Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. With additional medical advances that timetable might move back to essentially 0 weeks. Without formula, babies would still absolutely need someone's nutrients to survive until 6 months.
The point is, while the law needs it to be binary, I don't think it's the same on moral grounds.
And I've heard your last point repeated plenty, but one should keep in mind while there's a significant overlap between the religious and the ultra fiscally conservative the Venn diagram isn't just one big circle.
Plenty of studies have found that religious people donate more to charities including nonreligious causes. There's also this: "A recent Barna Group survey found that 5 percent of practicing U.S. Christians – compared to 2 percent of all U.S. adults – have adopted children"
In my experience, if I found myself without a proverbial shirt on my back, I'd either go to a very religious person's house or someone that's quite (but not ultra) wealthy.
> Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not.
No need to try and force a binary where it can/should be avoided. The idea would be that if you seek an abortion the doctor will determine if the fetus can be removed alive instead. If it can, you can sign it over to the state, have it removed, and be on your way. The doctors will do their best to keep it alive, but certainly some of them wont make it. That happens all the time to babies who were wanted and who had a natural birth.
If the doctor determines that survival of the fetus isn't likely they can remove it without attempting to keep it alive. Like all medical decisions it would need to be at the discretion of the medical professional taking into account the unique conditions of those under his care. Needing formula isn't an issue since we have formula. Just like we have life support machines, incubators, medications, etc.
As for donating to charity, that's firstly a hugely inefficient way to get help to people, but more importantly it does not provide equal access to help either. It allows people to give primarily to their in-group, or provide aid only to people they want to support, regardless of how many others are in much greater need. Even if the giver isn't deliberately prioritizing anything over the level of need, aid is certain to end up inequality distributed with the charities that can advertise better or that are easier to access getting more funds.
Charitable giving is nice, but it's clearly no substitute for a national system that protects and provides for everyone, everywhere.
Even being born a few weeks early leads to significantly worse outcomes - the birthing ward at the hospital where my daughter was born had posters up warning of it. I thought that was weird because...you know, you're already there, but apparently it used to be fairly common for doctors to schedule induced labor earlier than they should have and for people to try to deliver earlier as it'd be easier on them.
When you get down to 26 weeks things get dire:
>In one study of 241 children born before 26 weeks' gestation the following was found:
22% severe disability (eg cerebral palsy + not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness)
24% moderate disability (eg cerebral palsy + walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment)
34% mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses)
20% no problems.
Any time you bring an unwanted child into the world there are going to be higher risks of the baby's life being ruined. Either the parents keep it, which is clearly going to lead to bad outcomes or it goes into foster care which increases the odds the child will be abused, be arrested, have mental/developmental issues, and become homeless, while also being less likely to complete high school, far less likely to have postsecondary education, less likely to be successful in their careers, etc.
Still, some people feel its better for a child to be born into suffering than to never be born at all.
The point is, while the law needs it to be binary, I don't think it's the same on moral grounds.
And I've heard your last point repeated plenty, but one should keep in mind while there's a significant overlap between the religious and the ultra fiscally conservative the Venn diagram isn't just one big circle.
Plenty of studies have found that religious people donate more to charities including nonreligious causes. There's also this: "A recent Barna Group survey found that 5 percent of practicing U.S. Christians – compared to 2 percent of all U.S. adults – have adopted children"
In my experience, if I found myself without a proverbial shirt on my back, I'd either go to a very religious person's house or someone that's quite (but not ultra) wealthy.
I'm a pro-choice atheist, for what it's worth.