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

[AmazonQueen]

I think the OP raises a good point. They're not murdering baby girls. They're selectively birthing boys. Different, but similar concepts. Some of this is a meme-war, where perceived hypocrisy loses points.



As long as they're only vilifying the societal pressure. I am quite hesitant to vilify a woman's choice with regards to what she chooses to carry. A woman doesn't owe 'society' a certain type of baby. A society owes a woman the ability to make the choices she wants.

It would be a mistake to assume that its usually the womens free choice.

 

[Narz]

If you say a fetus isn't a person, so it cant be murder, are you also against charging an actual killer with two murders when he/she kills a pregnant woman?

The right to choose: you choose personhood for your fetus instead of abortion, the killer of you gets one count of murder, one count of pre-murder

I'd say two counts of murder. As soon as the mother decides to keep the fetus it becomes a person.

 

[Senethro]

I'm kind of ok with the apparent inconsistency of the termination of a fetus intended to be brought to term as murder. As it resides within a person, I'd rather there not be any perverse incentives or loopholes that are "soft" on what you might call involuntary termination.

As trauma/injury to the fetus is going to necessarily involve a level of risk (or threat of such) to the woman carrying it, it is appropriate to regard it as a serious violent crime.

 

[RobAnybody]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - these issues are incedibly complex and difficult. I don't think it's unreasonable to say you oppose abortion but understand why, in the circumstances you describe it is the lesser of two evils - in effect the person carrying out the act of rape or incest is the murderer in this scenario.

Well no, if abortion=murder (again, not what I actually believe) then clearly the rapist is not the murderer. The doctor is, just like with any other abortion.

No one goes around saying "I oppose murder but it's OK to murder a random innocent person if a criminal assaulted you a few weeks ago", so similarly I just don't understand this exception.

 

[Samson]

We do sex selective abortion quite a bit when under stress, but against boys not girls. It seems to me the best way to prevent the use of elective abortion to birth more boys than girls is to alter the incentive structure so having baby girls is not an economic burden.

 

[AmazonQueen]

We do sex selective abortion quite a bit when under stress, but against boys not girls. It seems to me the best way to prevent the use of elective abortion to birth more boys than girls is to alter the incentive structure so having baby girls is not an economic burden.

I wouldn't disagree with you but thats quite the feat of social engineering to achieve. I suppose selective abortion is better than female infanticide which used to be common the world over. Yay, progress

 

[El_Machinae]

It would be a mistake to assume that its usually the womens free choice.

I am not. I think that wanting clarity in targeting the vilification is a clear indication otherwise.

Sex selection is an indication of a cultural problem. So, you can't present the fetus as a victim. In fact, birthing a girl into a deeply misogynistic society isn't something I would recommend.

It is hard to describe the problem. But it seems to be mostly birthing boys into a deeply misogynistic society. Although, I am then assuming-in misogyny. If it is being done for different reasons like thinking that one sex will give advantage in the future, creating a sex imbalance is just a bad idea. It could be that you're aborting people that would thrive because they would become a scarce commodity in the future. Zigging when everyone else is zagging.

Well no, if abortion=murder (again, not what I actually believe) then clearly the rapist is not the murderer. The doctor is, just like with any other abortion.

No one goes around saying "I oppose murder but it's OK to murder a random innocent person if a criminal assaulted you a few weeks ago", so similarly I just don't understand this exception.

A prolifer making an exception for rape is them acknowledging at least some of the argument about undue burden, an innocent person has to die in order to prevent the enslavement of the woman. It isn't inconsistent, because pregnancy from rape is quantifiably different from accidental pregnancy which is quantifiably different from intentional pregnancy. At least when you're making moral judgment.

 

[Akka]

I'd say two counts of murder. As soon as the mother decides to keep the fetus it becomes a person.

Sorry, but that makes no sense, and is even pretty creepy, that someone else can decide if you're a person or not.
Either the unborn is a person or not (or it can be considered it's a person from some point, i.e. after a certain time of pregnancy, but as the OP said, it needs at least some consistency). It can't just change depending on how someone felt about.

As an aside : does it means that in US, killing an pregnant woman is considered double murder ?
Or was it just some theorical point ?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, regardless, someone else is deciding if you're a person or not. I mean, if a law is being applied. It's weird to think that a bunch of men in a chat room can decide personhood but a mother cannot. That said, I agree that it's a legal decision and not a personal decision on the mother's part.

This is where American common law is so frustrating. Well, and the intensity of the abortion debate in the United States. I think literally zero people have a problem with considering it a double murder in their heads. But oh goodness, you need to write that law correctly without creating a slippery slope. We intuitively hold it as more heinous.

I am not sure that making it a greater crime will have the greater deterrent effect. Making it a greater crime is more theatre for everybody watching the story.

