I think consistency is important. — Patterner

Sorry I am not quite understanding your point. Are you saying:

If someone was to slip an abortion pill in a pregnant woman's body without her knowing and it results in the death of the foetus. Whether or not the person would be arrested for murder depends on your standpoint on abortion?

If that is the correct understanding then @Michael's question still stands, why?

If this isn't the correct understanding please explain,

I think consistency is important. — Patterner

Doing the right thing is more important, even if it appears "inconsistent".

If someone was to slip an abortion pill in a pregnant woman's body without her knowing and it results in the death of the foetus. Whether or not the person would be arrested for murder depends on your standpoint on abortion? — Samlw

No. It depends on your standpoint on the status of a fetus. We are only charged with murder if we kill a human being. If a fetus is a human being, then it's murder.

If someone was to slip an abortion pill in a pregnant woman's body without her knowing and it results in the death of the foetus. Whether or not the person would be arrested for murder depends on your standpoint on abortion? — Samlw

He made an interesting point, @Patterner, I mean. If it's not legally considered a human, just another mass of organic matter of no significant value to the bearer, perhaps even undesired, it would be akin to placing a laxative in someone's food or drink, I believe is what his point is. That would be simple assault/food tampering, perhaps poisoning, but not murder, according to those who believe personhood cannot exist prior to exiting the womb. Though I imagine "physical and emotional damages" would have a good chance of being levied as charges as well. However, I believe in a state where a fetus is considered a human being, murder or at least homicide may be on the table in such a case. I have read (often, actually) cases and news articles of women either giving birth (unexpectedly or not) and leaving foeti abandoned in restrooms and waste receptacles being charged criminally. It's an interesting converging point of legal philosophy, social and cultural belief, and morality, his scenario is.

No. It depends on your standpoint on the status of a fetus. We are only charged with murder if we kill a human being. If a fetus is a human being, then it's murder. — Patterner

It doesn't depend on your standpoint on the status of a foetus. It depends on what the law says. If the law defines the crime of murder as including the killing of a foetus then killing a foetus is murder, and one is charged accordingly, otherwise it isn't and you won't be.

In both US federal and UK law, one can only murder those who have been born. This is the born alive rule.

Yes, of course. If the law says it's murder, then it's murder. And the law says murder only applies when the victim is a human being. Kill someone's cat or dog, and you are not charged with murder. It's illegal, and you'll be charged with something. But you might be in more trouble for how you killed the animal than for the fact that you killed it. Like if you use the gun in a residential area. Of course, those laws are different from one area to another.

Kill someone's herd of cattle, and you are not charged with murder.

He made an interesting point, Patterner, I mean. If it's not legally considered a human, just another mass of organic matter of no significant value to the bearer, perhaps even undesired, it would be akin to placing a laxative in someone's food or drink, I believe is what his point is. — Outlander

This doesn't follow. The fact that we may not consider a fetus a person doesn't mean that we can't place the value of the death of the fetus over indigestion. The unjust killing of a person is murder. The unjust killing of a fetus is feticide.

It's consistent to protect the value of fetus without affording it the full rights of personhood. We offer differing values for differing things, human or not. Burning down your house will result in a more serious crime than burning your cigarette.

And this is consistent with Roe v. Wade law when abortion was legal. There were laws against feticide during those years and there were laws regulating the use of and disposal of fetal tissue and organs. It's not an all or nothing proposition where you either grant fetuses full rights of personhood or you treat them like ordinary refuse.

I think we should be consistent. If it's murder then so is abortion. If abortion is not murder, then neither is this. — Patterner

H'm. You didn't cover "If it's not murder, ..." Given what you've said, if it's not murder. abortion is not murder. It's vicious nasty crime, but who was killed? No-one. So it's not murder.

.... they will not be convinced by any counter-argument, that points out - for example the horror of a pregnant woman bleeding out and losing her baby in the hospital car park because doctors are too afraid of prosecution to treat her. — unenlightened

I heard about that case. It was indeed horrible. But I'm afraid I'm very much inclined to include the doctors in my disapproval. True, they have a good deal at risk and they no doubt have families to consider. But still, to stand back and watch her die, or worse, to walk away, and not keep her company while she died.... Still, I don't really know what happened beyond the headlines.

Well, this is the issue I have with morality in general. I don't think any moral claims are either verifiable or falsifiable. Unlike science and maths there's just no way to prove or disprove one claim or another. We just either accept them or we don't, and then make our choices accordingly, and such choices include whether or not to pass a law to ban abortion. — Michael

If moral realism is correct, then there is. So you need to explain why there is no way to prove or disprove a moral claim.

It would have been helpful if you had stated your view. Some people think that moral claims are purely subjective, but that's over-simplified. Moral claims are certainly not proved or disproved in the way(s) that science or math is. But there are moral arguments - not as crisp or conclusive as science and maths, but there they are. You have to work with what you can get.

