[RD] Abortion is either murder or not. You can't have it both ways.

[Arwon]

Yes, a killer can be charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman. I'm fine with that in pre-meditated, first degree murder cases. I feel less comfortable when it's double charges related to an accident (as an example, a driver was reckless, but didn't set out with a purpose to kill people)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Note, it specifically excludes abortion.

Honestly "causing the loss of a foetus" offences are a different axis of law and attempts to confuse the abortion issue using them are pretty disingenuous.

They can be, and at best are, constructed with focus on the harms to the person who has lost the foetus, rather than constituting an independent crime of assault or homicide against an unborn victim (the unborn being traditionally excluded as valid victims of such offences under the born alive rule).

 

[stinkubus]

Legal authorities in the US do not share your perception. Prosecutors have been attempting to charge women who accidentally induce miscarriages for years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019...scarriage-murder-abortion-chelsea-becker-news

 

[Robo-Star]

The right to life is the right to not be killed, it is not the "right to not die". If the child was already dying, perhaps from a terrible accident involving a violin, then taking back the kidney credit card would merely return the child to their original dying state. As you are not responsible for their dying state, you are not obligated to them.

If the child were already being killed, perhaps by inducing some kind of organ failure, and you were not responsible for their state of being killed, would you not still be obligated to them?

 

[Arwon]

Legal authorities in the US do not share your perception. Prosecutors have been attempting to charge women who accidentally induce miscarriages for years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019...scarriage-murder-abortion-chelsea-becker-news

The sort of thing that's best avoided, the people who made those laws are evil bastards

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And this simply provides me with more evidence that "pro-life" people simply don't give a **** about life, what they really care about is controlling and devaluing women \

Or to put it slightly differently: the admittance of valid "balancing factors" means that pro-life people do not consider women's health, autonomy, etc. as "balancing factors." Why wouldn't they consider those things to be balancing factors?

They think that women need to be blamed and punished if they don't keep having healthy babies that nobody else has to be concerned with. Their own physical and mental health is irrelevant, and if either or both prevents them from carrying a fetus to term and/or providing the necessaries of life, it's obviously their own fault.

So much for "it takes a village to raise a child".

 

[Akka]

Your parents decision is what makes you a human. Everyone is here because their parents make a choice. Had they chose to abort you (or be more careful about sex) you wouldn't be.

No, their decision is what caused me to exists, but their opinion has no influence on me being or not a human being once I existed. They only get choices and decisions about the process.

 

[El_Machinae]

If the child were already being killed, perhaps by inducing some kind of organ failure, and you were not responsible for their state of being killed, would you not still be obligated to them?

These analogies will always break down in practice, because removing life support is only done by damaging the fetus in order to remove it.

There is no conundrum if the fetus has neutral moral value at the time. But if we're pretending that the fetus is a person, it just doesn't work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And if both parents carry the gene for a deadly disease like Batten's disease (a rare, fatal, neurodegenerative disease that kills children slowly after 4-7 years) and if the 25% chance for the child to be afflicted rolls up, republicans want that child born.

 

[João III]

just wanted to say that while i know our conclusions are different (iirc), i appreciate you taking the violinist argument into account. <3

Blah blah blah, some things are conventional and natural, therefore I may do them without any real examination of what's actually occurring.

The "blah blah blah" says it all really

Nonsensical reasoning worthy of the conservative supreme court! But funny because of course this logic allows any and all killing as everyone, without exception, is naturally dying and naturally will end up dead.

A predictable, intentional misinterpretation from Lexicus

Fascinating. Do you think maybe you're on a confirmation bias spiral?

But the pro-life movement must be based on misogyny, there is no other explanation! And don't listen when someone tells you different, they're just a misogynist trying to hide all their misogyny!

These analogies will always break down in practice, because removing life support is only done by damaging the fetus in order to remove it.

Personally, I would expect dismemberment is not required to cancel the credit card


As an aside, I'm not particularly interested in too many replies or lengthy responses here. Too many (not all!) members of this forum are close-minded and not at all interested in any sort of discussion; and not just in this thread. It's exhausting and why I need to take a break from this forum at times. Maybe there needs to be a new thread prefix to denote which threads are for those who just want to pat each other on the back, tell each other how smart they are, and generally just agree on everything. Otherwise, I do appreciate those who actually show an interest in honest discussion and exchanging ideas

 

[Lexicus]

A predictable, intentional misinterpretation from Lexicus

Like clockwork, you claim to be intentionally misintepreted but provide no explanation as to what the correct interpretation would be, nor any evidence that the alleged misinterpretation was intentional.

