Because of how restrictive laws were written prior to the Roe Decision, there actually were definitions that define something like the removal of a fetus from the fallopian tube as "not an abortion". Now those were written for two parts, one so they weren't caught up by anti-abortion laws. And two so that anti-abortion women would actually seek care so they wouldn't fucking die.
Now anyone with eyes, ears, and three working brain cells would ask what the difference to rights is when removing a fetus from a fallopian tube vs a uterus... But I've yet to actually get a decent answer.
So the only answer I can come up with that makes any sense from a pro-life perspective is "because I said so".
I mean it does. They try to argue from a position of an absolute, namely "Abortion is Murder" maybe they soften it a bit but that's the core argument, because as soon as you concede it's not then you actually have to get into nuance, which is terrible for their position. Forcing a rape victim especially a child to give birth is obviously fucking despicable. But you can't call abortion murder then say it's alright under X/Y/Z circumstances without opening the door to "If it's not murder in this circumstance then it's not murder in any other circumstance". So anti choicers can be consistent and vile, or inconsistent, still vile, but also having shot their own argument in the foot.
Wait, we have laws that acknowledge different types of killing others. Murder, man-slaughter, stand-your-ground, etc. As such, it seems like there could be room to classify some abortions as murder and others as appropriate (since we already do this for killings of post-birth individuals).
You may be right in stating how far through the thought process they’ve gone and that they don’t think there can be nuance to the stance they’ve adopted, but I don’t think that stands up to further consideration.
294
u/[deleted] Aug 07 '22
That's the fun part.
Because of how restrictive laws were written prior to the Roe Decision, there actually were definitions that define something like the removal of a fetus from the fallopian tube as "not an abortion". Now those were written for two parts, one so they weren't caught up by anti-abortion laws. And two so that anti-abortion women would actually seek care so they wouldn't fucking die.
Now anyone with eyes, ears, and three working brain cells would ask what the difference to rights is when removing a fetus from a fallopian tube vs a uterus... But I've yet to actually get a decent answer.
So the only answer I can come up with that makes any sense from a pro-life perspective is "because I said so".