I think we should be consistent. If it's murder then so is abortion. If abortion is not murder, then neither is this.
— Patterner
H'm. You didn't cover "If it's not murder, ..." Given what you've said, if it's not murder. abortion is not murder. It's vicious nasty crime, but who was killed? No-one. So it's not murder. — Ludwig V

What do you mean I didn't cover that? That's what I said in the third sentence you quoted. In short, either they're both murder, or neither is. (That is, if the law is consistent.)

Good points. But I'm wondering. We can say therr are just killings of people. For example, it's not murder when we execute a convicted murderer. Or when we kill in self-defence. But what is an example of a just killing of a fetus? When it puts the pregnant woman's life in danger seems like an obvious example. Any others?

What do you mean I didn't cover that? That's what I said in the third sentence you quoted. In short, either they're both murder, or neither is. (That is, if the law is consistent.) — Patterner

Sorry. My mistake. At least we agree.

:up:

If moral realism is correct, then there is. — Ludwig V

Moral realism can be true even if moral truths cannot be determined.

Good points. But I'm wondering. We can say therr are just killings of people. For example, it's not murder when we execute a convicted murderer. Or when we kill in self-defence. But what is an example of a just killing of a fetus? When it puts the pregnant woman's life in danger seems like an obvious example. Any others? — Patterner

In a legalistic setting (as opposed to a philosophical one), the questions of when the taking of a life is justified and when it is not is just spelled out in whatever law you pass. That is, I can take a life to save my own, or another, or even to protect my dwelling. There need not be any underlying principle guiding any of this, but just whatever legislatures want to do.

So, if abortion is declared illegal in a very broad way, you end up with unintended consequences like what happened in Alabama. In vitro fertilization became illegal because the fertilized eggs in test-tubes were considered people because human life began at conception, which means their disposal was murder. You would have to preserve all unused fertilized eggs I guess forever. Maybe you'd have to create a birth certificate with each creation of life and a death certificate with each death and then send that to the department of vital records. That needs to be worked among those in Alabama, but that's the problem of the hard and fast rule that a sperm attached to an egg is a person fully endowed with rights.

Roe v. Wade, like it or not, created a workable solution from a pragmatic perspective and now all of this is opened back up to work out now that it no longer is controlling law.

Moral realism can be true even if moral truths cannot be determined. — Michael

Russell's tea-pot is another well-known example. It was eventually exploded by the Voyager missions.
More seriously, why would indeterminate moral truths be relevant to anything?
Oh, of course. God's judgement.

So, if abortion is declared illegal in a very broad way, you end up with unintended consequences like what happened in Alabama. In vitro fertilization became illegal because the fertilized eggs in test-tubes were considered people because human life began at conception, which means their disposal was murder. — Hanover

I hadn't heard about whatever is happening in Alabama, and hadn't considered the test tube scenario. Thanks!

I would just say that there is more scientific evidence pointing to the fact that abortion isn’t “killing a child”. — Samlw

What constitutes killing a child is not something that can be resolved by science. It's a matter of social convention, consensus. Obviously, consensus is lacking here in the US. It's not unfair that not everyone shares your values.

Laws are not invented wholesale. Laws are based on an inheritance. Most of that inheritance comes from a time before the United States. — Moliere

I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it seems to me that the specific laws we are concerned with have been legislated and enforced wholesale since the Supreme Court kicked Roe vs. Wade out the door.

A subsidiary argument which may not have been mentioned is, "Any species which develops systematic means to kill 70+ million of its own fetuses each year is messed up." A species which so buttresses the killing of its own offspring is not in good shape. For a species to intentionally kill its own fetuses is exceedingly unnatural.

For a species to intentionally kill its own fetuses is exceedingly unnatural. — Leontiskos

Lots of things we do are “unnatural”. But then also killing one’s offspring happens in nature too. There are various species of birds that occasionally kill the weakest baby so that they can better feed the others.

Regardless, I’m not sure what “naturalness” has to do with morality.

For a species to intentionally kill its own fetuses is exceedingly unnatural. — Leontiskos

I'm sorry but that's just not the case.

Lots of things we do are “unnatural”. But then also killing one’s offspring happens in nature too. There are various species of birds that occasionally kill the weakest baby so that they can better feed the others — Michael

Yes, 5 minutes with Google threw up several lists of different species that will kill (and eat) their young. Hunger is one motive. Preventing a predator getting them seems to be another. Males seem to resent or be jealous to new babies. Killing the young is not particularly common, but there is no basis for calling it unnatural. The same applies to that other great taboo - cannibalism.

- So you found an exception or two to the rule. Congrats. :roll:

A subsidiary argument which may not have been mentioned is, "Any species which develops systematic means to kill 70+ million of its own fetuses each year is messed up." — Leontiskos

I can relate with that. What was the statistic...

