[Puffer Fish]

Do you think the penalty for killing inside the womb should be less than killing outside the womb?
I mean when the killing took place without the woman's permission. Some other person came along and caused the fetus to die.



This question is mostly directed at pro-choicers.

And to further clarify for the sake of argument here, the fetus is at the furthest along stage of development where you think it is still okay for the woman to exercise her choice (if she so chooses).


Also suppose for the sake of argument here that a hypothetical situation exists where the fetus was killed, but the woman's body was otherwise not affected in any way (I don't want us to get distracted from the primary issue at hand).

Or, if you want to look at it another way, the perpetrator will already be punished separately for however his actions [directly] affected the woman. For example, maybe a man sucker punches a woman really hard in the belly. How much more should the punishment be if the woman happened to be pregnant at the time and it resulted in the fetus dying? That is the question.

The critical question I am trying to pull out from pro-choicers is how much do you think the value of an unborn life is worth?
I am trying to shed some light on the hypocrisy that it is so bad when the baby dies and the woman did want it, but pro-choicers try to make it out to be no big deal if the woman wanted to get rid of it.


Maybe this question might be a little too abstract for some, so let me try to outline a concrete example that could illustrate this philosophical issue:

Man #1 sneaks into an incubator room and kills an ultra-premature baby. The baby was born at only 22 weeks gestation (that's considered before "viability"). The doctors were not sure whether the baby was going to be able to pull through and make it.

Man #2 causes the baby to die while it is still growing inside its mother, 22 weeks into the pregnancy, same age.

Should the first man be punished more than the second man in this situation?
Would it be any different if the woman gave her permission?


To help focus on the point, maybe for the sake of hypothetical argument we can imagine there is advanced futuristic medical technology involved. With the push of a button, someone else can just make that fetus vaporize. The woman doesn't feel a thing. Ever see that Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror" (1967) ? They get trapped in an evil alternate universe. There's this piece of technology in Kirk's quarters with a viewing screen. At the press of a button Kirk's mistress could make anyone onboard the ship disappear.

[Puffer Fish]

Now some pro-choicers might reply: "If the woman is killed and the fetus dies, no additional penalties are necessary as a murder charge would already be forthcoming and should carry enough of a penalty in and of itself."

If the woman herself was killed, why should it matter whether she was pregnant or not? Why should there be any additional charges?

This might not even be murder per se, it could be reckless manslaughter. Why should the perpetrator be punished more severely if the victim was pregnant?

[Patrickov]

Man #1 sneaks into an incubator room and kills an ultra-premature baby. The baby was born at only 22 weeks gestation (that's considered before "viability"). The doctors were not sure whether the baby was going to be able to pull through and make it.

Man #2 causes the baby to die while it is still growing inside its mother, 22 weeks into the pregnancy, same age.

This one seems specific enough so I will take this.

Should the first man be punished more than the second man in this situation?

No, or at least not in the moral grounds. If the real outcome is yes I hope it is only a technicality which can be corrected.

Would it be any different if the woman gave her permission?

Yes, because the mother is actively involved here.

From the "pro-life" angle she's no longer a victim.

From the "pro-choice" angle this is no longer an assault.

[late]

From the "pro-choice" angle this is no longer an assault.

You need better lies.

[Patrickov]

You need better lies.

I am not saying that's bad or what.

The OP did make the precondition "the woman had given permission", so I thought he's referring to voluntary abortion.

If I had some misconception or exaggeration here I apologize. I didn't mean it.

Meanwhile, I admit that I see someone accusing me lying here to be a serious assault of my personality and I take it very hard.

[late]

I am not saying that's bad or what.

The OP did make the precondition "the woman had given permission", so I thought he's referring to voluntary abortion.

If I had some misconception or exaggeration here I apologize. I didn't mean it.

Meanwhile, I admit that I see someone accusing me lying here to be a serious assault of my personality and I take it very hard.

