4 ms·

> They believe fetuses are humans and that killing them is akin to murder, Unlike the woman carrying the fetus. In my state, abortion is illegal even if not a

> They believe fetuses are humans and that killing them is akin to murder, Unlike the woman carrying the fetus. In my state, abortion is illegal even if not aborting may cause the mother to die. This is pro life.

olalonde 2y ago
Technically, "not aborting" may always cause the mother to die since childbirth always carries some risk. But if you mean a case where the fetus is already dead, I doubt many people would oppose the abortion? What are their arguments? I genuinely can't think of any. Maybe this is just a case of the law being ambiguously written and doctors erring on the safer side?
- MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
  In my state abortion is illegal no matter the circumstances.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Which state is that? I thought the strictest laws at the moment were in Alabama, which does allow abortions in the case of a serious risk to the mother's life.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
That's the thing- Imagine you think killing fetuses is akin to murder. What response would you give to your own point? There is a huge list of counteragents someone could make if they start from that basis, and your counterpoint does nothing to impact them. Everyone is talking past each other with arguments which make sense to them, but are largely off target for the other person.
- deathanatos 2y ago
  … really? Let's say, for sake of argument, that a fetus is a life, equal in rights to that of a human. What counterpoint is there to support the argument that 2 dead is better than 1 dead?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    If you were faced with the choice of strangling a 2 year old or someone would kill you both, what would you choose? There are lots of ethical frameworks where it is better to both die than murder the child. That said, the situation posed by the OP was the the mother may die (e.g. there are risks). What percent shared risk of death do you think would justify strangling a 2 year old child? personally, Im pretty middle of the road on abortion and can understand where each side is coming from.
    - stahtops 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        direct answer to the question asked, with no abstraction whatsoever.
  - somerandomqaguy 2y ago
    I suppose if would depend on whether you believe that inaction leading to more death is more ethical then actively choosing to murder one life to save the other. Let's look at the same problem but swap out the actors. Say you have one man with a mortal wound to his heart, and another man with a mortal wound to his lungs. Both will probably die, both men have families, and neither wants to die. Is it ethical to murder one man without his consent and harvest the deceased's organs to save the other?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I would say no. Most religious moral systems would say no, as well as Kantian ethics. The only moral framework I know that would accept that is the strongest form of utilitarianism.

olalonde 2y ago

Technically, "not aborting" may always cause the mother to die since childbirth always carries some risk. But if you mean a case where the fetus is already dead, I doubt many people would oppose the abortion? What are their arguments? I genuinely can't think of any. Maybe this is just a case of the law being ambiguously written and doctors erring on the safer side?

MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
In my state abortion is illegal no matter the circumstances.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Which state is that? I thought the strictest laws at the moment were in Alabama, which does allow abortions in the case of a serious risk to the mother's life.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That's the thing- Imagine you think killing fetuses is akin to murder. What response would you give to your own point? There is a huge list of counteragents someone could make if they start from that basis, and your counterpoint does nothing to impact them. Everyone is talking past each other with arguments which make sense to them, but are largely off target for the other person.

deathanatos 2y ago
… really? Let's say, for sake of argument, that a fetus is a life, equal in rights to that of a human. What counterpoint is there to support the argument that 2 dead is better than 1 dead?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  If you were faced with the choice of strangling a 2 year old or someone would kill you both, what would you choose? There are lots of ethical frameworks where it is better to both die than murder the child. That said, the situation posed by the OP was the the mother may die (e.g. there are risks). What percent shared risk of death do you think would justify strangling a 2 year old child? personally, Im pretty middle of the road on abortion and can understand where each side is coming from.
  - stahtops 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      direct answer to the question asked, with no abstraction whatsoever.
- somerandomqaguy 2y ago
  I suppose if would depend on whether you believe that inaction leading to more death is more ethical then actively choosing to murder one life to save the other. Let's look at the same problem but swap out the actors. Say you have one man with a mortal wound to his heart, and another man with a mortal wound to his lungs. Both will probably die, both men have families, and neither wants to die. Is it ethical to murder one man without his consent and harvest the deceased's organs to save the other?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I would say no. Most religious moral systems would say no, as well as Kantian ethics. The only moral framework I know that would accept that is the strongest form of utilitarianism.