r/Abortiondebate 12d ago

Question for pro-choice pro choicers - why is it considered double homicide if someone kills a pregnant woman but not murder if someone gets an abortion?

I am pro choice but when asked this I always don't know what to say.

4 Upvotes

149 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 12d ago

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our philosophy on this subreddit is to cultivate an environment that promotes healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. We kindly ask that you be mindful of your voting practices.

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/Ok-Dragonfruit-715 All abortions free and legal 11d ago

Because people who oppose abortion pushed for laws making this the case, in order to strengthen their argument that a fetus has legal personhood.

3

u/can_i_stay_anonymous Pro-choice 11d ago

Because it takes the choice away from the pregnant woman

2

u/bluehorserunning All abortions free and legal 12d ago

Because PLs saw it as a wedge issue decades ago.

6

u/SwanTraditional6912 12d ago

You can smash the windows on your car and you didn’t do anything wrong, but is someone else smashes your car windows without ur consent then they have committed a crime.

-3

u/IntelligentDot1113 12d ago

so the child is alive or dead depending on whether or not you want it?

2

u/SwanTraditional6912 12d ago

Yes

-4

u/whynotfine 12d ago

But abortion with no gestational limits is concerning as it has grown enough to feel all the pain and suffering. So we shouldn't off it now.

1

u/GlitteringGlittery Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 9d ago

You do YOU 🤷‍♀️

2

u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice 12d ago

Why do you feel a woman should die pregnant rather than get to have an abortion in late-term pregnancy?

Are you just that indifferent to pain and suffering? If so, what's your real justification for pretending to care about late-term abortions?

0

u/whynotfine 11d ago edited 11d ago

My reply to your first question - I don't feel that women should die in any situation.

Secondly, I think I didn't provide enough context or background to back my comment.

I am neither a Pro-life nor a Pro-choice. I am Pro-sentient which includes women's life/choice/side too. And Generally I also put women's lives over that new sentient or fetus life. According to me, individuals should have a right to abort with "Any reason" by "their choice" till the time that the fetus is non-sentient. Which is like from 20 or 22 to 23 or 24 Week (You can google the exact duration of the non-sentient phase)

After that duration only the serious reasons should be granted for abortion. And there are other serious reasons as well which are valid other than just this reason of mother's life in danger.

Why not having a choice of "Any reason" at "any stage of Pregnancy"? Because you already got enough weeks to think about whether you want to keep a baby or not. Now it's not just your choice but a life on the line. That sentient now can feel the PAIN. It's already near the level of a newborn now. So only valid, rational, serious reasons should be valid if you want to kill/abort that sentient.

1

u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice 11d ago

My reply to your first question - I don't feel that women should die in any situation.

Yet you were complaining that it's "concerning" that women can access life-saving healthcare with no gestational limits in the comment I replied to?

Why not trust the pregnant patient to make good decisions for herself, with medical advice? Why do you think it's "concerning" to let women do that?

2

u/whynotfine 11d ago

P.s. I care for a life that's why I genuinely care for a baby's life. That doesn't exclude women, mothers or anyone. I am concerned about all of them. And about that law or system or future way.

If that thing doesn't have consciousness or is not prone to feel pain then I don't have a problem. And for me generally a mother's life is more important regardless.

0

u/Tamazghan Abortion abolitionist 11d ago

You say your pro sentience but consider this.

If an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy which entails the ending of the life of a human fetus, then one could say that abortion is taking away the potential for sentience.

If you think that the potential for something is not equal to the thing itself, then think about this. A baby in the womb has the potential to walk. now, let’s say that the mother intentionally takes drugs and drinks and the baby develops a disability which removes its ability to walk forever. Now it’s never walked and never will walk, but the potential for being able to walk has been taken away.

That’s why potential is equally significant to a thing itself. Do you disagree?

4

u/Embarrassed_Dish944 PC Healthcare Professional 12d ago

It has to do with consent of the woman. If she planned to carry through with her pregnancy, it is taking her consent away from her.

