[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The Free Joy State]

It's about measuring risk, though.

There is a negligably small chance -- far less than 1% -- that that random stranger is going to pull a knife on me and kill me. Though, if I noticed they were grimacing, had something pointy in their pocket and were lumbering towards me I'd probably take abortive action and walk the other way.

We know that -- in the Western world -- 6-8% of mothers have high-risk complications (ones that could lead to death and require specialist care).

We know that the maternal mortality rate is 239 per 100,000 live births in developing countries, vs. 12 in developed countries (26.4 in the USA) and that women have a lifetime risk of 1 in 4900 of dying from a maternity related cause in developed countries (1 in 180 in developing countries, and 1 in 54 for countries named fragile states).

Just as I can assess risk and decide whether or not to walk down the street, women can assess risk and decide whether or not to remain pregnant.

Are fetuses somehow strong enough to deliver the same amount of force as a semi going over 60?

Foetuses can lead to death of the mother, yes. Hence the whole preceding portion about maternal mortality -- i.e. the number of women who die due to being pregnant or having been pregnant.

[Attempted Socialism]

I can very well demonstrate the existence of God, and why such a God would give humans rights, but I doubt you'd follow my reasoning.

Last time you tried, even if we granted all your premises, your conclusions did not follow. It's not that we didn't follow your reasoning, it was that there was no reasoning to follow.

Your demonstration is gonna be Aquinas, isn’t it.

It was. Salandriagado picked it apart rather definitively.

Yep. I made a note of the conclusions that followed from the premises (Even if we grant them) and I think there were a handful (Out of what, 25? 30? Can't recall exactly) that did. Most didn't. Thus...

Fine, my answer is that the fetus has been granted the right to live by God Himself.

We know your deity does not exist, thus cannot grant any rights. As you believe the only thing stopping you from murder (See next quote) is the non-objective (And now non-existent) "objective" morality of your known-to-be-non-existent deity, this actually makes you closer to a murderer than any woman having an abortion or any doctor performing one.

Christian point of view or not, a human either has a soul, or it doesn't. If one does, Christian theocracy or not, the government has a duty to ban abortion. If one does not, then there is no reason why murder should be wrong at all.

I'll just add the further comment that this is not true. Morality does not (Indeed cannot) come from Christianity or souls, yet people generally avoid killing each other. One might surmise that human ethics have developed quite nicely alongside our brains, social abilities and society, to the point where we're actually able to reliably feed kids whose parents cannot.

A child actually has to exist out of the uterus.

Perhaps according to some dictionary definition, but my point still stands, and you know quite well what I mean.

We don't actually know what you mean, because you consistently use words in a way that confuses your meaning and often undermines any point you're trying to make. "Murder their children" in your use, as an example, conflates the wilful homicide of persons without a just cause (I.e. murder) with a woman having an abortion where no children are involved and murder cannot happen.
Just shouting "murder" isn't going to cut it as an argument. Here, I'll even help with a preview from my third, slightly extended, work-in-progress post on abortion:

