would feel it would be morally justifiable to deliver 1 and terminate the other immediately prior to delivery? Again your morality is your morality, just want to make sure I understand your position.

---

It wasn't your topic that ruffled me.  It was your tone.

what do you think my tone was?

[LadyForCamus]

I don't argue against late term abortions and have nothing against birth being the deciding line.

OK cool, that's atleast consistent.
Just to be clear, you stated that you have no problem with the late term abortion of a healthy, viable infant at term for any reason correct?
Not trying to trap you or anything, just making sure that's your position.
If it is then I can't argue with your consistency.

My argument with this is obvious. If the infant had been born the day before (exact same infant) it would have full rights but since it is locationally still in the womb then no rights? Then there is nothing fundamental about the fetus allowing it to be a right bearer, rather like real estate it's about location, location, location.

Another hypothetical just to drive a finer point on your position. (not arguing, genuinely clarifying) If a woman was pregnant with twins, I assume you would feel it would be morally justifiable to deliver 1 and terminate the other immediately prior to delivery? Again your morality is your morality, just want to make sure I understand your position.

---

It wasn't your topic that ruffled me.  It was your tone.

what do you think my tone was?

It came off a bit pretentious; griping over the nature of the responses you got in your other thread.  Maybe I misunderstood you.

[Ravenshire]

I don't argue against late term abortions and have nothing against birth being the deciding line.

OK cool, that's atleast consistent.
Just to be clear, you stated that you have no problem with the late term abortion of a healthy, viable infant at term for any reason correct?
Not trying to trap you or anything, just making sure that's your position.
If it is then I can't argue with your consistency.

My argument with this is obvious. If the infant had been born the day before (exact same infant) it would have full rights but since it is locationally still in the womb then no rights? Then there is nothing fundamental about the fetus allowing it to be a right bearer, rather like real estate it's about location, location, location.

Another hypothetical just to drive a finer point on your position. (not arguing, genuinely clarifying) If a woman was pregnant with twins, I assume you would feel it would be morally justifiable to deliver 1 and terminate the other immediately prior to delivery? Again your morality is your morality, just want to make sure I understand your position.

I'm a pragmatist. There are wayyyyyy too many starving kids living in abject poverty today to condone forcing an unwilling mother to carry to term.

Let's look at some of the other pragmatic results of forcing unwilling mothers to carry to term. Best case scenario, she comes to love the child and is glad she didn't have an abortion, but the kid still gets to live in the conditions the mother provides. If she's broke, the kid grows up in poverty. If she's well off, well bonus. But, what if the mom is a user? Maybe she just has anger management issue. Shaken baby syndrome anyone? What if she turns abusive? Neglectful? And, please, if you were considering going there, the "just put 'em up for adoption" argument is a sad, sad joke.

There are many, many reasons a woman might want an abortion and I'm betting "Oops, guess I should been more careful" is way down the list.

And, before you start conflating my morality with my opinion on abortion... I never said I would want a late term abortion or urge someone who doesn't want a late term abortion to have one. I simply would have no problem with them being legal. Personally, I think if you can't figure out what you want in the four or five months most laws allow, you probably never will and that late term abortions would mostly be done for the same reasons they're legally done today.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

OK cool, that's atleast consistent.
Just to be clear, you stated that you have no problem with the late term abortion of a healthy, viable infant at term for any reason correct?
Not trying to trap you or anything, just making sure that's your position.
If it is then I can't argue with your consistency.

My argument with this is obvious. If the infant had been born the day before (exact same infant) it would have full rights but since it is locationally still in the womb then no rights? Then there is nothing fundamental about the fetus allowing it to be a right bearer, rather like real estate it's about location, location, location.

Another hypothetical just to drive a finer point on your position. (not arguing, genuinely clarifying) If a woman was pregnant with twins, I assume you would feel it would be morally justifiable to deliver 1 and terminate the other immediately prior to delivery? Again your morality is your morality, just want to make sure I understand your position.

I'm a pragmatist. There are wayyyyyy too many starving kids living in abject poverty today to condone forcing an unwilling mother to carry to term.

Let's look at some of the other pragmatic results of forcing unwilling mothers to carry to term. Best case scenario, she comes to love the child and is glad she didn't have an abortion, but the kid still gets to live in the conditions the mother provides. If she's broke, the kid grows up in poverty. If she's well off, well bonus. But, what if the mom is a user? Maybe she just has anger management issue. Shaken baby syndrome anyone? What if she turns abusive? Neglectful? And, please, if you were considering going there, the "just put 'em up for adoption" argument is a sad, sad joke.

There are many, many reasons a woman might want an abortion and I'm betting "Oops, guess I should been more careful" is way down the list.

And, before you start conflating my morality with my opinion on abortion... I never said I would want a late term abortion or urge someone who doesn't want a late term abortion to have one. I simply would have no problem with them being legal. Personally, I think if you can't figure out what you want in the four or five months most laws allow, you probably never will and that late term abortions would mostly be done for the same reasons they're legally done today.

First:

• In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute anonymously surveyed 1,209 post-abortive women from nine different abortion clinics across the country. Of the women surveyed, 957 provided a main reason for having an abortion. This table lists each reason and the percentage of respondents who chose it.
  Percentage
  Reason
  <0.5%
  Victim of rape
  3%
  Fetal health problems
  4%
  Physical health problems
  4%
  Would interfere with education or career
  7%
  Not mature enough to raise a child
  8%
  Don't want to be a single mother
  19%
  Done having children
  23%
  Can't afford a baby
  25%
  Not ready for a child
  6%
  Other
  
• The state of Florida records a reason for every abortion that occurs within its borders each year. In 2015, there were 71,740 abortions in Florida. This table lists each reason and the percentage of abortions that occurred because of it.
  Percentage
  Reason
  .001%
  The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
  .065%
  The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
  .085%
  The woman was raped
  .288%
  The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
  .294%
  The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
  .666%
  There was a serious fetal abnormality
  6.268%
  The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
  92.330%
  No reason (elective)
  

Source: http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abo...tatistics/

Next,
Why assume that the child remains under the care of the mother? adoption and ward of the state are other potential options.
While poverty does exist in this country, I would argue in the USA starvation (as seen in 3rd world countries) is rare at best and if you have data that supports that abortions reduce that rate then I would be interested to hear them, Counterpoint
Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies.
Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201..._more.html

Regardless however, the moral (not legal) argument seems to be that kill more kids means less poverty? What is the moral distinction then between the fetus one second before delivery and the child one second after delivery? If you don't believe that a fetus is a right bearer then awesome, I have a seperate thread dedicated to that question as well.

There are a lot of If's that have little to do with abortion. A 2 year old might end up being sexually abused and scarred for life, kill them just in case? A 2 week old might end up being the next hitler (or trump!) kill them just in case? What is the joke with adoption? would you rather be in an orphanage or dead? more importantly should I get to decide if you are in an orphanage or dead? That is the more equivalent statement. An external power is determining if you are better off dead or possibly poor.

I live in the deep south - it's in the name.  I see as abject poverty as there is to be seen in the US, I;m also of asian heritage and have seen true 3rd world poverty. yet, I have seen happiness, joy, and love in all of these situations along side anger, hate, pain, and sufferring. These are the unfortunate truths of a universe that could care less about us. However just becuase you COULD have sufferring does not mean you WILL, and more important does not mean you can not have a life worth living.



I completely accept that moral permisibiity is not the same and advocacy. That said, what we believe should be allowed drives that which we allow.