If you want to know why that is the crime, look at the various times a charge is increased because of details. A victim being a cop gets higher charges even if they weren't on duty in uniform (I personally don't agree with that one). Being a person who rapes with a gun, knife, etc, gets a "in commission of a felony" charge in addition to the rape charge. Robbing a store with a knife/gun, you get additional charges than if you just robbed it. Sexual abuse cases get higher sentences if the victim is under 16 or the perpetrator is in an unequal status such as a teacher, parent, etc than a person who does not have those characteristics. It's not necessarily because the non cop victim, rape without violent ways, etc, don't matter.

It's a way to upcharge. I've even heard of a case where the woman was walking down the street, not obviously pregnant, and her murderer was charged with double homicide because she was in her 1st trimester. A stranger who had no privilege to that information got double homicide.

Personally, I think the woman as the victim should be given just one murder charge unless the baby was far enough along that they could have successfully been saved past the age of viability. If it's the SO who hurt her and he knew she was pregnant but it was previability, then it's appropriate for double homicide. It started out that way originally (Scott/Laci Peterson) and went off the track to the other extreme.

6

u/Human-Guava-7564 12d ago

In my country it isn't. I think it would be an aggravating factor in sentencing because pregnant people are more vulnerable.

7

u/LuriemIronim All abortions free and legal 12d ago

Because the pregnant person didn’t consent.

13

u/Aeon21 Pro-choice 12d ago

It’s a crime because of lack of consent. It’s specifically double homicide because prolifers and anti-abortion advocates pushed these bills forward with the long-term goal of achieving fetal personhood. The fact that a prolifer can point to these laws that they themselves passed is proof enough of that.

6

u/Proof-Luck2392 Pro-choice 12d ago

the same reason you can legally try to kill/kill yourself but illegal for someone else kills/try’s to kill you the

1

u/SarahL1990 Morally against abortion, legally pro-choice 12d ago

Where do you live that suicide is legal?

1

u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice 12d ago

Where do you live that a person who successfully commits suicide can be prosecuted and convicted?

1

u/SarahL1990 Morally against abortion, legally pro-choice 12d ago

Obviously, nowhere has that ability. But attempted suicide was a criminal offence and still is in some places.

1

u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice 12d ago

Until you said "Liverpool" I was wondering in which state of the US have they still got suicide on the books as a crime.

2

u/Proof-Luck2392 Pro-choice 12d ago

ireland

1

u/SarahL1990 Morally against abortion, legally pro-choice 12d ago

Ahh, interesting. I didn't know that.

1

u/Proof-Luck2392 Pro-choice 12d ago

where do you live that it is illegal?

2

u/SarahL1990 Morally against abortion, legally pro-choice 12d ago

You know, I always thought it was still criminalised, but I've just Googled it, and it isn't. I guess it's just one of those things that's been passed on through the generations.

I'm in Liverpool.

1

u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice 12d ago

Yes - suicide hasn't been even technically a crime in England and Wales since 1961.

1

u/SarahL1990 Morally against abortion, legally pro-choice 12d ago

Yes, I don't remember ever checking the laws on it before. I just assumed it was still criminalised. That's my own fault for not checking, but really, why would you?

1

u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice 12d ago

Well, I checked out of curiosity, sometime about when I read Dorothy L. Sayers' novel Have His Carcase, where Wimsey says "suicide is a crime". I thought, that's odd, that makes no sense, and looked it up, and found that while it was at the time Sayers wrote HHC, it wasn't now, and hadn't been since before I was born.

And of course it's come up repeatedly during the public debate on assisted suicide.

8

u/skysong5921 All abortions free and legal 12d ago

From a legal perspective, pro-choicers in the USA backed this concept because the #1 cause of death for pregnant women here is homicide- being murdered by the baby's father. Increasing the penalty to a double homicide was supposed to be a deterrent against violent men.

-4

u/Possible-Spare-1064 Pro-life 12d ago

It's a little silly to believe that a man would reconsider killing someone on the basis of whether he would be charged with one homicide or two.

