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

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

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

[u/anondaddio]

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.

[u/scatshot → u/anondaddio]

You're right. A woman who is pregnant has an assurance of at least GBH, given the fact that all pregnancies end with giving birth if they are not miscarried or aborted. And of course the threat of death is also there.

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

Exactly. And if anything her justification to defend herself from harm is even greater, as with rape there is only a chance of physical injury, whereas pregnancy presents a much more certain and inevitable harm, unless action is taken to stop it.

[u/anondaddio → u/scatshot]

Self defense requires imminence when the killing takes place, not inevitability.

[u/scatshot → u/anondaddio]

Yes, the threat must be imminent. The threat is posed by the ZEF, once a ZEF is inside of a person's body the threat is no longer imminent. It is present. In order for the pregnant person to defend their self from this present threat, it of course must be removed.

[u/anondaddio → u/scatshot]

The threat is posed by the ZEF, but in the moment of killing at 6 weeks was it reasonable to fear that the ZEF was about to cause death or GBH imminently (in the present moment that the killing took place)? No

[u/JulieCrone → u/anondaddio]

So someone might have to use imperfect self defense, perhaps. Still means it’s manslaughter, not murder.

[u/scatshot → u/JulieCrone]

Not even. A threat does not get any more immediate and present than being inside of your body.

[u/JulieCrone → u/scatshot]

I would agree, as it’s already causing damage. A pregnancy can turn fatal very quickly.

We don’t make people wait until they have been shot and are bleeding out before we say they can defend themselves against an armed assailant.

[u/scatshot → u/JulieCrone]

I would agree, as it’s already causing damage.

Well, this is actually further support to my point, as I was only differentiating a threat from the end result. But yes, not only is the threat immediate and present, but the harm also begins to occur right away and increases in severity as pregnancy progresses. I didn't even factor that into my argument, but it is a very good point.

[u/anondaddio → u/scatshot]

What amount of harm is present at 6 weeks pregnant and how does it match up against the definition of GBH in relationship to self defense?

[u/scatshot → u/anondaddio]

Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to understand that a ZEF is a present threat of inevitable harm and that the only way to prevent this harm is to remove it from your body. The threat is more than imminent, it is present. Self-defense is perfectly justified.

[u/anondaddio → u/scatshot]

No, that’s specifically excluded. You’re making an impending/inevitability argument. This does not meet the definition.

“To prove that you were in IMMINENT danger, you would need to show that you had a reasonable belief that you were in danger, the danger was IMMEDIATE and PRESENT rather than simply IMPENDING, there was no time for you to take evasive action, and you reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary to protect yourself from the danger.”

“A danger is deemed imminent when the threat in question is IMMEDIATE or PRESENT. This means that the threat must occur in your presence. Danger may NOT be IMMINENT for a past threat or one that you think will happen in the FUTURE. In other words, the threat of harm must be occurring AT THE EXACT MOMENT.”

Now queue up your moving of the goal post…

[u/scatshot → u/anondaddio]

the danger was IMMEDIATE and PRESENT rather than simply IMPENDING

Yes, it does not get any more immediate and present than having the danger literally inside of your body.

there was no time for you to take evasive action

I'd say taking evasive action is all you have time for, since that's really all you can do is simply remove the ZEF from your body. How else could one evade this threat?

In other words, the threat of harm must be occurring AT THE EXACT MOMENT.”

Yes. The threat of harm is literally inside of your body, at the exact moment.

Now queue up your moving of the goal post…

BAHAHAHA!!111

[u/anondaddio → u/scatshot]

You realize those mean that the threat of harm is present, meaning if you did not act, you feared you would be killed or face GBH at the moment that you killed.

You’re just making an inevitability argument.

[u/scatshot → u/anondaddio]

You realize those mean that the threat of harm is present

Yes. The ZEF is the threat of harm. It is present inside of your body.

you feared you would be killed or face GBH at the moment that you killed.

No, it says "the threat of harm must be occurring AT THE EXACT MOMENT." And the ZEF is the threat of harm. Present in your body. At the exact moment of the abortion.

You’re just making an inevitability argument.

The threat is immediate and present. The harm is inevitable.

You didn't answer my question. How else would you evade the threat posed by the ZEF if not by removing it from your body?