[orwin]

Yes, and abortion means intent, which is an aggravating factor. Is killing an infant a mitigating factor? Killing someone with a genetic handicap? Maybe in case of 'threat to the life of the mother', you can argue for 'self-defense', but still, you would have to be judged. And that still leaves malformation, viability, rape and incest for which I don't find any moral mitigation tbf (and also leave the 'right of the father to see his kid' question up in the air).

> the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, viability, or threat to the life of the mother.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially if you count as rape removing the condom when the lady asked not to. And if you only count abortion after first heartbeat, 8 weeks (I don't, to me the limit should be 'when it can live out of the uterus'), at least in France, it's even the vast, vast minority. The number in the US should be different (50% of abortion here are for people already with children, vs 30% in the US, 32% are for women aged 14-29, vs almost 50 in the US), but that's probably because you don't do sex ed in some part of your country. Which would be a non-coercing, liberty-preserving way to reduce abortions btw.

[lliamander]

> Yes, and abortion means intent, which is an aggravating factor.

What is the "intent" exactly? If a young woman has been propagandized by the surrounding culture into thinking the child growing inside her is nothing more than a clump of cells more akin to a tumor or parasite, the mental state she has when she has an abortion is much different then if she is aware of the full moral gravity of what she is doing.

> Is killing an infant a mitigating factor? Killing someone with a genetic handicap?

No, obviously.

> Maybe in case of 'threat to the life of the mother', you can argue for 'self-defense', but still, you would have to be judged.

Clear cases of self-defense rarely go to trial. It would be very rare that cases of medically necessary abortion would ever go before a judge.

> And that still leaves malformation, viability, rape and incest for which I don't find any moral mitigation tbf

Why wouldn't those be mitigating factors? There's no reason to think that (for example) a teen girl who was raped would be judged as harshly as a 30 year-old woman who intentionally had unprotected sex.

> I wouldn't be so sure about that...

That's a potentially interesting side debate, but I'll just say for now that as long as non-neglible number of children saved, a broad abortion ban that permits those limited exceptions would be a win.

> (I don't, to me the limit should be 'when it can live out of the uterus')

If you have a moral theory that justifies that position, please share. Because in my experience that's probably the most unprincipled position in the broader abortion debate.

[orwin]

> What is the "intent" exactly? If a young woman has been propagandized by the surrounding culture into thinking the child growing inside her is nothing more than a clump of cells more akin to a tumor or parasite, the mental state she has when she has an abortion is much different then if she is aware of the full moral gravity of what she is doing.

If they think it's murder, it's murder. Full stop. They can put everyone in psych wards if they want to, but it is still what i said at first, either really self-serving or delusional.

> It would be very rare that cases of medically necessary abortion would ever go before a judge.

In most cases, it does not pose a 100% clear cut threat to the life of the woman, so it isn't really clear self-defense. A threat to her reproductive capacity very often, sometimes a threat to her internal organs, leaving her unable to walk for long durations and forcing her to stay laying down for years (or for life when unable to survive[0] the necessary surgery), and sometime a high risk of death, but never 100%. All those would have to pass in front of a judge, don't you think?

> Why wouldn't those be mitigating factors?

"Moral mitigation". Murder is murder. I agree there would be legal one. And even in the case of murdering an abuser, you would have to go in prison, so if abortion is murder, you would to. So would the doctor, and doctor assistants. Wouldn't matter anyway, because how the doctor are supposed to know this is a rape? Judges would have to decide that, and if they decide it is not, the MD is liable for direct murder. The best for them is to avoid taking that risk altogether.

> If you have a moral theory that justifies that position, please share.

Yes, to me, letting die is not the same as murdering. First I don't think anybody really think that prior to at least heartbeat, the foetus can be considered alive (to me it's brainwaves that does it, but my mum took care of a person without any for years as a nurse, which formed my opinion, i don't begrudge people thinking it's heartbeat). But even if you do, i do not accept that anybody should be legally or even morally liable for letting anything die, even a full adult human, if trying to prevent this death would cost human suffering. Murder however, is morally reprehensible even in self-defense (Manslaughter in self-defense isn't though).

[0] Or pay if she's in the US and terminated and lost insurance due to her inability to work :)