The American Kooky Right has been trying to say abortion is murder for a long time.

It looked to me like the argument was that aborting a fetus that could have survived was murder. We keep getting better at saving premies, which is a good thing. But they are trying to use that as a backdoor way to ban abortion using various goofball arguments.

If you were an innocent bystander, my apologies.

Back in the 80s, these people will killing doctors and nurses, and blowing up clinics. A result of that, I see them as barbarians that would love to kill again, if they thought they could still get away with it.

Monsters, like the rest of the Trump Cult.

[Puffer Fish]

This thread is proof that people don't really think about ethics logically.

[ingliz]

abortion is murder

Under European law, a foetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.

murder

The right to life (Article 2 ECHR)

The Commission's position is the 'right to life' concerns persons already born and cannot be applied to the foetus.

[Rancid]

So basically the OP is asking.

Why is it ok for a mother to kill and unborn baby, but not ok for anyone else.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you think the penalty for killing inside the womb should be less than killing outside the womb?
I mean when the killing took place without the woman's permission. Some other person came along and caused the fetus to die.

There is an argument that the killer, by forcefully aborting the fetus, deprived the pregnant person of their bodily autonomy. Perhaps there could be a punishment for that.

This question is mostly directed at pro-choicers.

And to further clarify for the sake of argument here, the fetus is at the furthest along stage of development where you think it is still okay for the woman to exercise her choice (if she so chooses).


Also suppose for the sake of argument here that a hypothetical situation exists where the fetus was killed, but the woman's body was otherwise not affected in any way (I don't want us to get distracted from the primary issue at hand).

Or, if you want to look at it another way, the perpetrator will already be punished separately for however his actions [directly] affected the woman. For example, maybe a man sucker punches a woman really hard in the belly. How much more should the punishment be if the woman happened to be pregnant at the time and it resulted in the fetus dying? That is the question.

The critical question I am trying to pull out from pro-choicers is how much do you think the value of an unborn life is worth?

I find this question is irrelevant. But if you wish, we can assume the fetus has the same rights and value as a born person.

I am trying to shed some light on the hypocrisy that it is so bad when the baby dies and the woman did want it, but pro-choicers try to make it out to be no big deal if the woman wanted to get rid of it.

The death of a person is awlays a big deal.

The question is whether or not this is a bigger deal than depriving the pregnant person of their bodily autonomy.

Maybe this question might be a little too abstract for some, so let me try to outline a concrete example that could illustrate this philosophical issue:

Man #1 sneaks into an incubator room and kills an ultra-premature baby. The baby was born at only 22 weeks gestation (that's considered before "viability"). The doctors were not sure whether the baby was going to be able to pull through and make it.

Man #2 causes the baby to die while it is still growing inside its mother, 22 weeks into the pregnancy, same age.

Should the first man be punished more than the second man in this situation?

Let us say “no”.You can charge both with murder, if you want.

Would it be any different if the woman gave her permission?

That would depend on what the pregnant person is giving permission for.

To help focus on the point, maybe for the sake of hypothetical argument we can imagine there is advanced futuristic medical technology involved. With the push of a button, someone else can just make that fetus vaporize. The woman doesn't feel a thing. Ever see that Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror" (1967) ? They get trapped in an evil alternate universe. There's this piece of technology in Kirk's quarters with a viewing screen. At the press of a button Kirk's mistress could make anyone onboard the ship disappear.

[Patrickov]

This thread is proof that people don't really think about ethics logically.

I don't see myself a normal-thinking person, so I am afraid that my posts do not represent other human beings in this case.

P.S. Just having some kind of nervous breakdown because I read the Wikipedia article on how your avatar died. A bit unsettling.

[ckaihatsu]

This "issue" is akin to other *unscientific* political cottage industries carved-out from a sleight-of-hand, and a deliberately skewed presentation of the objective situation, like Flat Earthers, all religions, etc.