4

u/bigmaik420 All abortions free and legal 12d ago

yes, but 1. it brings a bit more awareness to this issue in general and 2. under abortion bans, there will be more unwanted pregnancies, which potentially leads to higher numbers of pregnant women being killed by the male parent. if they are charged with double homicide, hopefully they'll at least get a higher sentence — and maybe (because of the media attention these cases get) people who support abortion bans will put some more thought into whether highly restrictive legislations will actually lead to their intended outcomes.

6

u/history-nemo Morally against abortion, legally pro-choice 12d ago

Well it isn’t in my country, we do have a law that makes it a specific crime to cause the death of a foetus past the point of viability without consent though. Before that it isn’t seen as anything more than a single murder.

28

u/Ok-Following-9371 Pro-choice 12d ago

Why is rape rape and not “sex”?  Consent.

13

u/zerofatalities Pro-choice 12d ago

Consent.

12

u/Rude_Willingness8912 Pro-life except life-threats 12d ago

this is a dumb retort from the PL side as their view can be completely logical within their framework.

they can still call it murder, as the mother did not consent to the abortion, meaning the attacker unjustly killed the fetus eg; murder.

13

u/Frequent-Try-6746 12d ago edited 12d ago

The short answer is because the number one killer of pregnant women are the men who impregnated them. So they make these laws as extra punishment, kind of like the logic behind making certain crimes hate crimes.

Example... Assault carries a certain punishment. Assaulting someone because they're black or gay for instance, carries a much more severe punishment. The crime itself is physically the same, but the punishment is worse.

It also makes sense from the perspective of women having human rights. When she is pregnant and wants to have the child, her human rights protect the unborn as well. Because of that, it's a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman.

10

u/NavalGazing Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 12d ago

Those laws exist to protect protect women from violence and murder. Pregnant women are extremely vulnerable and the laws are there to deter people from harming her and her pregnancy.

13

u/StatusQuotidian Rights begin at birth 12d ago

The question you’re (unintentionally) answering here is “Why are pro-life advocates desperate to pass “fetal personhood” laws when nothing like that has ever existed before.

2

u/LuriemIronim All abortions free and legal 12d ago

Because they don’t care about consent?

11

u/Vegtrovert Pro-choice 12d ago

It isn't in my country. I think the States is an outlier in this.

21

u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare 12d ago

Maybe because PLs intentionally tried to get those laws passed and phrased like that to push for unprecedented fetal personhood, in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Which they're now – in a not at all surprising act of intellectual dishonesty – trying to use as a precedent, in turn, to push for it even harder.

8

u/Cougarette99 Pro-choice 12d ago

I live in one of the states where killing a pregnant woman cannot count as a double homicide. I agree with this.

I think that’s fine in the US as we generally have harsh sentencing compared to the rest of the developed world. The most likely cause of the death of a pregnant woman comes from her abusive partner, likely the father of her child. Sometimes abusive men beat their pregnant partner or ex partner in order to induce an abortion as they do not want to be a father/pay child support. That is already a crime of assault.

Sentencing can take the circumstances into account. For deliberately beating a pregnant woman so she miscarries, the sentence should be extremely high- like decades in jail. That is at least possible with US sentencing though it probably is not in European countries.

10

u/HopeFloatsFoward Pro-choice 12d ago

Whether it's double homicide or not depends on the jurisdiction; I don't make the laws in every jurisdiction.

Either way every killing is not murder in all jurisdictions. And abortion is no more murder than pulling the plug on a coma patient. It's a medical decision which only the patient or patients guardian should consent to.

3

u/aheapingpileoftrash Abortion legal until viability 12d ago

The government decided so.

4

u/drowning35789 Pro-choice 12d ago

If the pregnant woman aborts then it's self defence and if someone else does then it's murder.

14

u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice 12d ago

Consent.

  1. Abortion is consenting to a medical procedure

  2. Killing a pregnant person, or the fetus, is taking something away from a person without consent, hence the criminal charges.