 

[João III]

Then they should change their language.

I think if you want to talk about the use of language, perhaps you should also look at the label of "pro-choice". It's a turn of phrase that only works in context and is pretty meaningless without it. Clearly pro-choice doesn't mean pro any choice but rather a very specific choice. For example, how many pro-choice folks are in favor of people having the choice to bear arms? Is the NRA a pro-choice organization? "Pro-choice" as a label only exists because the label of pro-abortion would be seen as negative and propaganda's all about being positive

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sex selection is an indication of a cultural problem. So, you can't present the fetus as a victim. In fact, birthing a girl into a deeply misogynistic society isn't something I would recommend.

China has been experiencing the problem with sex selection with an over abundance of young men now seeking wives and an increase in young, more independent, women who do not want to get married.

 

[João III]

China has been experiencing the problem with sex selection with an over abundance of young men now seeking wives and an increase in young, more independent, women who do not want to get married.

I believe India is also experiencing a similar situation of an overabundance of young men

 

[El_Machinae]

It's an indication that women are perceived as being less valuable, but it's not something that will be necessarily solved by pressuring women to birth more girls.

I think if you want to talk about the use of language, perhaps you should also look at the label of "pro-choice". It's a turn of phrase that only works in context and is pretty meaningless without it. Clearly pro-choice doesn't mean pro any choice but rather a very specific choice. For example, how many pro-choice folks are in favor of people having the choice to bear arms? Is the NRA a pro-choice organization? "Pro-choice" as a label only exists because the label of pro-abortion would be seen as negative and propaganda's all about being positive

"Pro-choice" is specifically about abortion (it wasn't, for example, about whether you were allowed to refuse nanolipids in your ovaries). To clarify otherwise would require more words, though. "Pro-abortion" doesn't capture the sentiment, either. In fact "choice" is a better word. You find, similarly, "pro-life" is an unclear description.

But, I think that we have to remember that these words were invented by the same people who said "the post-moderinst era" is something that's now in the past. So, they're just not very good at words.

 

[RobAnybody]

A prolifer making an exception for rape is them acknowledging at least some of the argument about undue burden, an innocent person has to die in order to prevent the enslavement of the woman. It isn't inconsistent, because pregnancy from rape is quantifiably different from accidental pregnancy which is quantifiably different from intentional pregnancy. At least when you're making moral judgment.

So, similarly, if you give your money to charity or accidentally lose your money, you aren't allowed to murder an innocent person to get their money & remove your financial burden. But if you are assaulted & robbed, then a few weeks later you can murder an innocent person to recoup your money & remove your undue burden & that's just fine. Sucks for that innocent person I guess, but gotta make exceptions for assault & robbery.

 

[El_Machinae]

If I steal your credit card and use it to sponsor a child (who'll die without that sponsorship), are you allowed to cancel your card?

 

[Narz]

Sorry, but that makes no sense, and is even pretty creepy, that someone else can decide if you're a person or not.

That's just how it goes. If you aren't morning after pilled or aborted someone is deciding you're a person.

 

[Absolution]

If murder means killing a human, and a fetus is, in my opinion, a kind-of-human, or almost-human - than abortion can be almost murder.
I don't agree with the binary here.
Binary on the defenition of murder makes sense for logic of lawmakers and lawyers, but for the language of the people - I prefer a more flexible and scalable meaning.

And yet, the tag that is given to abortion on the scale of murder should not change our opinion on abortion.
I don't like using a deliberate terminology in order to promote ideas.
Let's call things the way they seem, and think seperatley on our opinions about them.

Abortion can be murder and still be ok; or it can be not murder and still be a crime.

My personal view is that it is part-murder, rightfully hard to swallow depending on the progress and week; but still a reasonable decision to make in some cases.
This is as for the parents decision, and I also don't see why any law should be imposed on them.

 

[Akka]

That's just how it goes. If you aren't morning after pilled or aborted someone is deciding you're a person.

Someone is deciding that they want you to become a person. They aren't the ones deciding if you're a person or not - though you might already be one in their eyes. But how they view you has no bearing on what you actually are.

 

[Absolution]

Someone is deciding that they want you to become a person. They aren't the ones deciding if you're a person or not - though you might already be one in their eyes. But how they view you has no bearing on what you actually are.

1. In a world where genders and identities are fluid, why can't one's humanhood be a matter of identification?
2. If a creature doesn't yet have a concious mind, can't his identity be determind by his surroundings?

Combine the two and it should be ok that parents decide that a fetus is a human.

---

I don't know if I support what I've just posted, but I'm just playing around with logic.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If a creature doesn't yet have a concious mind, can't his identity be determing by his surrounding?

Are you supporting granting personhood to elephants, dolphins, parrots and crows?