These 'kooky' perspectives *do* serve a political purpose of *deflecting* political attentions away from what the *real* social reality happens to be -- regarding abortion, the politics is *reactionary* because it seeks to *societally* control a woman's body (Handmaid's Tale) from *without*, while *discarding* the woman's civil rights over her own body and her own biological process of reproduction, at her own discretion of if she wants it, or not.

Basically just ask yourself whose womb it is, and then take it from there.

[Godstud]

Abortions are not murder. If you think it is, then you just don't women to have control over their bodies and are a misogynist.

[ckaihatsu]

Supreme Court's split decision for abortion rights gives opponents an unlikely boost

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 624869002/

[Patrickov]

Abortions are not murder. If you think it is, then you just don't women to have control over their bodies and are a misogynist.

I disagree that "seeing (some) abortions as murder" means "belittling women".

1. All abortions are killing, but not all abortions are murder. Sometimes it is necessary to kill, but sometimes it's not. In the latter case, I don't think it is wrong to criticise women who do not make the necessary precautions, "accidentally" gets pregnant and, while capable of raising the child, chooses to abort, are irresponsible beings. I dare to say, they are being irresponsible to their own very body in the first place.

2. If the father of the said baby (or any other male for the argument's sake) is involved in the process then the man should share or even take the blame in his partner's stead.

[Rancid]

The obsession with anti-abortion is just baffling when there are just so many other more important things. That sounds cold, but that's far more honest than anti-abortion nuts. These are the same people that don't give a fuck about poor people, access to education, access to healthcare, but then they somehow claim moral superiority by caring about unborn and possibly unwanted babies. They pick this one thing to make themselves feel like they are morally good people, when clearly, they aren't. These people are moral grand stander morons, just like the SJWs.

Personally, I think the harder you are on the anti-abortion train, the more morally bankrupt you probably are in other parts of your life and beliefs. When people are so hard on one very specific cause/purpose, they tend to be frauds that are compensating for something.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]hey are being irresponsible to their own very body in the first place.

With this statement, you're ascribing personhood to the womb itself. You don't see this as being *problematic* at all -- ?

The obsession with anti-abortion is just baffling when there are just so many other more important things. That sounds cold, but that's far more honest than anti-abortion nuts. These are the same people that don't give a fuck about poor people, access to education, access to healthcare, but then they somehow claim moral superiority by caring about unborn and possibly unwanted babies. They pick this one thing to make themselves feel like they are morally good people, when clearly, they aren't. These people are moral grand stander morons,

Agreed.

just like the SJWs.

But why are you throwing Black-Lives-Matter kinds of people (black protestors) in with the far-right, fascist-type anti-abortionists -- ?

Personally, I think the harder you are on the anti-abortion train, the more morally bankrupt you probably are in other parts of your life and beliefs. When people are so hard on one very specific cause/purpose, they tend to be frauds that are compensating for something.

Agreed.

[Rancid]

But why are you throwing Black-Lives-Matter kinds of people (black protestors) in with the far-right, fascist-type anti-abortionists -- ?

I don't consider all BLM protestors to be SJWs (I'm using SJW in the pejorative/stereotype form). I'm sure some/many are, but not all.

My point here is that the psychological mechanisms that govern how zealots behave, left or right, is the same.

[late]

This thread is proof that people don't really think about ethics logically.

Absolutely.

But you know, ethics is like, hard. You have to be able to think and know stuff...

[Patrickov]

With this statement, you're ascribing personhood to the womb itself. You don't see this as being *problematic* at all -- ?

"ascribing personhood to the womb itself" is a false accusation and also reflects the poster's wrongfulness in recognising pregnancy itself and, by extension, women.

The majority of the pregnancy progresses in the womb, but it takes much more than the organ itself to sustain it. This is why Member Godstud and many others see the issue with respect to the whole body (and, by extension, person) in concern.

I am afraid that people who are not aware of the above poster's usual knowledgeable manner might see this tag question as trolling.