You've got to understand, anti abortion people believe it is murder. This is akin to asking them "why do you care if some random person gets shot in south side Chicago?" It just isn't a line of discussion that makes any sense.
I am not 100% anti abortion, but I think it’s a bad thing.
The law said that at one day after birth if you kill a baby it’s murder but one day before it’s fine, do as you please it’s ’her choice’.
I think we are too far gone in that direction, a fetus still something, a human life in formation, damn you would face legal consequence if you mistreated a dog.
It doesn't seem like you've considered the possibility that a fetus with no consciousness being terminated may be more humane than forcing it into the hell of being raised by parents that don't want it or can't provide for it. More people should accept that what's going on inside someone else's body is none of their business.
The person you're responding to specifically said "one day before birth", I don't think you can find someone who credibly argues that a fetus at that stage is not a conscious human being. Whoever you're disagreeing with you're not responding to them.
Ok, well if he's only considering "one day before birth" scenarios he's gone reductio ad absurdum on the whole issue and he's also fighting a roughly nonexistent boogeyman. His own personal strawman, if you will.
It’s just a way to show that a fetus is still something. With pure materialist mindset we would say that it’s progressively closer to being a human as we get close to birth.
I find it strange that we get from zero value before birth to full human live once born and try to disregard the baby before birth.
I think we have to do a conscience examination, are we blind to something because it’s more convenient for us?
> I find it strange that we get from zero value before birth to full human live once born and try to disregard the baby before birth.
Do we though? Abortions statistics would show that progressively fewer abortions are performed the later the pregnancy, with 99% occurring before 21 weeks.
I think the person you’re replying to agrees with you; they were trying to intentionally be absurd. The only problem: a fetus is not a child, and this entire rhetorical strategy requires us to ignore that fact.
A fetus not a child, but concluding that it deserves no protection isn’t a foregone conclusion.
I mean people who injure a pregnant woman and it results in fetal death are criminally charged. So in that case we do consider it worthy of protection under the law.
Fetal death in those cases corresponds (or ought to correspond) to a projection of the actual victim’s wishes: harm to the fetus is exactly coextensive with harm to the pregnant person’s future plans for it.
That’s one of many sufficient conditions. Another is fetal viability, which is exactly why Roe allowed states to enact restrictions on late-term abortions.
Overall, we’re only having these conversations because a fetus has two simultaneous qualities: it bears visual resemblance to a human being, and it has the future potential to be a human being. We don’t concern ourselves nearly as much with sperm (no visual resemblance) or cakes shaped like babies (no future potential). Together, they deserve concern, but not overriding concern; that is reserved for the sole person in the equation.
But if I give birth to a 26 week premature baby, then kill it. That’s murder, but if I do while still in the womb I didn’t kill anything because the mother didn’t want it?
The logic fails, it literally the exact same life you’re ending. The difference is only the location and whether someone wants it.
What you’re identifying falls under viability as mentioned above, as well as basic independent self-regulation.
They’re not the same life, because they’re two different things: one is a premature newborn that we know can survive outside of a continuing pregnancy, and the other is a fetus that might survive. Unless you propose that we make all pregnant people deliver the moment their doctor believes that the fetus is viable (that seems like a bad state of affairs?), the two will remain different.
That makes no sense. A 26 week old premature baby that is born is still at a high risk of death. We don't know if it will survive. Yet we give it the full protection of any human being, but if one hour ago it was in the womb, we don't.
Murder is a holistic concept; it admits no possibility of fractionality. Ask yourself: what does it mean to do 60% of a murder?
Philosophers have, and will continue, to debate the sufficient conditions for humanity. But a conceptus meets none of them, nor does anything that is not independently viable.
I honestly don't care. 20 murders happened on the other side of the planet while I typed this comment. I think it's sad, but it doesn't affect my life in any material way.
Yes because it directly affects both my wife and my daughter. If either one chose to get an abortion I'd be very sad, but that's not a good reason to make something illegal.
Why is it important to you?