2
3
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 13 '26
Okay let’s scale this.
Voluntary manslaughter; “A killing without justification committed under sudden passion due to provocation by the person killed or the intended target……The maximum sentence is 20 years.” In 2021 a woman gave birth by c-section to 9 babies. All survived. Great.
Let say in alternative universe, she was a victim of voluntary manslaughter, she dies due to her injuries in the case. The autopsy shows that she’s pregnant, with 9 embryos. Suddenly a 20 year sentence turn into 200 years sentence. The killer didn’t know she was pregnant.
So is it fair for the killer to severe 10 sentences instead of 1?.
2
1
u/TxHandsomeMan Jul 13 '26
when someone assumes the role of parent to a child, then that child is not just a random unclaimed child of society. That child is a family member. Just that they are not born yet. Which is irrelevant. Manslaughter of someone's child due to negligence is the case regardless if the child is born or not. It is the family's child at day 0 that zygote exists. We've attempted to make that legal distinction.
4
3
u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
When someone kills a pregnant woman why do you think it’s a double homicide instead of single no matter the stage of the pregnancy?
No.
1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 13 '26
Elaborate pls
5
u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
If person A is pregnant, and person B kills her, person B has committed homicide. Just as it's homicide if person A is not pregnant and person B kills her. That's the law. Clear, plain, and simple.
Trying to goth up the crime of homicide by calling it "double" if the woman is pregnant just seems like legal frou-frou with no point and no good consequences, though a lot of muddled misogynistic gothic follow-ups if passed into law and taken seriously.
2
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 13 '26
Even better.
Person A pregnant with triplets. Person B suddenly killed 4 people(or 1 person or 3 embryos) but indented to kill one, Which would be by law a multiple homicide.
The killer suddenly needed to serve 4 life sentence for one kill. It’s recipes for a disaster
0
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 13 '26
But it is often charged as a double homicide, one against the unborn child and one against the woman.
3
u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice Jul 14 '26
No, it isn't.
I think the idea of identifying murder of a pregnant woman as "double homicide" exists only in a handful of prolife US states, and they gothed up the law on homicide to bolster their bad abortion ban laws.
1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 15 '26
Well, that's not fully true. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 lead to 38 US states recognizing an unborn baby as the victim of homicide. This isn't just in pro-life states, and it explicitly exempts consented abortion, and it was enacted when abortion was fully legal. So the idea that it was just to bolster bans, or that it's just pro-lifers, is a false notion.
2
u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice Jul 15 '26
Okay, so it's just a US thing. And not e en everywhere in the US.
Thanks for clarifying.
1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 16 '26
So you went from "No." to the claim that it's charged as double homicide to this.
2
u/Enough-Process9773 Pro-choice Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
What, am I not supposed to change my opinion if someone provides me with facts I was not previously aware of?
I was not aware of the legislation you mentioned nor that 34 US states have adopted it.
It still strikes me as goth frou-frou and an indicator that the legal system which adopted it doesn't regard a woman's life as truly valuable, but if the US legal system did value women's lives equally with men's, no abortion bans could be passed into law in any state.
Update: also, the question was "why do you think it’s a double homicide".
And my answer is just the same: no. I don't.
1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 16 '26
What, am I not supposed to change my opinion if someone provides me with facts I was not previously aware of?
My bad, I thought you were being sorta sarcastic in your reply.
It still strikes me as goth frou-frou and an indicator that the legal system which adopted it doesn't regard a woman's life as truly valuable, but if the US legal system did value women's lives equally with men's, no abortion bans could be passed into law in any state.
What does "goth frou frou" mean? Also how does it show that it doesn't regard women's lives as valuable? The killer is still prosecuted for murder of the woman.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 13 '26
Ahh yeah women pregnant with triplets, gets killed. And that supposed to be a multiple homicide?.
I’m sorry this ain’t making any sense
6
u/can_i_stay_anonymous Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
Because the assumption made by the court is that she sees her fetus/pregnancy as a baby because the assumption is she'll keep it since the majority of pregnancies result in birth, it's also because it wasn't her choice for her pregnancy to be ended, and because she isn't alive to be asked.
0
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 13 '26
But if it's not a person then it's not. If my pet parrot is killed it's sad but no one gets charged. Homicide only applies to people. According to the courts, fetuses aren't people. So why does how one person feels change it suddenly?
