[cko]

I'm pro choice, but let me play devil's advocate.

If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?

So for some people it's not that simple.

[therealpygon]

Yet they often have no problem with destroying life that doesn’t share a common DNA sequence? An interesting morality basis.

[h3half]

I must be misunderstanding because that seems like the most common morality basis in the world. People who equate running over a squirrel in the road to vehicular manslaughter (as if you had hit a human child) are seen as extremists, and someone who was OK with hunting deer as well as humans would be seen as having some sort of mental condition. The majority view is that species matters

[therealpygon]

I’m all aboard for that when it is something that exists in our world as the same species rather than a collection of DNA. It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after, all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied. Further, the claimed examples of “protection” were only examples of things resolved by punishment, not protection, which is telling about what goal is truly fundamental.

[hellojesus]

> It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after

I think the entire reason the parent is punished is because it is not okay for a child to die in a gutter...

> all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied

People don't experience spontaneous conception. The one collection of dna hitting the other is the result of a deliberate act of both dnas' owners [1].

In the scenario in which a fetus is regarded as a child, abortion is obviously equivalent to murder. It is death of a human against their volition by another.

The interesting future to me, policy-wise, is what happens when we have the ability to extract fetuses from mothers and grow them to maturity artifically? Will society determine that abortions are a no-go at that time since literally all fetuses can be saved without impact to the mother in excess of an abortion operation, or will society state that mothers must be allowed to murder [2] their children?

[1] Ignore rape, incest, etc. for argument's sake because we're discussing the freedom between men and women.

[2] Remember this scenario equates abortion to murder. I am not espousing personal beliefs. My username was chosen when I was contemplating suicide, not due to religious leanings.

[max__dev]

I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate.

If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?

Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".

[wqaatwt]

Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn?

Either of them isn’t a real person, neither is fully conscious. Sure a newborn can feel pain but infanticide can be done in a humane way. What we are depriving from the newborn is the opportunity to live and experience the rest of its life but the same applies in both cases.

And in a quite a few ancient societies infanticide was fully acceptable (killing slightly older children was generally not) and used as a somewhat safer alternative to abortion.

[cthalupa]

> Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn?

From a practical perspective, giving up the newborn for adoption is significantly easier than the 4 month embryo - it's already been carried to term and birthed. And quite a few humans, correctly or otherwise, feel a lot more 'ick' around the idea of infanticide vs. abortion. But they also feel a lot more 'ick' around late gestation abortion too - most states have had gestational limits around abortion. Very few have had none. (Many of those with gestational limits do have exceptions around health/safety issues for the mother, or significant medical issues with the fetus, etc.)

It's kind of a strange argument because most of the US did accept the premise that at a certain point in the embryo's development abortion becomes less acceptable. I can't speak as definitively for the rest of the world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite similar - most countries that allow for abortion have gestational restrictions.

[wqaatwt]

> world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite simila

IIRC US is quite permissive in that regard? 12-14 is generally standard across much of Europe while in US that’s generally viewed as quite restrictive?

[h3half]

Why so snarky? It's pretty clear cko understands that and is trying to convey your exact point to the person they responded to (who made the opposite assumption)