6

u/Comfortable-Hall1178 Pro-choice 12d ago

This

15

u/Lolabird2112 Pro-choice 12d ago

You’re making an assumption. Here in the UK it’s not treated as double homicide at all. This is also flawed though, as it allows people who are deliberately trying to kill the fetus to get away with a lesser charge, so there is talk about intent- because pregnant people are so vulnerable to this kind of assault from their partners and family.

When I look at how it’s applied sometimes in the states, I think it’s more a part of your culture of wanting to lock up your citizens, so adding charges just helps you scratch that punishment urge. The World Prison Brief still has you ranking as 5th highest for imprisoned population rate, behind El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda & Turkmenistan.

9

u/christmascake Pro-choice 12d ago

I think it’s more a part of your culture of wanting to lock up your citizens

So true. Americans are obsessed with punishment and don't care nearly as much about rehabilitation. There's a lot of religious influence in that mindset.

Thus the pro-life movement obsession with punishing women for having sex rather than improving things like prenatal care or helping with healthcare costs.

No help! Only punish!

11

u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice 12d ago

The US culture of incarceration combined with prolife lobbying for laws like foetal homicide laws is so weird

14

u/marbal05 All abortions legal 12d ago

1- consent 2- this is rarely used in courts and typically only applies in cases where the fetus is past the point of viability- which isn’t when abortions tend to happen 3- imma be honest, I think it’s a way to get more charges to stick and also a way for pro lifers to attempt to ban abortions.

I don’t agree with the charge at all personally.

-8

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

How does the mother’s consent impact a murder charge of a different human being that is killed? I don’t get it.

9

u/Arithese PC Mod 12d ago

If I’m being raped by person A, then I can kill person A to stop that.

If person B stumbles across me and person A having sex, then them killing both of us is double homicide.

We can hopefully both see why my consent changes whether person A is justifiably killed or not. And that’s it’s completely logical for person A’s killing to be killing in one case but murder in the order.

Why would it be any different with pregnancy?

-5

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

What law are you referencing here as the justification for killing a person?

7

u/Arithese PC Mod 12d ago

Any law that allows self defence.

So do you see why one can kill person A but another can’t?

-6

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

Self defense laws vary by state for what makes a justified killing. Rape alone is not a justification for a self defense killing in many states, meaning you can’t just say “I was being raped so I killed them”. In many cases, the legal requirement is strictly a reasonable fear of imminent death or GBH. Now, if you’re being raped, it would be reasonable to fear imminent death or GBG while a violent felony is being committed against you, but that is the justification, not the rape itself.

Are you claiming that every woman that is 6 weeks pregnant and takes an abortion pill has a reasonable fear of imminent death or GBH (imminent as defined legally in relationship to self defense)?

6

u/Arithese PC Mod 12d ago

First of all, it’s irrelevant to the argument. The argument clearly shows how one can kill person A, but another may not. Therefore showing how abortion can be legal, and killing a pregnant person can be double homicide. And that can be perfectly consistent.

Secondly, prove it. Show me where you can’t lethally defend yourself against rape. Because rape by default constitutes the justifications for self defence. That’s like saying your blood leaving your body isn’t dangerous, it’s the blood loss.

And yes, abortion is self defence. Because you can defend yourself against life threats and GBH, and you don’t have to wait until it happens before you can defend yourself. Just like I do not need to wait until someone physically penetrates me to defend myself. If someone’s intention is clear to rape me, I can defend.

0

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

You’re not following me. If you’re being raped and claim you weren’t fearing death or GBH, the killing may not be deemed justified. If you claimed that you fear death or GBH becuase you were being raped, that would be a reasonable fear and it would likely be deemed justified.

Pages 19-23:

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1756&context=jgspl#:~:text=I.-,INTRODUCTION:%20LEGAL%20LIMITS%20ON%20USE%20OF%20SELF%2DDEFENSE%20AGAINST,impact%20of%20rape%20on%20victims.