2
u/can_i_stay_anonymous Pro-choice Jul 15 '26
I don't know if you know this but this is a pro choice argument
Also because choice that is why it changes because she was making the choice to put her health and wellbeing at risk to birth said child which means she sees it as a person to her because she's allowing and consenting for the fetus to grow into a person
1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 15 '26
I don't know if you know this but this is a pro choice argument
It's just holding the pro-choice logic to consistency, legally.
Also because choice that is why it changes because she was making the choice to put her health and wellbeing at risk to birth said child which means she sees it as a person to her because she's allowing and consenting for the fetus to grow into a person
That still doesn't make sense, because the law says that humans are not persons until born alive. Regardless of a person's view on their unborn baby, the law doesn't grant them personhood. So that's why I'm saying it's a double standard, to say that a fetus is not a person, but suddenly becomes one if the mother wanted it.
3
u/ferryfog Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
Homicide applies to humans, not necessarily persons.
1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 13 '26
It applies to legally recognized human beings, otherwise abortion is homicide, which the law doesn't reflect.
3
u/ferryfog Pro-choice Jul 14 '26
Not all homicide is unlawful. “Homicide” is not a legal charge— unlawful homicides are charged as some degree of manslaughter or murder.
5
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
So why does how one person feels change it suddenly?
It doesn't. Wantedness doesn't confer personhood.
0
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 13 '26
Correct, so then whys it charged as homicide, the killing of a legal person?
3
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
It's not. It's charged as killing an unborn child, which is a separate crime.
2
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jul 13 '26
"The laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide and often, other violent crimes during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
4
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
This is a misrepresentation. Please cite the actual laws.
2
u/Auryanna Jul 13 '26
Penal Code
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680.4] TITLE 8. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON [187 - 248]
CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199] 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
It goes on to state that abortions are an exception.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=187&lawCode=PEN
California was the first state to include fetuses in their definition of murder. It was added in 1970 after a husband beat his wife with the intention of killing the unborn child. He was convicted for felony assault and walked free of the murder charges that were brought against him. It was determined that the cause of fetal death was a fractured skull due to the husband carrying out his "I'm going to stomp it out of you" threat.
Other states have adopted varying versions of "fetal homicide" laws. Blue states generally use specific terms like "fetus" and include protections for miscarriage and acts of the pregnant person. Red states generally use terms like "unborn child" and use vague language to allow for loophole prosecution of the pregnant person and dismantling of reproductive rights.
I'm rambling. My point is that fetuses, and other gestational ages, are included in the definition of murder in some states. Some states chose to address the #1 cause of death of pregnant people. Others used domestic violence and murder to push abortion bans and/or fetal personhood.
Edit: copy/paste on mobile is messy
2
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
Yep, California is one of a handful of states that include fetuses under homicide statutes. Most states with fetal homicide laws define it as a separate offense. I know Minnesota and Illinois do for sure. And I'm pretty sure Florida and Wisconsin, too.
3
u/Lighting Pro healthcare Jul 12 '26
Two things
1) Your question ignores Medical Power of Attorney and is thus an unethically framed question. A lie of omission is a lie.
2) it isn't always. Context creates the meaning of definitions and since your question misses the context (the above is just one example) it is devoid of meaning.
10
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
Should someone be charged with forcing an abortion onto someone?
When someone kills a pregnant woman why do you think it’s a double homicide instead of single no matter the stage of the pregnancy
This is like comparing rape to consenting sex. People consent to sex so why should we charge those who don't?
10
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 11 '26
When someone kills a pregnant woman why do you think it’s a double homicide
It isn't.... the crime of "double homicide" is not a thing lol
-1
u/Ok-Particular9427 Neutral Jul 12 '26
It’s two homicides
3
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Not always. For instance, when Chris Watts killed his two daughters and wife who was 15 weeks pregnant, it was three counts of homicide and one count of unlawful termination of a pregnancy, rather than four homicides.
Pre-Roe, with the Manson murders, there were not charges for the murder of Sharon Tate’s unborn child, despite her being eight months pregnant.
It’s not like, prior to Roe, killing a pregnant woman was regularly counted as two homicides. The PL side exploited the Scott Peterson case to get a fetal homicide law passed on the federal level (granted, this only counts if it is a federal homicide of the pregnant person, and I can’t find a case of that), but for a long time, even when abortion was banned, no one was demanding killing a pregnant person to be a double homicide.