Fascinating. Do you think maybe you're on a confirmation bias spiral? I mean, I won't convince you in real time.

No, I don't think I'm on a confirmation bias spiral. I just can't help but notice an issue when people do not adhere to the principle of strict concern/respect for "human life" that they claim motivates their anti-abortion views.

Most conservatives who oppose abortion do not merely accept death under other sets of circumstances - they demand it, support it, want it. I'm not going to pretend it's coincidence that the one area where life suddenly becomes sacrosanct is the one area that also involves minutely controlling women's behavior.

 

[Robo-Star]

These analogies will always break down in practice, because removing life support is only done by damaging the fetus in order to remove it.

There is no conundrum if the fetus has neutral moral value at the time. But if we're pretending that the fetus is a person, it just doesn't work.

My point was that if lack of responsibility entails lack of obligation ("the child was already dying") then one has no obligation regarding abortions one is not responsible for.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I don't think I'm on a confirmation bias spiral. I just can't help but notice an issue when people do not adhere to the principle of strict concern/respect for "human life" that they claim motivates their anti-abortion views.

Most conservatives who oppose abortion do not merely accept death under other sets of circumstances - they demand it, support it, want it. I'm not going to pretend it's coincidence that the one area where life suddenly becomes sacrosanct is the one area that also involves minutely controlling women's behavior.

I see. Though you've switched from "pro-life" (with quote marks) to 'conservatives who oppose abortion'. It could be that your quote marks around 'pro-life' indicate that you're actually talking about someone other than just someone who is pro-life, but a subset of the anti-choice crowd. Or maybe you're only talking about the leaders of the political movement) In other words, I'm usually talking about someone who actually believe that the fetus is a(n innocent) person worth protecting and has to build a messy set of compromises from there, rather than whatever construct you seem to mean. We could create a unique word.

Part of this is a bit of a Vizzini puzzle on my end. Consider a couple of things that I know: you and I both hold that collateral damage is sometimes necessary in a conflict (though we'll disagree about specific applications thereof), and you and I both know that lying about the opponent's politics can create a type of collateral damage. Now, I don't think it's useful to actually misunderstand the opponent (or mischaracterize them in my head), even if I know that some people will feel the need to mischaracterize them once the discussion is public rather than strategizing among the in-group. So, some of this is trying to figure out if you're going to lie to us on purpose (for a greater goal) and some of this is wondering if you actually don't understand pro-life people. Or, I guess, you might be conflating concepts without us realizing.

My point was that if lack of responsibility entails lack of obligation ("the child was already dying") then one has no obligation regarding abortions one is not responsible for.

Ah, yeah, I totally missed that. I dunno if my answer is useful, even if it's true. We tend to value 'stopping bad people' more highly than 'preventing suffering'. The person who'd walk past a thousand drowning babies will tackle someone about to toss a baby into a pool

 

[Senethro]

As an aside, I'm not particularly interested in too many replies or lengthy responses here.

How can you get exhausted saying "It's natural" with no further justification or insight? Its saying nothing at all.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Its wrong to use that language, its not wrong to oppose abortion on grounds of the sex of the fetus.

that depends on whether the abortion happens before or after the general cutoff point for abortions.

if you allow abortions before a certain point in gestation, any reason is valid, and legally the fetus is not yet a person. regardless of gender. that is the logical conclusion.

though i also understand the stance of not agreeing with it, but also not making it illegal to do wrt some points during gestation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@TheMeInTeam Where does an ectopic pregnancy fall in your thinking?

 

[miaasma]

we could just legalize murder so this topic can finally be put to rest

 

[schlaufuchs]

Forget ectopic pregnancy, what about this logical endpoint of his reasoning

All citizens are deputized to merk anybody performing or seeking an abortion in the name of the fetus.

 

[Angst]

we could just legalize murder so this topic can finally be put to rest

Murder can really never be legal. Because it's a technical category of killing that I've never seen to be legal anywhere; it's a legal category of no-no.

Legal killing can be extended tho. Already have plenty of that. x)

 

[Hygro]

we could just legalize murder so this topic can finally be put to rest

Legalize and tax!

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh great, now I need to cryo-store embryos in North Carolina as well and prep my lawsuit for their voting rights when they turn 19.