Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[tackattack]

---

You;d be wrong.  You employed the terms we use to denote instances of killing which -aren;t- legal or moral, but ofc there are instances of killing that would fit any of those that we do consider justifiable and can be legal.

Honestly, I'd say that a person who just "can't get" what sort of moral justifications there are for abortion isn't really unaware of there being such justifications..they just don't agree with them.

Broadly speaking, if having the child is worse than not having the child - then we consider not having the child the moral option..just like we do in any other example of an endless list of similar situations. If we can acknowledge that it;s possible for this situation to present itself, then wev'e acknowledged the moral defensibility and justification for abortion. We might still, for our own personal reasons, reject that option. To roll the dice and do the worse of the two..hope that things turn out better. That;s okay, obviously, as a decision a person makes for themselves.

---

The only difference between the ones I listed is the questionable personhood of the fetus, it was not an incorrect statement. Homicide is legally and morally wrong. It can be justified, but perhaps I was just injecting my opinion in a way to switch to that topic.

---

I still don't think genocide, matricide or homicide is considered moral or legal. What makes infanticide or feoticide any different?

I'm sure you already understand why. There is a fundamental disagreement on terminology and the status of a fetus before/after X amount of weeks that will most likely never be resolved.

---

I am, but why can't it be resolved?

How about this, abortions are illegal after fetus has reached X. Once X has been reached person may be charged with feoticide. If said person can not prove it was in justifiable self defense then penalty Y. That makes abortion legal, gives women their choice and makes killing a viable fetus illegal. If people would have to prove there was self-defense as with the case of varying degrees of homicide that seems to make the lines a little clearer at least, no?? Now whether it's constitutional to limit the freedoms of an individual, or control a person's private self is another subject altogether.