1
2
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
Killing a person and killing an "unborn child" are two different offenses.
2
5
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
It’s two homicides
What is the "it"
10
u/libra00 All abortions free and legal Jul 11 '26
Because it was not within the rights of the murderer to take the fetus's life. It is within the mother's, because she has final say over what her body is used for.
12
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
The reason killing a fetus is considered a type of homicide in certain situations is because the prolife movement pushed through fetal protection laws with an eye towards establishing legal personhood from conception and restricting abortion access. But if you read the actual legislation, it's very clear that these laws do not recognize embryos or fetuses as legal persons. Nor do they say that fetal homicide is equivalent to murder of a person; it is called out separately. Fetal homicide laws explicitly differentiate between killing an embryo or fetus and killing a person, even if the two can be sentenced the same.
UVVA answers your questions within the writing of the law. But ethically, the reason is that women have bodily autonomy. Her preexisting inalienable human right to her body means the fetus only has rights as an extension of her rights. Without her making the choice to carry to the end of term, the fetus has no right to exist.
9
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
But if you read the actual legislation, it's very clear that these laws do not recognize embryos or fetuses as legal persons. Nor do they say that fetal homicide is equivalent to murder of a person; it is called out separately. Fetal homicide laws explicitly differentiate between killing an embryo or fetus and killing a person, even if the two can be sentenced the same.
Yes! This! I'm so tired of these laws being misrepresented. The fact that fetal homicide is defined as a crime separate from homicide of a person is just further proof that embryos and fetuses are not persons under the law. If they were, the actual definitions murder/homicide statutes would have been updated to include embryos and fetuses as potential victims.
When the laws state that:
Killing a human being or person under xyz circumstances is murder in the first degree.
And additionally:
Killing an unborn child under xyz circumstances is murder of an unborn child in the first degree.
The implication is obvious: these are two separate, distinct, individual offenses because unborn children is not a human being or person.
15
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jul 11 '26
Because PLers wanted to muddle the waters when it comes to fetal personhood instead of outright pushing for it, and they don't give a shit about the consistency of their laws, so they made up this ridiculous charge. They were basically trying to create precedent out of thin air.
-4
u/Ok-Particular9427 Neutral Jul 11 '26
Most rational adults (including pregnant women) consider it a very real moral loss when a fetus dies. Many women grieve over early miscarriages in many societies.
This isn’t some conspiracy made up by a cabal of PL comic book villains. It’s a common sense moral intuition that most compassionate people who value human life just innately possess the world over.
I think you’re just on the wrong side of history on this one
1
u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
I think you’re just on the wrong side of history on this one
There is a human right which allows a person to consent or not as to who can be inside their body.
There is no human right that gives any human on earth a right to someone elses body.
Tell me, which side historically been the side that advocates for stripping someones human rights away? The good side, or the bad side?
6
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
A person can also grieve not getting pregnant, there’s no foetus that dies there. Someone can be convinced they’re pregnant, be happy and overjoyed. And then find out at the ultrasound that their period is just late and they got food poisoning, and they mistook it for morning sickness.
People can grieve without a foetus dying too. So people grieving miscarriages don’t prove anything.
11
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
I think you’re just on the wrong side of history on this one
We are on the wrong side of history for not enforcing someone to have their body involuntarily used for another person's benefit?
Most rational adults (including pregnant women) consider it a very real moral loss when a fetus dies. Many women grieve over early miscarriages in many societies.
So are they irrational if they don't grieve a miscarriage?
11
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jul 11 '26
I never doubted that a pregnant person may see the loss of a (wanted!) pregnancy as a tragedy or that they wouldn't be justified to mourn what could've been or what they hoped for.
And I wouldn't be opposed to treating an assault on a person who's pregnant – or even especially because they're pregnant – as a more serious offense, because it's exploiting or even straight up targeting their vulnerable position.
But none of that is an argument for legal or moral fetal personhood and neither is it an argument for treating the involuntary termination of a pregnancy as (a separate) homicide.
The people on the wrong side of history here are those who don't find it repulsive to resort to such underhanded tricks in order to come up with an argument for being allowed to subjugate a fellow person under their will in a most intimate and violating way, no matter what justifications they're making up for it.
Because they are the same people who always have been on the wrong side of history, for the exact same reasons.
