2 ms·

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 q

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
When I re-read your comment a second time I can see what your intent was a lot better. In this case it looks like we do agree and you raise a lot of good points. I do wonder whether we need to ask the question whether the cost is on society for raising the child though. Why can't we promote safe sex more? And if two consenting adults decide to not use condoms or any other birth control, should the impetus be on them instead of society in general (condom failures and other birth control mishaps aside)? But that's a separate argument and not part of what we were talking about here. I think reading through a lot of these other comments definitely got to me, and put me in a negative emotional state by the time I got to your comment. But after a couple hours, and re-reading your comments it seems like you're taking a well balanced approach, and I think that I could learn a thing or two from that :)
- dotnet00 4y ago
  I'm certainly in favor of promoting more safe sex (I would go as far as to say that this should be an important part of any abortion legalization policy) and I generally do agree that consenting adults should be responsible if they don't use protection. But the issue to me is that often it ends up also punishing the child, and while aborting the child is also a punishment for the child, I think it's the more acceptable solution since I don't really see a societal and cultural push (especially from the people generally pushing for an abortion ban) for alternative solutions for raising children not wanted by their parents. After all, no matter how much we teach safe sex, some people will still make mistakes and often pro-lifers treat having to raise the child as a fitting punishment for the parents, which obviously isn't all that respectful of the child's life either. And yes, I can understand getting into that mindset, which is why I generally avoid these discussions (on reddit for example) :) It gets pretty frustrating to see people emotionally arguing for extreme positions without attempting to at least understand the other position's emotions.

_gabe_ 4y ago

When I re-read your comment a second time I can see what your intent was a lot better. In this case it looks like we do agree and you raise a lot of good points. I do wonder whether we need to ask the question whether the cost is on society for raising the child though. Why can't we promote safe sex more? And if two consenting adults decide to not use condoms or any other birth control, should the impetus be on them instead of society in general (condom failures and other birth control mishaps aside)? But that's a separate argument and not part of what we were talking about here. I think reading through a lot of these other comments definitely got to me, and put me in a negative emotional state by the time I got to your comment. But after a couple hours, and re-reading your comments it seems like you're taking a well balanced approach, and I think that I could learn a thing or two from that :)

dotnet00 4y ago
I'm certainly in favor of promoting more safe sex (I would go as far as to say that this should be an important part of any abortion legalization policy) and I generally do agree that consenting adults should be responsible if they don't use protection. But the issue to me is that often it ends up also punishing the child, and while aborting the child is also a punishment for the child, I think it's the more acceptable solution since I don't really see a societal and cultural push (especially from the people generally pushing for an abortion ban) for alternative solutions for raising children not wanted by their parents. After all, no matter how much we teach safe sex, some people will still make mistakes and often pro-lifers treat having to raise the child as a fitting punishment for the parents, which obviously isn't all that respectful of the child's life either. And yes, I can understand getting into that mindset, which is why I generally avoid these discussions (on reddit for example) :) It gets pretty frustrating to see people emotionally arguing for extreme positions without attempting to at least understand the other position's emotions.