A matter of perspective?
If you try to convince other people, it matters to consider their perspective and what, if anything, might convince them. As a recent example: If a poster claims that objective rights come from their deity, but they’ve consistently failed to show that deity to exist or those objective rights to exist, then arguing that there’s a deity-given objective right to life that can be voided (But not for foetuses) simply cannot be a convincing argument to anyone not already agreeing with them. Such an argument becomes virtue-signalling to people who hold the same opinions, but spam to the rest of us.
Instead of starting by assuming that people must agree with you, and then when they don’t, argue that they must and should in so many ways, take care to understand the argument of you opponent. Work it through from your own perspective, sure, but don’t just repeat the same moronic arguments ad nauseum. If, for example, you open your argument with “abortion is murder”, most people on Earth can counter with “no, since by definition a murder must be illegal, and abortion is legal under so-and-so circumstances”. This is not just a misunderstanding on A’s part (I.e. they don’t know the meaning and legal standing of the words they use), but also a failure of argument; “abortion is murder” cannot convince anyone because simply knowing what the words involved mean can counter it. Rather, an anti-choice advocate might say “abortion ought to be considered murder for reasons X, Y and Z.” Here, a pro-choice advocate cannot simply counter by “wrong, read a dictionary.” B has to engage in those three reasons.
Similarly, arguing that some deity is the reason why abortion must be illegal is generally a non-starter. First, because most “holy” books can be cherrypicked to find arguments for either position (The Bible, e.g., contains a specific mandate to perform abortions: Numbers 5:11-31), but more damningly because it assumes that the other poster is already in agreement with you. Why is your favourite book of fables an authority to them? Your deity doesn’t exist (Or at least, is just one out of infinitely many of Pascal’s Muggers), so why should they listen? You’ve failed to even consider what might convince someone, and instead you’re just spouting whatever words signal your “virtue”.
Getting to learn the other perspective well enough, however, enables you to engage with them. If someone doesn’t consider a foetus a person and knows that “foetus” and “baby” are different words with different meanings, then no appeal to “think of the babies” will impact them. Instead, engage with their ideas about personhood. What are their criteria? Do these run counter to some of their professed ideals? If, e.g., someone believes in personhood from the moment of viability (24th-30th week), yet thinks abortion should be legal until birth, those two ideas cannot be reconciled. Alternatively, if someone thinks that you have bodily sovereignty yet do support compulsive organ harvesting, those two ideas are clearly directly contradictory. If someone holds the ideal that human suffering should be minimised and human health and wellbeing should be maximised, “abortion increases suffering in both the woman and her immediate surroundings, based on X, Y and Z evidence” is a much better argument than “abortion ought to be illegal”.

So if someone doesn't accept the existence of a soul, then there's no basis for calling a fetus in the earliest stages a child?

The secular equivalent is that if the law does not consider it as "human", it's a-ok to snuff it.

No on two counts: First, "human" is not the criteria here (Of course the foetus is human, there's no way it can't be), "person" is. Second, we regularly remove human things from the body - "human cancer cells", "human appendix" "human gangrene limbs", "human knife stuck in torso", "human toy stuck in arse" - but there are regulations concerning the "snuffing" of non-human entities - cats, dogs, horses, protected animals, legal entities such as companies. I don't get how you can get through 50 or more pages and still misunderstand the basics. It's not about agreeing with our point, but at least put in the effort of comprehending it so you don't continuously strawman it.

[The New California Republic]

Congrats, you put your penis in a vagina. (Or the other way around) How damn significant of you...

You put a vagina in your penis?

Fucking lol.

[Katganistan]

I’m not sure how rapists got back into this again, but ok. I need a map for this conversation.

Also, that’s kind of a hellaciously strong charge against the pro life crowd, that they’d let a criminal get away with it not based on lack of evidence, but evidence that indicated the victim had an abortion.

Yep it is incredibly big insult against that crowd.

I have plenty of arguments with pro-life, but I don't believe they would let a criminal get away with rape just because his victim aborted the result of the rape.

That's just.... insane.

But it would be just to torture a woman by forcing her to have her rapist's child and risk her life and health.

Sounds VERY christian.

What's better, murder or torture?

Neither, and since abortion isn't murder, I aim not to have women tortured.

Did you SERIOUSLY ask that question?

"Would you rather I killed you quickly or spent months cutting pieces off of you?"
That is just sick.

Which you also can do, legally, so long as you leave it in a safe harbor such as a fire station or hospital.

God, what is WRONG with people trying to make a woman an unwilling incubator. She's not someone's Golden Retriever bitch, and 400,000 kids in foster care proves that not everyone wants a new puppy.

"God, what is WRONG with people trying to make parents take care of their children"

That's what this sounds like to me.

Then you are either not comprehending or being willfully obtuse.

Just making sure in case you didn't see it, since I was genuinely interested in your response.

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

Not everyone is a Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations



Two thirds of the world, in fact. Let's not try to force our beliefs on more than 67% of the world, shall we?

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

Here we see a libertarian arguing that people shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy.

Unless, I suspect, it is THEIR bodily autonomy.