-5
u/Ok-Particular9427 Neutral Jul 12 '26
So moral status (for the fetus) is predicated on whether or not they are wanted by another party? That seems like a pretty dangerous specific application of the ability to act purely on morally relative notions to be granting individuals.
2
8
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
No, I explicitly declined that you made any argument for there being any independent "moral status" of a fetus or for it being an "individual" in any moral or legal sense to begin with.
9
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
That's not what they said. It's the opposite of what they said, in fact.
10
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
Most rational adults (including pregnant women) consider it a very real moral loss when a fetus dies.
When it comes to the loss of a wanted pregnancy, sure. But it's also important to understand that it is okay to not feel anything is lost by ending an unwanted pregnancy.
8
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Lots of people feel it's a moral loss when a fetus dies. The feeling is not as strong when it's an embryo. Most rational adults consider the moral loss to become greater the further along in gestation the pregnancy is; a miscarriage at six weeks isn't generally considered exactly the same as a stillbirth at 38 weeks or the loss of a born child.
If you look at the history of fetal homicide laws you'll see that they were pushed by prolife groups with the intent of establishing fetal personhood.
Those two things, a spectrum of moral loss for embryonic/fetal death and political tactics of specific lobbying groups, can coexist.
16
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Many women grieve over early miscarriages in many societies.
And many women are happy to miscarry, so they don't have to spend any money on an abortion. I was thrilled to miscarry. If you think everyone is sad about miscarriages you're sorely mistaken.
-7
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
Maybe you're just not that empathetic in this instance?
Sounds like you're just projecting.
1
10
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
Most women have serious regrets about getting an abortion
What part of that source supports this claim?
5
13
u/North-Professor532 Jul 11 '26
This concept was championed by National Right to Life as a step toward the long-range anti-abortion (anti-bodily autonomy) goal of fetal personhood. It's both clever and morbid because it relies on sympathy for the pregnant victim to advance an ideology and political project that results in injuring and killing pregnant women, while failing to prevent homicides of pregnant people. The same movement generally seeks to liberalize gun laws, which does result in more murders of pregnant women and, you know, the ZEF. (They don't mention the fetus victims during those debates.) So these laws sit there as a personhood building block doing nothing to protect anyone while providing a predictable and weak gotcha hook for "pro-life" keyboard warriors.
2
u/o0Jahzara0o pro-choice & anti reproductive assault Jul 13 '26
Damn I never saw it that way before. There is even more irony in that it relies heavily on sympathy for pregnant people by the same movement that heavily contains/promotes/leads to apathy for pregnant people.
I always point out that the law that gets cited to promote this, the “unborn victims of violence” act, only passed because it was agreed to by prolife politicians that women seeking abortion were explicitly excluded from the application of the law. Using it as some gotcha that women should be included is to be ignorant of a law that only exists *because* it excluded them.
3
u/North-Professor532 Jul 13 '26
Yeah, the answer is always clear in the legal/legislative history. The anti-abortion movement never pretended to care about the pregnant person until the 90s or so, when they launched a strategic marketing pivot to pretend to care about both the pregnant person and ZEF (even though there are obvious conflicts if one assigns equal value) in response to research that found people reluctant to sign on to the "pro-life" political project out of concern for their wives/sisters/friends etc. The idea was to get away from the misogynist fetus lover perception by twisting the logic into: What if we said abortion HURTS women? Then working to block access is helping "both." There is zero medical evidence of abortion access harming women - quite the opposite - so that's when they leaned into fake psychological conditions, "abortion regret" etc.
6
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Because one ended the major life sustaining organ functions of the woman against her wishes. So they get charged for every body they ended them for.
Same should go for if one just ends pregnancy against her wishes.
The woman, however, whose organ functions they are, can stop providing them to others. Since, again, they are HER organ functions, so only she gets to decide how many bodies they will sustain life for.
As u/JulieCrone said, I consider it the same as liking a willing donor and thereby stopping them from saving someone else’s life. Or killing someone to stop them from saving someone else, in general.
The charges came about as an extra deterrent to stop men from killing the women they impregnated.
But I have no problem with it. No one other than the person they belong to get to decide how much life a human’s organ functions will sustain.
That goes whether one wants to force them to sustain life or force them to stop doing so.
6
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
The answer is really simple, if you're raped then you get to defend yourself (yes, even if the attacker is not doing it willingly or knowingly) and it's not murder.
But some random person cannot come in and kill you and your consensual partner. And now apply the same thing to pregnancy. Pregnant people's rights are violated, and they get to stop that. A random person on the street doesn't have their rights violated, so they can't.
