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

[tackattack]

---

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

Was genocide moral when Joshua perpetrated it on the people in the holy land?  Is homicide moral if we are killing a person who has gathered some twigs on the Sabbath?

Ok so  Genocide, patricide, and homicide all find legal and morally justifiable manifestations in our world but these connotations are reserved for the bad versions of each. Again, why can't I add feoticide to that list? I agree that person-hood isn't the trick, but did you have any comment on my example of justifiable feoticide?

Why do you engage with him on these issues but ignore me when I asked you?  :/

---

Sorry NV, it wasn't intentional to not engage, just missed in the scroll. I was attempting to navigate the topic without religiosity being thrown in. Homicide/genocide/killing is not moral, IMO , but can be justified or unjustified. Ie. I would kill to eat and feed my family. I would kill to prevent anaphylactic shock. I would kill to make a safer community. I would kill to defend myself or an individual unable to defend themselves. I would kill in war for an ideal. I would would have the moral weight of those killings on my conscience and the weights would differ based on my ideals and to the perceived value of the victim.

---

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

In modern times in developed countries, infanticide is illegal. The circumstances where an infant cant' be fed or cared for by someone are very rare in the world of people with easy internet access, so infanticide isn't different.

The obvious difference with foeticide is that a fetus is inside of a person and can't live outside of that particular person. That is a big and obvious difference from the other cases. Do we have a right to use force of law to compel someone to provide life support for the fetus and bring it to term? Should we imprison them to prevent them from obtaining the means of abortion? If we equate abortion with murder, do we investigate miscarriages as possible homicides? Do we treat the woman who has an abortion as a murderer and the abortion provider as a contract killer?

And all of those questions precede any question about whether a fetus is somehow a person with equal rights to the mother. Those are questions we have to access even if the fetus is considered a person.

---

You may not like the connotation, but abortion is murder/killing/ending a life if we deem that fetus qualifies as a life, whether able to be independent or not. Someone compared a fetus to a leech. If you burn off a leech and kill it, is it dead. That is some flavor of denoted murder. I think abortions and miscarriages are investigated as some form of killing. It's usually done by medical professions, not lawyers, and usually doesn't fall into the realm of ethics, nor is it usually more than a shallow causal finding. Would it be so much worse if that were seen as potentially criminal and at least taken more seriously than a check on a clipboard? What's the harm in investigating the reasons behind an abortion or miscarriage to ensure irresponsible behavior wasn't a factor, and holding people more accountable. If I punch a pregnant woman in the belly and kill her fetus I should be punished with murder of the fetus and assault on the mother. If she uses a coat hanger or a chair why shouldn't she at least be looked at for self-harm and murder?

What to compel is the question you bring up. It's the difference between not doing something and doing something harmful. I don't think law should compel people to do something against their will. I don't think science should do something harmful to someone without their consent as well. I see the difference in euthanasia more clearly. Why is it OK to pull the plug on someone but not to inject them with morphine till they die? I would answer, because one is NOT doing something to sustain life and the other IS doing something to harm life. I feel the same moral impetus on abortion. If you're pregnant and you want to kill it, it's on you to do the killing. I'm glad there are safer methods in science now for women to support that choice, but I don't morally agree with them.

---

Again, why can't I add feoticide to that list? I agree that person-hood isn't the trick, but did you have any comment on my example of justifiable feoticide?

Here's a hypothetical for you.

Let's say that there is a newborn baby whose mother died, that for some medical reason, needs to have a further 7 months of life support from an adult. The infant could be connected to this person's body, who would then be their life support.

Let's further say, that you are a perfect genetic match, and are the only person available to keep this baby alive for 7 months, so it could then live a full and normal life. Without you, the baby will not survive.

Would you be okay with the government mandating, by law, that you be connected to this infant for 7 months? Why, or why not?

---

No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.

---

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.

You have the legal killing of fully adult humans in your country don't you?

Shouldn't that be actual murder?

---

Yes I do and yes it does qualify as killing. It's justifiable, but there is legal and moral weight to that decision. With abortion I feel it should have the same moral and legal weight.