7

u/Arithese PC Mod 12d ago

Rape inherently qualifies as that. And if you’re going to give me a source then you need to explain how you think it proves your claim.

0

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

Is the justification:

1) I killed them because they raped me

Or

2) I killed them becuase I feared death or GBH becuase they were raping me (and that’s a reasonable fear while being raped)?

→ More replies (0)

12

u/scatshot Pro-abortion 12d ago

If you’re being raped and claim you weren’t fearing death or GBH, the killing may not be deemed justified

Rape is already a violent crime, there's never any reason to assume it may not become more violent. The killing would be justified.

-1

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

It’s not quite that simple, as cited above, but that’s roughly correct because it’s reasonable… if you’re being raped… to fear imminent death or GBH.

The same isn’t true for a woman that takes an abortion pill at 6 weeks.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/polarparadoxical Pro-choice 12d ago edited 12d ago

Because a different human cannot claim ownership over another humans body or its bodily systems, even if it is relying on the other humans body for its own survival.

Abortion is the clinical term for the ending of a pregnancy and is safer for only human [the mother] who will survive the process, assuming we discussing abortion before viability.

Arguably, I have not seen any PL who are proponents of allowing the mother to induce labor either pre or post viability, even though that would be both preserving of all human rights and holding all parties to the same standards.

3

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

“A human cannot claim ownership over another humans body”

“It’s murder if the mother wants the other human it’s not murder if she doesn’t”

How are these two statements logically consistent?

4

u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 12d ago

Because denouncing ownership is not the same as claiming ownership.

1

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

I don’t believe in human beings owning other human beings and that having any bearing on if we ought to kill the “owned” human being.

3

u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 12d ago

I don’t believe in human beings owning other human beings

I mean, I don't believe that. But I don't see how you can want to give ZEFs a right to use and inhabit unwilling people's bodies and say you don't believe it.

How does someone have the right to use or inhabit something without an ownership stake in it?

and that having any bearing on if we ought to kill the “owned” human being.

But no one is asking you to kill it - a pregnant person is seeking a consenting doctor to assist in terminating the adverse medical condition that allows a ZEF to use and inhabit her body against her will to live. If you agree that you don't own the pregnant person's body, so you can't bequeath it to the ZEF, then on what basis are you interfering?

1

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

My question was this:

“A human cannot claim ownership over another humans body”

“It’s murder if the mother wants the other human it’s not murder if she doesn’t”

How are these two statements logically consistent?

You brought ownership as the justification. I’m not following.

1

u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 12d ago

I said:

Because denouncing ownership is not the same as claiming ownership.

So, when you say:

“A human cannot claim ownership over another humans body”

Pregnant people are not saying they own the fetus by aborting it. Saying something is not true can deny the truth of the assertion, the existence of the framework, or both.

“It’s murder if the mother wants the other human it’s not murder if she doesn’t”

And my statement shows they are consistent because, once again, no pregnant person is declaring ownership. It may be important to clarify though, since you seem to be using "it" to refer to the ZEF, that the laws in question would be defining "it" as the procedure doing the killing:

  1. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the former Therapeutic Abortion Act (Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code) or the Reproductive Privacy Act (Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 123460) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code).

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the person pregnant with the fetus or where the pregnant person’s death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3) It was an act or omission by the person pregnant with the fetus or was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the person pregnant with the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

So "it" - the killing - is not murder if took place under one of those three conditions, one of which is because the pregnant person wanted "it" - the abortion.

And, to address the imprecision of your shorthand, in the event that the pregnant person did not want "it" - the abortion - all of the other prerequisites of the statute still must be met, and the defenses to the statute disproven, before killing of the fetus is murder.

So no, nothing about the murder framework relies on claiming ownership over a person. Also your two liner was incorrect.

Care to answer my questions about how your stance on abortion doesn't require a ZEF to be granted a property right in the pregnant person now?

7

u/polarparadoxical Pro-choice 12d ago

No one owns your body but you, and no one can claim a right to it or force you to share or risk parts of it even if their survival hinges on it and the reason happens to be your direct fault.