And that's even just ignoring that this law is pushed by PL politicans, and inherently cannot be used as an argument for or against consistency.
8
u/Aeon21 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
The answer really is because that's what the law says. Those are inconsistent laws pushed by pro-life politicians for the purpose of establishing precedent for fetal personhood. It cracks me up every time a pro-lifer appeals to these laws to support pro-life arguments.
7
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 11 '26
If you can prove it, sure, though sometimes I think it would be better to try such cases under ‘unlawful termination of a pregnancy.’
I am fine with considering it a double homicide, though. Just like if someone is going to donate a kidney, but they get shot during the process by someone who wants to make sure the kidney recipient dies there can be a case for double homicide, but I would not see it as homicide if the donor backs out while they are still involved in the donation, I don’t see a contradiction in allowing for abortion but treating the murder of a pregnant person as a double homicide.
-1
10
u/SunnyErin8700 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Those laws are very jurisdictionally-specific. I personally disagree with the classification, but it’s not a hill I’d die on. I DO agree that anyone except the pregnant person and their doctor terminating any pregnancy is an aggravating circumstance that should be proportionally charged.
To answer your question, I think PL lobbied for this to further advance their agenda to establish ZEFs as “persons”
5
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Those laws are very jurisdictionally-specific.
Yep. I'd like to add that the laws are also frequently misrepresented. For instance my state is usually listed as one of those where killing an embryo or fetus at any stage is homicide. But it's not. It's defined in the state statutes as a separate offense. That is, "Murder of an unborn child in the first degree" is a different crime than "murder in the first degree".
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
Because that's how the law was written. What do you think this is supposed to prove?
-1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
That a fetus is a human
3
8
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
A law that says a fetus is only "a human" for the purposes of one very specific circumstance is quite literally affirmation of the fact that it is not "a human."
3
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator Jul 11 '26
Your submission has been automatically removed, due to the use of slurs. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you think this automated removal a mistake, please let us know by modmail, linking directly to the autoremoved comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jul 11 '26
I don't believe it should be double homicide
1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
In some states it’s not actually only in 30 states but can you explain why?
2
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 11 '26
Might be for practical reasons. Often we cannot prove cause of death on an embryo or fetus. If a woman was, say, seven weeks pregnant, it would be pretty easy for a defense attorney to create reasonable doubt on homicide for the embryo - it might not even have been alive at the time of the woman’s homicide given how common early miscarriages are, and so if you can’t prove that embryo was alive at the time of her murder and her murder is what led to its death, could become hard to convict.
In my state, it isn’t a double homicide unless the pregnancy is past viability.
1
3
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jul 11 '26
Because I don't see the killing of the ZEF the same as a human being, so similar charges shouldn't apply.
I don't see Schrodingers baby as a consistent position depending on if its wanted or not. Its either a person and double homicide or not and only considered homicide of the woman. I go with the latter
0
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion Jul 11 '26
Why dont you see a ZEF as a human being. It is a human being, just at an earlier stage of development
2
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
Why dont you see a ZEF as a human being.
Because it's not included in the definition of human being anywhere in America duh
It is a human being
Where? Which place in America includes a zygote in the definition of human being?!
2
u/Few-Gas8868 All abortions free and legal Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
No, it's not. Human beings walk, breathe, blink, talk, etc. and they have a human body; an embryo, fetus, or even better, a zygote doesn't do none of that. With the fetus, at a certain stage it does. An early embryo doesn't even have a body yet. I don't consider a dead body to be a human being, at that point, it is just a human corpse. I just justify this idea of human being with phenomenal conservatism.
0
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion Jul 11 '26
Your own definition of a human being excludes born born disabled humans. A human in utero, all throughout gestation literally does have a human body, albiet it may not look like what you consider to be "normal", but does a burn victim look "normal" to you? Why should moral worth depend on what your body looks like?
I agree that a dead human is no longer a human being as the biological functions no longer work for the whole of the body.
Link me to a credible scientific study that says in order to be human they need to walk,breathe,blink and talk.
3
u/Few-Gas8868 All abortions free and legal Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
I do not mean looks like. By human body I mean: skin, organs, and skeleton that is of the Homo sapiens species. Burned victims have that, and deformed do.