[Kaltovar]

Welfare Support for Single Mothers

Comprehensive Sex Education

Free Contraception

___________

I believe it should be legal up to the point the fetus can feel pain (unless there's medical risk to the mother, then always legal) and that in these cases the mother should have the option of transferring full responsibility for the child to the state.

Abortion should also be free.

Using this system more than, say, three times (in light of comprehensive sex-ed and free contraception) should result in mandatory sterilization due to the fact the person is clearly too stupid to take care of themselves. Rapes or coerced sex should not count toward the limit.

[Katganistan]

And those who considered them soulless were wrong, just as anyone who considers fetuses soulless is wrong.

Even if Christianity supported those ideas?

I mean unbaptised infants still aren't allowed to be buried in sacred ground and it was taught they didn't go to heaven but to limbo, an adjacent area to hell. So how does that tell us that their lives are precious and their souls important? Especially with the wholesale slaughter of infants in several places in the Bible, whether you want to argue that the divinely inspired text of What God Says Is Good And Right is not good when you don't agree with it.

And according to Christian doctrine, through Original Sin, NO ONE is born innocent.

Explanation, please?

Though I'd argue that slavery only happened on the scale it did because of the decline of the Roman Catholic Church due to the Protestant Reformation. If it has retained its original power, it would have been able to stop such slavery from occurring. Anyway, I don't want to get off topic.

And yet the ardently Catholic Brazil kept chattel slavery around almost into the 20th century. *thinke*

And the Bible approves of slavery. Plenty of the patriarchs -- like Abraham -- owned them. St Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters. (He also called on the masters to treat them fairly, but you really can't when you OWN someone.)

So no, I don't think the Protestant Reformation was responsible for slavery. Slavery has been an institution in Christianity before Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door.

Are we slandering people based on our own ignorance now?

Oh so we are slandering people and continents now. How quaint.

No one is slandering anyone, at least not me. I was simply stating a fact, the two positions are incompatible discussion is a pointless endeavor. He'll get carpal tunnel before any head way is made in the discussion....which there won't be.

Well, yes, one one is close-minded and insisting that things that aren't proven or provable are fact, and that women have fewer rights than men and a clump of cells without responding to reason, yep, argument is going nowhere.

But that's not Hana's fault. They didn't bring their faith into this argument -- you did. Dismissing an argument based not on what's presented but on "flaws" in the person's character is not good form.

If you plant a seed and take it out of the ground a month later, you didn’t cut down a tree.

Well said.

[Estanglia]

The reason I would be okay with aborting to save the life of the mother is that if the mother dies, it's unlikely the child will survive either way, and it also could leave any family she has already without her.

We agree in general, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with the intentional killing of the innocent, even if well intentioned. It's a violation of the Hippocratic oath "above all, do no harm". I think there will always be better options than intentionally killing the baby, such as trying to remove the baby alive, but no medical research has been done into the possibility of doing that in years, because the default has tragically become "Kill it!"

I'm gonna need a citation on the "no medical research has been done" bit.

Indeed, they do belong to every person, which is why it's so bizarre that you're arguing against them.

I also understand that, in the very rare cases where one right contradicts another, life always takes highest priority, because one can have no other rights without life. Thus the child's right to life temporarily overrides the mother's right to property of her body. Besides, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the mother consents by consenting to having sex.

Consent to an action isn't inherently consent to its consequences.

If I get into a car, I don't consent to a car crash that might be caused by me driving.

You know, if a person consents to being pregnant by having sex, because she knew it was a possibility, then a person consents to being robbed by walking down the street, because they knew it was a possibility.

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

And we don't have to use it for its intended reason.

Likewise, the intended reason for streets existing is not so you can get robbed, but you can still get robbed.

Continuing to not give a fuck about innocence in matters pertaining to defending one's own bodily integrity.



What you think is right isn't universal, as evidenced by the fact that I keep not giving a shit about 'innocence' when it comes to defending one's own bodily integrity.

What you think is right is wrong, if you don't care about innocence.

And I could say the exact same to you.

Innocence is irrelevant. Examples have already been provided of similar situations involving born persons, and it being perfectly justified to exercise all necessary force to rectify the situation presented by the offending individual.

This very notion blurs the line between abortion and genocide.