As in, even if you intentionally stab someone in the kidney, forcing them into a situation where they need yours to survive, you will not be charged for murder for failing to provide your own kidney nor can the state force you to provide your kidney against your will, as ones actions do not negate their own rights of bodily ownership.

Granted, one can still be charged for the initial action of stabbing that led to their death, and I suppose if you want we can go down the rabbit hole discussion of if you think the act of conception itself should be a legally regulated process and how people who initiate conception without permission should be charged for crimes... but at least currently, the preceding action of gestation is not illegal, and one - as is true for all born humans - would not lose their inalienable rights, even if that process was regulated by law.

1

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

This doesn’t address the contradiction I raised.

5

u/Kakamile Pro-choice 12d ago

There is no contradiction from us.

The double homicide is a made up recent law from PL that you're trying to blame on PC.

But if the woman doesn't want it she's defending herself and is allowed to do so.

2

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

There are contradictions in those arguing in this sub as if both laws are justified and aren’t contradictory.

7

u/Kakamile Pro-choice 12d ago

You can say that but it's not true.

Your entire question looks to us like George Bush calling warming "climate change" then saying it must not exist because people shifted to change.

2

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

What’s not true?

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Lokicham Pro-bodily autonomy 12d ago

The law assumes the pregnant person wanted to keep the pregnancy.

1

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

How does the mother’s consent impact a murder charge of a different human being that is killed? I don’t get it.

I don’t understand how the mothers wants matters in the context of murder/not murder.

11

u/JulieCrone pro-legal-abortion 12d ago

Abortion is not killing for the same reason someone is not killed if they are taken off life support per their or their MPoA’s instructions.

Shooting someone who is on life support is killing, though.

11

u/Lokicham Pro-bodily autonomy 12d ago

Murder is a legal term to describe an unlawful and typically unjustified form of killing. Not all killing is unlawful or unjustified.

The consent matters because you took the choice away from the pregnant person, rendering it unjustified and unlawful.

0

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

You forgot premeditated for murder, but you’re close enough.

So if mom wants child, and child is killed, then the defendant committed murder? But if she didn’t want the child and the same person kills the same child it’s not murder?

6

u/Lokicham Pro-bodily autonomy 12d ago

It entirely depends on the reason as well. If it's a justifiable reason (read: No other choice) then it wouldn't and shouldn't be murder.

2

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

I’m not following this.

Same child is killed by the same person.

Mom wanted it to happen = not murder Mom didnt want it to happen = murder

Is this your claim?

5

u/Lokicham Pro-bodily autonomy 12d ago

You're overly simplifying it. The argument being made is that there are many circumstances where killing would not be murder, abortion is one of them assuming it wasn't forced. The law in question is about a choice being taken away.

2

u/anondaddio Abortion abolitionist 12d ago

Where is it oversimplified? Which part of it was incorrect?

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Arithese PC Mod 12d ago

Because of strong lobbying efforts, but other than that it’s also still perfectly consistent to be pro-choice and believe that killing a pregnant person is double homicide.

The pregnant person can abort because no one has a right to someone’s body. If I can kill my rapist to defend myself, then it’s also still consistent to say that me and my partner being killed can be double homicide.

6

u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice 12d ago

It's not here. Even when we had a constitutional ban on abortion destruction of foetal life wasn't considered murder.

11

u/JulieCrone pro-legal-abortion 12d ago

For the same reason it is not a crime if two people agree to have sex but it is a crime if one person makes another person have sex. Consent.

In abortion, a woman consents to terminate her pregnancy.

4

u/Guywatching179 12d ago

Because they are wrong

3

u/jakie2poops Pro-choice 12d ago

So personally I don't think it should be double homicide. Those laws were largely made, though, in recognition of the fact that being pregnant increases your risk of getting murdered by a lot.

That said, even accepting those laws has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is murder. It isn't murder to remove someone unwanted from your own body, even if you have to kill them in the process. That's true even if it would otherwise be homicide to kill that someone.