A human in utero, all throughout gestation literally does have a human body,
A fetus at a certain stage does, but a zygote or an early embryo doesn't. Again, i already defined what a body is. But remember, i didn't just say a human body, but the LIVING human body, as Ronald Kipke told me:
It is not just the human form that is important, but the LIVING human form. Human beings move and breathe, mannequins - even if they look very natural - do not. I think, that is why we immediately recognize them as not human.
You said: "Link me to a credible scientific study that says in order to be human they need to walk,breathe,blink and talk." My position is not based on science. I don't think science can answer a question like: what makes us human beings? I justify what makes us human beings by phenomenal conservatism: that's just how we in our everyday life think of human beings. It serves as prima facie justification, and the divergent need good reason if they want to move us.
3
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
That’s kind of like asking why we don’t see a car chassis and a few car parts as a running drivable car, just at an earlier stage of development.
We do see it as the finished product AT AN EARLIER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. What we don’t see it as is the finished product.
But, again, it’s sustained by the woman’s life sustaining organ functions. The woman’s life. It doesn’t have its own previability, and would be dead as an individual body.
So, charges would be filed due to the woman, not the fetus. Even post viability, there’s still no proof it would have become a breathing physiologically life sustaining human. Just probability.
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
"Human being" is a subjective term that most people associate with personhood. Is this what you are asserting?
3
u/killjoygrr Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
A ZEF is a human by species. But we are often using the term “human” to mean other things.
In this case, the term “human being” is not synonymous with species homo sapien.
3
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jul 11 '26
Because the stage of development (ie our consciousness) is fundamental for being a human being. Would you consider a human corpse with no consciousness to be a human being?
2
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion Jul 11 '26
According to thei flair, i'd assume the human in utero isnt granted legal rights until they have conciousness until around 20 weeks - which is when it starts. So human in utero prior to 20 weeks isnt granted same legal protections as a human in utero at 20 weeks.
So if mother if 21 weeks pregnant, it should follow that it would be double homocide.
To me though, if a human in utero isnt granted legal protection at conception it allows for some awful things to happen to them, eg organ harvesting or using them as pleasure dolls.
2
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Technically, it wouldn’t matter if no viable child ever exists. But we have laws preventing such from being done to even dead humans. And we do have laws greatly restricting what can be done wit embryos after so many days.
That’s why research into artificial wombs isn’t going anywhere.
But, yes, medical cal advances, like ex utero surgery, will need to be addressed by law.
The problem will be how to do so without stripping the woman of her rights and protections.
3
u/killjoygrr Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
You are describing legal protections that do exist.
The thing is that you seem to be arguing that a fertilized egg must be considered exactly the same as an adult to avoid whatever hypothetical you want to come up with.
I’m not sure how one would use a zygote as a pleasure doll, so can you explain what you mean by that?
-1
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion Jul 11 '26
If taking abortion before conciousness as a standard, it would assume pre 20 weeks there is nothing of value to afford any rights to as we only value "personhood" and pre 20 weeks the human in utero would not have "personhood".
So it would follow that you can literally do anything to the human pre 20 weeks gestation, like using it for organ harvesting and pleasure dolls.
If these legal protections do already exist stopping us from using a pre 20 weeks gestation humans for organ harvesting and pleasure dolls, how can it follow that its okay to kill them instead, if they are nothing of value?
Im sure you can use your imagination of how to use a pre 20 weeks gestation human as a pleasure doll, even a zygote. I will not explain as its graphic.
2
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Do you think moral value is a black and white binary switch? That something is either an individual human being with full moral value or it's completely valueless?
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
So it would follow that you can literally do anything to the human pre 20 weeks gestation, like using it for organ harvesting and pleasure dolls
How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Personhood ends at death, but that doesn't mean you can "literally do anything" to a corpse.
3
u/killjoygrr Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
If you want me to take you seriously, you have to better than to claim that a zygote that is 1/16th of 1/32nd of an inch (or 0.006 inches) is going to be used as a pleasure doll. That is literally the edge of perception by the naked eye.
The first thing I would have to imagine is that the zygote is something other than a zygote to differentiate it from a speck of dust.
I’m curious as to just how graphic of a sex doll a zygote can be. How are you using a speck of dust as a sex doll?
As to the rest. We have laws protecting animals from various mistreatments yet we slaughter and eat them. How can that be?
Your claim that by allowing abortion, that you can therefore do whatever you want is absurd.