Ah yes, the only difference between "aborting a fetus" and "wiping out an entire group of people" is the innocence of those involved.

Not.

I’m not sure how rapists got back into this again, but ok. I need a map for this conversation.

Also, that’s kind of a hellaciously strong charge against the pro life crowd, that they’d let a criminal get away with it not based on lack of evidence, but evidence that indicated the victim had an abortion.

One of the users here claimed to be raped at 12 years old, and said they would rather die than bear their abuser's seed. Yes, rape plays a very important role in the argument in favor of pro-choice, even if you didn't exactly bring it up.

Also, you're pinning overall bias on a hypothetical jury where minimally 7 out of 12 would find abortion repugnant. Too weak a strawman there, mate.

...You literally said

Juries and judges are biased as hell, and if there are pro-lifers among them, that's pretty much a kangoroo court

It's not a strawman if you said it.

And last time I checked America isn't a Christian Theocracy, so this argument is useless.

Next!

Christian point of view or not, a human either has a soul, or it doesn't. If one does, Christian theocracy or not, the government has a duty to ban abortion. If one does not, then there is no reason why murder should be wrong at all.

This sentence is so incorrect on so many levels I don't even know where to start criticising it.

If one does, Christian theocracy or not, the government has a duty to ban abortion.

Not necessarily. It depends upon when the soul appears.

If one does not, then there is no reason why murder should be wrong at all.

If the only thing stopping you from believing murder to be ok is an unprovable, untestable thing, you're a lot closer to being a murderer than any person with a secular reason for murder being wrong.

And there are reasons why murder should be wrong, even if there is no soul.

No it doesn't.

Convicted murderers are innocent, then

Did you break your back reaching for that one?

Slaves were considered soulless, and seen as livestock.

And those who considered them soulless were wrong, just as anyone who considers fetuses soulless is wrong.

Oh, wow, you have proof of souls?

Because mental activity is the best gauge we have for determining whether something should be considered a person. It's why we don't consider killing an amoeba to be the same as killing a human adult. Because an adult has a name, identity, personality, etc. while an amoeba is just a cell which has no consciousness.

That's quite a shaky foundation for an objective right.

It's almost like it's not objective.

It's about measuring risk, though.

There is a negligably small chance -- far less than 1% -- that that random stranger is going to pull a knife on me and kill me. Though, if I noticed they were grimacing, had something pointy in their pocket and were lumbering towards me I'd probably take abortive action and walk the other way.

We know that -- in the Western world -- 6-8% of mothers have high-risk complications (ones that could lead to death and require specialist care).

We know that the maternal mortality rate is 239 per 100,000 live births in developing countries, vs. 12 in developed countries (26.4 in the USA) and that women have a lifetime risk of 1 in 4900 of dying from a maternity related cause in developed countries (1 in 180 in developing countries, and 1 in 54 for countries named fragile states).

Just as I can assess risk and decide whether or not to walk down the street, women can assess risk and decide whether or not to remain pregnant.

Are fetuses somehow strong enough to deliver the same amount of force as a semi going over 60?

In that they can cause you death? Yes.

In that they deliver an equal amount of force? No. But a bullet and a speeding semi probably don't deliver the same force either, but both could kill you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yep it is incredibly big insult against that crowd.

I have plenty of arguments with pro-life, but I don't believe they would let a criminal get away with rape just because his victim aborted the result of the rape.

That's just.... insane.

What's better, murder or torture?

Neither, and since abortion isn't murder, I aim not to have women tortured.

Did you SERIOUSLY ask that question?

"Would you rather I killed you quickly or spent months cutting pieces off of you?"
That is just sick.

"God, what is WRONG with people trying to make parents take care of their children"

That's what this sounds like to me.

Then you are either not comprehending or being willfully obtuse.

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

Not everyone is a Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations



Two thirds of the world, in fact. Let's not try to force our beliefs on more than 67% of the world, shall we?

From my perspective it is murder, because I believe that it is a human being with a soul.

Not everyone believes shooting people on the street is wrong too, so why can we force our beliefs on them?

