Enuja wrote:I want my morals to be able to control my decisions about my body.
And the point of the argument you were railing against was precisely that you do get to decide when the consequences are borne by your body. But in this case, if the baby is survivable when delivered, the consequences are no longer borne by your body, because either way your body will sever its connection with the baby.
The rest of the argument deals with something entirely different from the woman's body: the woman's right to euthanize her child if she feels it would be better than letting it live a suboptimal life, and it's also an argument that a lot of people have used in this thread, and I think it's not something the woman should have the power to choose for the child as a condition of severance from her body. If the argument of "reducing suffering" is valid, shouldn't we be letting people euthanize their born children if they're found to have lifelong health problems after they're born?
That quote from me was in the section of my post
about my reaction to your argument. The purpose of that section was to try to communicate why, given my morals and the morals of many posters in this thread
, your suggestion to deliver instead of abort is so abhorrent. I am quite aware that this argument won't convince you to change your mind: I was hoping that the argument would convince you that the right to late term abortions is emotionally important to many of the people arguing with you, for reasons that are internally consistent and follow from our axioms.
Personally (and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in this thread completely comfortable with this position) I am morally supportive of infanticide. However, that is not at all necessary to make my moral position internally consistent. After a full term birth, the contribution of the mother to the infant's future health can be replaced by anyone. Before the full term birth, only one person, the person whose uterus the fetus is inside, can give the fetus its best chance for a healthy future. Your suggestion to "simply" induce labor, pre-term, without a health advantage for the mother or the child, is currently impossible because it's ethically abhorrent to the medical profession. Inducing preterm labor is causing harm, and no ethical medical professional will do it just because someone wants to get rid of a fetus in her uterus. Ethical doctors will preform late-term abortions, but they will not induce labor as an alternative to abortion.
Your suggestion is a fiction, not a practical plan. Because almost all women who want "late-term" abortions don't want to increase the medical burden on neo-natal ICUs, the financial burden on the social safety net, or the number of health issues in the next generation of people in our society, if given only the choices to induce labor or carry the baby to term, these people (following the mainstream morals of our society) will carry the baby to term. Your suggestion would functionally outlaw abortion beyond 24 weeks.
FireZs wrote:And on the flip side, the cost of allowing abortions in any and all circumstances no matter how late, is that for the sake of moral purity, you allow the 0.001% of late-term-not-for-health-reasons abortions to go through that aren't really very justifiable, and what that does is that you give the pro-lifers a cudgel to hammer the 99.999% of early abortions that most people have no problem with. Your position is actually hurting the pro-choice cause for not that much gain.
FireZs wrote:And also, from my practical experience, when you insist that women abortions at 38 weeks must be allowed, the political reality is that you're going to lose people in the middle, and that just gives pro-lifers opening to potentially make their plans a reality.
First of all, when you are arguing that fetuses with a 50% chance of viability should be born instead of aborted, you're talking about embryos at about 24 weeks
, not at 38 weeks. Most fetuses at 38 weeks of gestation are not even "premature", because they have "reached the level of fetal development that generally allows life outside the womb" (quote from the Wikipedia article on preterm birth
). People in this thread are not arguing with you about 38 week fetuses.
More importantly, I am personally convinced that you've completely misread popular opinion, and opinions of the people you've talked to. As I explained above, it is against current medical ethics to induce premature labor without health reasons to do so. Most people would be horrified at the idea of greatly increasing a baby's health risk simply in order to give a person freedom from being pregnant. Your plan would greatly increase the public outcry against a woman's right to be able to be not pregnant.
I do not expect this post to chance your mind. Many people have tried to change you mind, and have failed. However, I do hope to help you understand that the people you are arguing with here do have internally consistent positions, that we aren't being willfully obtuse by rejecting your suggestion that all "late-term" abortions should simply be replaced with inducing premature labor.