The child mortality rate in the United States, for children under the age of five, was 462.9 deaths per thousand births in 1800. This means that for every thousand babies born in 1800, over 46 percent did not make it to their fifth birthday — Aaron O'Neill

Compare that to: "the rate was 34 abortions per 100 live births in the year 1990" (or 34 percent).

So in less than 200 years we went from 46% of conceptions unwillingly not resulting in healthy living children to 34% of conceptions willingly not resulting in healthy living children. Something to ponder, if nothing else. Kinda shows how far we've come (or I suppose in turn how other qualities have regressed). There's some word for the stark yet paralleled contrast in dynamics between the two - irony, I suppose? Yes, irony will have to do.

Are we overpopulated? Becoming less responsible? More carefree, not having to worry about the level and tenacity of civilization-ending dangers such as famine and invasion that pose existential threats to not only our own personal survival but that of society and even entire swathes of humanity as a whole? People were more religious back then, if not by State or governmental coercion (an obedient populace content and resolute in purpose is a manageable one, after all). Seems to me a lot of it has to do with attitude toward humanity as a species and whether or not we hold ourselves in higher regard to that of the animals, beyond the superficialities of "we're a bit smarter and more physically-capable and as a result just so happened to wind up on top of the primal food chain". Which if not compounded by a sort of metaphysical/religious/divine purpose seems to not offer much as far as a deep reverence and appreciation for our own lives, let alone that of others. Little more than highly advanced, verbally communicative creatures who exist only to propagate one's genetic material, not unlike a common cold germ.

Might be delving a tad off topic (my reply, that is) so to circle back, I agree there is a social and personal psychological drawback to abortion that might not be so widely covered or immediately perceived. What if, say, a woman chose abortion and later becomes infertile. Or simply ponders, as she becomes older, the magnitude of the act, or rather begins thinking along the lines of "imagine what could have been", etc. When you're young you don't really think about such things in any great depth. But many a decision or indecision from one's youth and naivety have been known to haunt persons as they become older and wiser. Something to think about and consider, surely? :confused:

In short, the modern age is what it is. The average low-income person lives a life with experiences readily-available only a king or magistrate would have had 1,000 years ago. It's not difficult to become blinded to or unappreciative of this fact. That said, something about a rape victim being forced to carry her assailant's child to term literally inside her for 9 months just doesn't sit well with me, nor would I imagine it with said victim. I still don't think it's beneficial to society that it be easier/quicker to legally get rid of whatever you want to call what would otherwise become a child than it is, say, a bucket of used motor oil, however. Not as casually with little to no thought about the matter, rather. Still, in a world where people are starving and killing one another in the streets as wars and pre-war tensions rage on in nearly every corner of the globe, there's more pressing issues to contend with I suppose can be said.

So you found an exception or two to the rule. Congrats. — Leontiskos

a-z-animals.com has 7 species and says that " In fact, up to one in three mammal species are known to commit infanticide."

wildlifeinformer.com has 10 species and says that heads its list as "10 examples with pictures". (They aren't pictures of the animals in the process of eating their young). They say of blenny fish that " it is the fathers that eat their babies rather than the mother." Their story is that it is the father that looks after the eggs until they hatch. But apparently they sometimes eat the eggs they are supposed to be looking after so they can wander off and find another mate.

www.livescience.com has 12 species and introduces its list with "many creatures engage in this behavior."

Not as casually with little to no thought about the matter, rather. — Outlander

I would hope that anyone choosing an abortion would treat the matter seriously. Whether they do or not is an empirical question. Proper data, properly gathered is the only serious basis for making a judgement about how many do in fact take it seriously and how many do not.

What if, say, a woman chose abortion and later becomes infertile. Or simply ponders, as she becomes older, the magnitude of the act, or rather begins thinking along the lines of "imagine what could have been", etc. — Outlander

The only way you can answer that question is to talk to women who have made that decision and become infertile (or chosen not to have children, for that matter). Again, proper data, properly gathered. Anything else is speculation, and possibly fear-mongering and propaganda. "What if.." questions are all too often misused.

subsidiary argument which may not have been mentioned is, "Any species which develops systematic means to kill 70+ million of its own fetuses each year is messed up." A species which so buttresses the killing of its own offspring is not in good shape. For a species to intentionally kill its own fetuses is exceedingly unnatural. — Leontiskos

What makes abortion unnatural? Murder is an inherent part of humanity, particularly the murder of our own family members. Cain killed Abel after all, and there were only 4 people in all of creation at the time.

But despite our murderous tendencies, with domestic violence, wars, pollution, and even counting abortion, human populations continue to grow.

All is natural.

Argue ethics. That makes more sense.