Being willing to make an exception for rape undermines the "abortion is murder" position.
I don't think so. Many who believe that abortion is murder also believe that rape exceptions should be allowed. Maybe they cannot provide support for their moral intuitions, but I think it's perfectly defensible, as my example showed.
If someone attached you to me without my permission, and told me that you'd die if you weren't, with due respect, but I'll be grabbing the scissors.
After that concession, it becomes a matter of degrees and it will just creep towards more expansive.
It's the other way around. You will not be able to get any abortion ban if you do not allow for this exception.
It's a question that has to be faced head-on instead of deferring to other examples. For every analogy one way, there's an analogy the other. If someone breaks into your home and leaves an infant in your living room, you're not allowed to stomp it. "BUT IT WAS TRESSPASSING!"
I think it's a very bad example, and mine was much more apt. That infant has not attached itself to me, nor do I have to suffer through it for months on end. I can just call the police and have it be removed, and much quicker than a woman can have an abortion too.
I'd go a doctor and go "hey, remove this guy without killing him."
It's not possible.
If someone is going to plant their flag on "fetuses are defenseless, innocent human life and it's immoral to kill them" you can't turn around and go "unless it makes someone upset" and expect anyone to take your moral stance seriously.
Sure you can. It's a conflict of rights. You have no right to conscript someone else's body for your embryo or fertilized egg, same as with the surgery example - which also does not suggest that 'murder' in some cases is OK.
Banning abortion, even in the case of rape, is equivalent to a "duty to retreat." In those jurisdictions, you must are required inconvenience yourself for the benefit of an attacker. And that's the person actively violating you. Not a third party who is there through no fault of their own.
You have no duty to retreat for 9 months though, nor is it nearly as invasive.
What's fascinating is the "castle doctrine" property jurisdictions are the ones that tend towards "duty to retreat" abortion and vice-versa.
I never thought the respective ideologies made much sense. You could base it on tradition: abortion has been traditionally disallowed, and traditionally your home is your castle.
If someone knocked you and another guy unconscious, surgically attached you to one another, and said "if you cut this, he dies. But if you live with this for 9 months you'll both be fine," you would kill the other victim?
You ask that as if you think the answer is obvious - you probably are a better man than I. Would I have the right to? But if that scenario is too horrory for you, imagine a Great Scientific Advance(tm) that allows a terminally ill man (in his 30s) to live if he is attached to your body for 9 months, and only your body (cause else the thought experiment does not work).
Would you have the right to say no, or can the state conscript you involuntarily for the noble purpose of keeping this man alive?
Even if you are Mother Teresa and would be willing to sacrifice yourself for 9 months to save another, surely you would not want to be forced.
That would be a convincing argument if we were weighing the rights of the rapist against the mother. But we're not. We're considering about what, if any, rights the child has. They did not conscript anything. They had no agency in the situation and are, arguably, as much a victim as the mother.
Nor was I calling you a rapist. But you are advocating for inflicting further suffering on the woman because of the rape. Your right over your own body is absolute, which people on both sides forget whenever it is convenient. It means that when you did not ask to be raped, it is your absolute right to get rid of the result, same as me with that other victim in the horror scenario.
The one being terminated in the home is an aggressor. The one being terminated in an abortion in as innocent. That goes a long way in judging if it's moral to kill them.
Another pro-abortion argument that annoys me: WHY ARE YOU FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
Cause they murdered someone, and the fetus didn't.
B) Ban after a specific point in the gestational timeline. This position relies on not considering anything before that point a human life.
This is my position. It is human life, similar to how a brain-dead person is a human life. Many people recognize that life does not mean much when everything else is gone.
The first two are empirically analyzable. The third isn't. Which is creates a incentive for anyone desiring an abortion to claim rape. It would be a disaster.
As far as I know, there are precedents where this does not occur. Our delusional friend just believes that every woman is out there to accuse him of rape to get an abortion.
Personally, I'd go with B. Abortion is too useful preventing unwanted people to outright ban but C allows for out and out murder.
I don't think so. Many who believe that abortion is murder also believe that rape exceptions should be allowed. Maybe they cannot provide support for their moral intuitions, but I think it's perfectly defensible, as my example showed.
If someone attached you to me without my permission, and told me that you'd die if you weren't, with due respect, but I'll be grabbing the scissors.
It's the other way around. You will not be able to get any abortion ban if you do not allow for this exception.
I think it's a very bad example, and mine was much more apt. That infant has not attached itself to me, nor do I have to suffer through it for months on end. I can just call the police and have it be removed, and much quicker than a woman can have an abortion too.
It's not possible.
Sure you can. It's a conflict of rights. You have no right to conscript someone else's body for your embryo or fertilized egg, same as with the surgery example - which also does not suggest that 'murder' in some cases is OK.
You have no duty to retreat for 9 months though, nor is it nearly as invasive.
I never thought the respective ideologies made much sense. You could base it on tradition: abortion has been traditionally disallowed, and traditionally your home is your castle.
You ask that as if you think the answer is obvious - you probably are a better man than I. Would I have the right to? But if that scenario is too horrory for you, imagine a Great Scientific Advance(tm) that allows a terminally ill man (in his 30s) to live if he is attached to your body for 9 months, and only your body (cause else the thought experiment does not work).
Would you have the right to say no, or can the state conscript you involuntarily for the noble purpose of keeping this man alive?
Even if you are Mother Teresa and would be willing to sacrifice yourself for 9 months to save another, surely you would not want to be forced.
Nor was I calling you a rapist. But you are advocating for inflicting further suffering on the woman because of the rape. Your right over your own body is absolute, which people on both sides forget whenever it is convenient. It means that when you did not ask to be raped, it is your absolute right to get rid of the result, same as me with that other victim in the horror scenario.
Another pro-abortion argument that annoys me: WHY ARE YOU FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
Cause they murdered someone, and the fetus didn't.
This is my position. It is human life, similar to how a brain-dead person is a human life. Many people recognize that life does not mean much when everything else is gone.
As far as I know, there are precedents where this does not occur. Our delusional friend just believes that every woman is out there to accuse him of rape to get an abortion.
I agree.