You're the only one being willfully obtuse because you refuse to even consider the point of view of anyone else and instead engage in emotionally-fueled rants where you yell at people for emphasis while implying that they're crazy. Honestly the only reason I don't have you on ignore is because you can't foe mods, because I really don't want to engage with you when all you do is pull out dictionary definitions, which is fallacious in philosophical argument.

[The New California Republic]

[...] you yell at people for emphasis while implying that they're crazy.

Erm, pot kettle black much:

this whole fucking thread is neurotic

[United Muscovite Nations]

[...] you yell at people for emphasis while implying that they're crazy.

Erm, pot kettle black much:

this whole fucking thread is neurotic

And that reason is why half the thread (and in fact the thread itself) is on ignore.

[Neutraligon]

Erm, pot kettle black much:

And that reason is why half the thread (and in fact the thread itself) is on ignore.

And yet you are here UMN. Also, the point was, you did the exact same thing.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And that reason is why half the thread (and in fact the thread itself) is on ignore.

And yet you are here UMN. Also, the point was, you did the exact same thing.

Not my fault the ignore function doesn't work because NSG uses like 15 year old code for the forum.

And for the record, the reason I said that was that the pro-abortion users refuse to have any empathy whatsoever for the pro-life position (I at least understand where you guys are coming from and try to make arguments that appeal to you), and try primarily to rile up pro-life users with insults and snark.

[Neutraligon]

And yet you are here UMN. Also, the point was, you did the exact same thing.

Not my fault the ignore function doesn't work because NSG uses like 15 year old code for the forum.

I more meant why are you in this particular thread if it make you so angry and you decided to ignore it. You have even told yourself that you would not respond to this thread. I do the same thing, I stay out of threads that make me incredibly angry.

As to your edit, once again there are very few people here who are pro-abortion. Calling those who support pro-abortion would be like if we called those who support the life position pro-slavery. It is an inaccurate take on both positions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not my fault the ignore function doesn't work because NSG uses like 15 year old code for the forum.

I more meant why are you in this particular thread if it make you so angry and you decided to ignore it. You have even told yourself that you would not respond to this thread. I do the same thing, I stay out of threads that make me incredibly angry.

I figured I might avoid actually arguing and just give my opinion, in the hopes that people would consider it, which you have actually done, so I appreciate that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not my fault the ignore function doesn't work because NSG uses like 15 year old code for the forum.

As to your edit, once again there are very few people here who are pro-abortion. Calling those who support pro-abortion would be like if we called those who support the life position pro-slavery.

It feels like that is what is happening when Kat says that we "Want to force women to be human incubators."

[Neutraligon]

I more meant why are you in this particular thread if it make you so angry and you decided to ignore it. You have even told yourself that you would not respond to this thread. I do the same thing, I stay out of threads that make me incredibly angry.

I figured I might avoid actually arguing and just give my opinion, in the hopes that people would consider it, which you have actually done, so I appreciate that.

I can understand your position, and you are consistent with your beliefs which I can respect. I might disagree but I can respect where you are coming from.

[Neutraligon]

As to your edit, once again there are very few people here who are pro-abortion. Calling those who support pro-abortion would be like if we called those who support the life position pro-slavery.

It feels like that is what is happening when Kat says that we "Want to force women to be human incubators."

I think there is a difference between a name and an argument. When you argue with us about murder you are essentially saying that we support murder, and in your view, that is what we are doing. Similarly when we argue about being a human incubator we are indeed essentially arguing that you are forcing women into slavery (that is sorta what the whole bodily sovereignty argument comes down to).

[United Muscovite Nations]

It feels like that is what is happening when Kat says that we "Want to force women to be human incubators."

I think there is a difference between a name and an argument. When you argue with us about murder you are essentially saying that we support murder, and in your view, that is what we are doing. Similarly when we argue about being a human incubator we are indeed essentially arguing that you are forcing women into slavery (that is sorta what the whole bodily sovereignty argument comes down to).

I wouldn't necessarily say that your side supports murder because your side doesn't believe that the child is a child, so there cannot be the same level of moral complicity. That's not to say that morality is subjective, but that our beliefs about our action do influence how at fault we are. I call it murder because I believe it is, but I wouldn't support prosecutions for it in the present state of things because of the issue, except maybe for the performers of the action.

