3 ms·

I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. It's so politically charged and yet im

I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. It's so politically charged and yet impossible to clearly discuss in any significant detail, thus the situation we find ourselves in. I think it's better to just accept that abortion is prematurely terminating a life and thus the primary consideration should be the cost the parents and/or society can pay. Can society afford the cost of raising unwanted children and of the cycle of abuse that often comes along? and similarly, can society afford the cost of the lifestyle that makes people choose abortion to focus on other things? These things are much easier to discuss. As a 'bonus' this framework also handles the justification for countries which have legal abortion except with restrictions like barring abortions after sex determination. There seems to be a large agreement that abortion within the first trimester is acceptable, so I think that while it's terrible that it has to happen, society on average currently puts the line between the first and second trimesters for where the costs of both sides balance out, such that even if the fetus could be teleported into an artificial womb, an unconditional abortion should be acceptable. I think the artificial womb point only works if it also somehow erases society's burden of raising the child. I used to think that "abortion is rarely a happy decision but is still sometimes necessary" was the consensus position so it was pretty odd to me when I first became aware of the state of debate over it in the US.

_gabe_ 4y ago
> I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. I guess since this is your opinion I can't say it's wrong, but I can strongly suggest that this opinion is wrong. Is abortion the killing of a child? If it is not then why does a state like California have laws written about double homicide that say: > defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. [0] If we already have laws like this in a state as liberal as California, then clearly the argument that an abortion is murder is reasonable. Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that she didn't actually lose a child? She just lost a fetus after all, so it's not like there's much to grieve about. Or would you say that a woman that had her unborn baby killed while having some sort of altercation or accident isn't entitled to prosecute the perpetrator? If she has the right to pursue legal action against somebody, then there is clearly some sort of "precedent" about an unborn child having rights. This is an argument that can and should be explored further instead of dismissed since it's a "touchy subject". The law is full of hard truths, and it's our responsibility to explore these to make sure we're not carrying out injustice. [0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx#State%20Laws https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-la...
- tensor 4y ago
  These were already discussed, already ruled on, and already decided. Just because you don't like where society landed doesn't mean "we haven't explored it" and it doesn't mean that your wishes are some sort of "hard truth." These sorts of inconsistencies in the law can easily be sorted out. If the fetus is not a human with rights yet then if another person terminates it (against the mothers wishes) then you've clearly harmed the mother. This is literally the same argument for abortion, under some development threshold of X months, its called healthcare. As I said, this same discussion has happened for the last 20 years. I'm never going to be swayed to your side on this. Maybe this is all novel for you. But nothing you said is new to me and I just don't care to debate it or discuss it. I completely understand you point of view, but I disagree and will continue to disagree and fight for women's health and rights.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  By saying that it's the wrong path, I'm not trying to deny that it's a human (or at least a potential human) being killed, what I'm saying is that asking that question isn't too relevant to the issue. I think that California treats killing a pregnant woman as double homicide to make it a harsher punishment rather than the other way around. >Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that she didn't actually lose a child? She just lost a fetus after all, so it's not like there's much to grieve about. I think it's slightly ironic you would suggest this, because my position is based on the belief that abortions are often just as emotionally difficult for parents as miscarriages. In which case it's equally insensitive to tell a woman who just had to abort a child from rape (or alternatively, due to a life threatening condition) that she is a murderer. To further clarify my position, we can look at the two answers to the question "Is it murder to kill a fetus?": 1. It is murder. In this case, the surface level position would be that abortion should be illegal. But then we get to details and usually people are fine with allowing it in certain cases. Thus making murder acceptable in specific circumstances, making abortion about which circumstances are acceptable. 2. It isn't murder. In this case, the surface level position would be that abortion should be legal. But then we run into the examples you presented. Thus once again making abortion about which circumstances are unacceptable. So in the end, as far as abortion is concerned, it does not matter if it is or is not murder, because the specific issue to be figured out is which circumstances are acceptable/unacceptable in a practical way (rather than the unrealistic ideological proposals that usually fly around due to the simple answers to "Is it murder to kill a fetus?" both being very extreme).

_gabe_ 4y ago

> I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. I guess since this is your opinion I can't say it's wrong, but I can strongly suggest that this opinion is wrong. Is abortion the killing of a child? If it is not then why does a state like California have laws written about double homicide that say: > defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. [0] If we already have laws like this in a state as liberal as California, then clearly the argument that an abortion is murder is reasonable. Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that she didn't actually lose a child? She just lost a fetus after all, so it's not like there's much to grieve about. Or would you say that a woman that had her unborn baby killed while having some sort of altercation or accident isn't entitled to prosecute the perpetrator? If she has the right to pursue legal action against somebody, then there is clearly some sort of "precedent" about an unborn child having rights. This is an argument that can and should be explored further instead of dismissed since it's a "touchy subject". The law is full of hard truths, and it's our responsibility to explore these to make sure we're not carrying out injustice. [0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx#State%20Laws https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-la...

tensor 4y ago
These were already discussed, already ruled on, and already decided. Just because you don't like where society landed doesn't mean "we haven't explored it" and it doesn't mean that your wishes are some sort of "hard truth." These sorts of inconsistencies in the law can easily be sorted out. If the fetus is not a human with rights yet then if another person terminates it (against the mothers wishes) then you've clearly harmed the mother. This is literally the same argument for abortion, under some development threshold of X months, its called healthcare. As I said, this same discussion has happened for the last 20 years. I'm never going to be swayed to your side on this. Maybe this is all novel for you. But nothing you said is new to me and I just don't care to debate it or discuss it. I completely understand you point of view, but I disagree and will continue to disagree and fight for women's health and rights.
dotnet00 4y ago
By saying that it's the wrong path, I'm not trying to deny that it's a human (or at least a potential human) being killed, what I'm saying is that asking that question isn't too relevant to the issue. I think that California treats killing a pregnant woman as double homicide to make it a harsher punishment rather than the other way around. >Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that she didn't actually lose a child? She just lost a fetus after all, so it's not like there's much to grieve about. I think it's slightly ironic you would suggest this, because my position is based on the belief that abortions are often just as emotionally difficult for parents as miscarriages. In which case it's equally insensitive to tell a woman who just had to abort a child from rape (or alternatively, due to a life threatening condition) that she is a murderer. To further clarify my position, we can look at the two answers to the question "Is it murder to kill a fetus?": 1. It is murder. In this case, the surface level position would be that abortion should be illegal. But then we get to details and usually people are fine with allowing it in certain cases. Thus making murder acceptable in specific circumstances, making abortion about which circumstances are acceptable. 2. It isn't murder. In this case, the surface level position would be that abortion should be legal. But then we run into the examples you presented. Thus once again making abortion about which circumstances are unacceptable. So in the end, as far as abortion is concerned, it does not matter if it is or is not murder, because the specific issue to be figured out is which circumstances are acceptable/unacceptable in a practical way (rather than the unrealistic ideological proposals that usually fly around due to the simple answers to "Is it murder to kill a fetus?" both being very extreme).