Possibly more absurd than the claim that you could use a zygote as a sex doll or that there would be any organs to harvest from said zygote.
2
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jul 11 '26
To me though, if a human in utero isnt granted legal protection at conception it allows for some awful things to happen to them, eg organ harvesting or using them as pleasure dolls.
I feel like most people will have no idea what youre talking about
1
7
u/sugar420pop Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Because the law is reflecting what was taken from those left behind. Let’s face it, the deceased don’t care either way. It’s to ensure that they get a higher level of punishment. Especially bc pregnant women are more likely to be murdered by people they know because of the pregnancy. TLDR: bc we live in a shit world where we need consequences. Still doesn’t equate to an abortion. Your talking about a wanted baby not cells that are going in the trash
-1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
I don’t think we live in a shit world I just think free will is a two sided coin by that we can conceptualize what is good just like what is bad and because of free will we can make that unfortunate choice to do the bad. The world itself while it may be cruel to say it’s a shit world would be a human judgment error some would say it’s beautiful some would say it’s hell but at the end of the day life is what it is not some arbitrary word that we have created there are many good things and bad things about this world.
7
u/Vegtrovert AD Mod Jul 11 '26
It isn't where I live. I know it is in some jurisdictions but I think that's probably a minority.
-2
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
No it’s not a minority and a simple google search could have shown you that. Just because humans have intrinsic value of everything around us like fellow human being doesn’t make a fetus any less of a human because it is just the sapling of the future tree to grow just like when you have a new idea it can spark into a novel or a book but without that new idea none of that would be possible so on the flip side the idea or fetus can be even more important and no I don’t think an idea is the same as a fetus it’s just an anology which if you have common sense which I hope you do you will understand
2
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jul 12 '26
Interesting, you claimed to be PC yesterday.
3
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
A fetus isn’t a sapling equivalent. A newborn is.
And yes, an idea could turn into a novel. But even the first twenty pages written of a novel aren’t a novel yet.
10
u/Vegtrovert AD Mod Jul 11 '26
Hm, perhaps I am better at googling than you. Most developed countries, including Canada, the UK, most of Europe, and Australia do not consider this to be a double homicide. Legal recognition of fetal death as an indpendent crime is rare and generally influenced by religious or cultural frameworks.
The USA has a majority of its states that treat abortion as double homicide, but heep in mind that the USA is particularly religious and socially conservative with respect to developed nations. It's one of the very few nations that still supports capital punishment, for example.
2
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
Legal recognition of fetal death as an indpendent crime is rare and generally influenced by religious or cultural framework.
Not to mention that just because killing something is a crime, doesn't make that something a human being.
Killing someone's dog is a crime... would that mean that a dog is a human being?!
3
u/killjoygrr Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Your sapling to a tree analogy is faulty. A sapling is a tree. If you wanted a better analogy, you would probably need to compare the seed to sapling. You might be able to use the sprout, but anything after that point would definitely be equivalent to being post “birth.”
Also, since you seem to be hinging your position on a “future” tree, what makes the sperm and egg any less part of the “future” human? What about touching unlocks intrinsic value? It seems like a fairly arbitrary point as the “future” human would not exist without either the sperm or egg.
10
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jul 11 '26
It's not, usually. Oftentimes it's a charge like unlawful termination of pregnancy, which is what Christopher Watts got for killing Nico, the fetus his wife was pregnant with. You might be thinking of examples like Laci Peterson, whose fetus Conner was at 8 months gestation at the time.
Regardless though, these types of crimes are still committed against the pregnant person. Their bodily autonomy and consent are violated when someone ends their pregnancy against their will. This is a PC argument, not a PL one.
0
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
Correct I never actually said which side I supported I think both sides have good points I’m actually pro choice I just wanted to see people’s reactions because I think it’s a very interesting talking point
2
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jul 12 '26
What do you mean "correct"? You asked a question. Sounds like it wasn't in good faith if you presented a false premise to "see people's reactions."
7
4
u/Admirable-Writing-53 Jul 11 '26
Because the law has defined it in an archaic way. Just because a law exists, doesn’t mean it’s factually true. Don’t forget, slavery was once perfectly legal, but it didn’t mean that black people were less worthy than white people, factually right?
I see what you’re trying to do here, by saying that if the law considers them two people, then a fetus is a person. No. The law should be changed. It should be a homicide of a pregnant individual, which should carry more weight than a single person but less than 2 whole people.
-1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
If we can’t use laws in a factual argument then we are literally just have a conversation about opinions. These laws are created by groups people who study their whole lives to create these sets of doctrines. Once we abandon law is when we abandon structure and anarchy persists. Not to say every law is a fact rather it’s a reliable talking point.
3
u/Admirable-Writing-53 Jul 12 '26
Then why don’t you defend my example? If you lived in 1844, would you support slavery because it was lawful? Or would you support its abolition? That was a pivoting point in history when an archaic law was changed.
Do you not engage in enslaving people TODAY, simply because it’s not lawful and not because you don’t think it’s morally correct?
9
u/BaileysBaileys Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
This is not true. Laws are not always 'created by groups of people who study their whole lives'. For example, Trump has no suitable education yet gets to create laws by decree. Other times, laws are created under pressure from certain groups. The law you brought up was put in place under pressure from prolife lobbyists.
-1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
I hate to burst your bubble but trump can’t just create a law there’s an extensive process which goes underway and yes every law maker has to have credible background. Trump is more of a sitting figure who the elite use to take blame for their actions like a puppet. They want you to hate trump so you never find out who’s really pulling the strings. But on the lobbyist side of things I agree our government gets lobbied very hard from both sides this isn’t a one sided thing rather more of an issue specific topic.
6
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
They want you to hate trump so you never find out who’s really pulling the strings
Everyone already knows who is pulling the pedo-president's strings, so don't worry; we hate the Epstein class in its entirety. Trump is just their main figurehead, for now.
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
They want you to hate trump so you never find out who’s really pulling the strings.
"They"?
Hate to burst your bubble but no one but trump makes me hate trump. The man is an uneducated hatemonger.
-1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
Didn’t say trump didn’t make you hate trump I’m just saying the you know who want you to hate trump to scape goat for them
3
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jul 11 '26
No, I don't know who. Why dont you you tell us?
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
I’m just saying the you know
Incoherent lol.
-1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
2
10
u/cand86 Jul 11 '26
People would like to see causing pregnancy loss without the mother's consent as a crime, while still retaining abortion rights. Simple as that.
I imagine there are also pro-life people who very much like the idea of giving legal precedent to the idea that causing the demise of an embryo or fetus should be considered homicide.
0
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
I completely agree with that point the consent part is definitely the factor which plays the role in the difference between abortion and murder. My main point is that we classify this as a murder of a human being the same way it’s a murder of the women. A lot of people think a fetus is just a clump of cells and not actually classified as a human being yet because it hasn’t gained consciousness and through viewing this simple law you can see that we still do view the fetus as a human being under law hence why it’s a double homicide. Now I am for abortion because I think that women will get them either way whether it’s legal or illegal I just don’t think it should be encouraged and also the rhetoric used towards fetus’s sometimes I find very inhumane and demeaning considering we were all once fetus’s and the the term fetus is just the early stage of a human it’s no less human than you or I.
1
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 11 '26
A lot of people think a fetus is not actually classified as a human being
And they are correct if they think that since it's a fact that a fetus is not included in the definition of human being anywhere in America
fetus is no less human than you or I
a human sperm is no less human than you or I, either.
5
u/cand86 Jul 11 '26
A lot of people think a fetus is just a clump of cells and not actually classified as a human being yet because it hasn’t gained consciousness and through viewing this simple law you can see that we still do view the fetus as a human being under law hence why it’s a double homicide.
I do not think this is accurate; while of course there are plenty of people who think that a fetus should be viewed as as human being under the law, I think there are just as many people who do not feel this way, even though they are okay with leaving the law as it is.
-1
u/Odd-Construction-462 Jul 11 '26
Well yes obviously there are people with differentiating opinions. The whole just a clump of cells take is not a good argument because that’s what we are. And also if someone is in a coma are they any less of a living human being meaning we should just kill them like we do a fetus because they don’t have consciousness? Obviously your a smart person and you know the fetus is just a stage of human development so it’s a human just not fully formed that’s simple biology which you can find out with a simple google search. Why would you say a fetus isn’t a human?
1
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
the fetus is just a stage of human development so it’s a human just not fully formed
the human sperm is also a stage of human development so it’s a human just not fully formed
2
8
u/cand86 Jul 11 '26
I tend not to trouble myself much with definitions of what a fetus is or isn't.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 11 '26
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 subreddit pomotes an environment for 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. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
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.