[San Lumen]

I think there is a difference between a name and an argument. When you argue with us about murder you are essentially saying that we support murder, and in your view, that is what we are doing. Similarly when we argue about being a human incubator we are indeed essentially arguing that you are forcing women into slavery (that is sorta what the whole bodily sovereignty argument comes down to).

I wouldn't necessarily say that your side supports murder because your side doesn't believe that the child is a child, so there cannot be the same level of moral complicity. That's not to say that morality is subjective, but that our beliefs about our action do influence how at fault we are. I call it murder because I believe it is, but I wouldn't support prosecutions for it in the present state of things because of the issue, except maybe for the performers of the action.

Why should someone whose been raped or a victim of incest be forced to have a child they dont wantA?

[United Muscovite Nations]

As for the bodily sovereignty argument, as you pointed out about my beliefs a few pages ago, my problem with it is that I don't think bodily sovereignty means not having an obligation towards others, and while that obligation to risk life and limb may not extend towards *all* other people, I think it does towards one's own children.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I wouldn't necessarily say that your side supports murder because your side doesn't believe that the child is a child, so there cannot be the same level of moral complicity. That's not to say that morality is subjective, but that our beliefs about our action do influence how at fault we are. I call it murder because I believe it is, but I wouldn't support prosecutions for it in the present state of things because of the issue, except maybe for the performers of the action.

Why should someone whose been raped or a victim of incest be forced to have a child they dont wantA?

Because it is fundamentally wrong to kill one's child, regardless of how that child came to be. The child doesn't have a choice in the matter and should be allowed to live. I empathize with that situation, because it's terrible, but I don't think two wrongs make a right.

[The Black Forrest]

And yet you are here UMN. Also, the point was, you did the exact same thing.

Not my fault the ignore function doesn't work because NSG uses like 15 year old code for the forum.

And for the record, the reason I said that was that the pro-abortion users refuse to have any empathy whatsoever for the pro-life position (I at least understand where you guys are coming from and try to make arguments that appeal to you), and try primarily to rile up pro-life users with insults and snark.

If I may interject?

I will say you are consistent in your views. I disagree with a few of them but I can understand where you are coming from. You mentioned you want to offer an opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is the toxic nature of the topic. The harder effort is on you especially if you are trying to convert views. Humility goes farther then frustration comments. The moment things like pro-abortion, you lack empathy, etc., your opponent has already tuned you out and it becomes an effort of who can make the other more angry.

You will always get broodmare comments when you eliminate the woman's views from the situation. The days of the woman's main purpose is to continue the race are over. They now have a say in the matter (yes there are countries where they are limited).

Next to nobody is pro-abortion. Loose that comment as it's only an attack. If there was a better solution; most pro-choice types would embrace it.

You can't eliminate abortion. You can however reduce it by creating an environment where the woman doesn't consider it an option.

The problem with that? It takes time, effort and money....

[Neutraligon]

I think there is a difference between a name and an argument. When you argue with us about murder you are essentially saying that we support murder, and in your view, that is what we are doing. Similarly when we argue about being a human incubator we are indeed essentially arguing that you are forcing women into slavery (that is sorta what the whole bodily sovereignty argument comes down to).

I wouldn't necessarily say that your side supports murder because your side doesn't believe that the child is a child, so there cannot be the same level of moral complicity. That's not to say that morality is subjective, but that our beliefs about our action do influence how at fault we are. I call it murder because I believe it is, but I wouldn't support prosecutions for it in the present state of things because of the issue, except maybe for the performers of the action.

In this case I am using murder not in the legal sense but in the sense I see many pro-life people use (like in this very thread).And some pro-choice individuals do see the fetus as a person, and do not think it matters since a person is not allowed to essentially enslave another person. As to going after the doctors who perform abortions will have rich women leaving the country for places where it is legal (and safe), and you will have poor women self harming to end the pregnancy (and possibly badly hurting herself). More then that with the availability of information on the internet it will be impossible to prevent the spread of information on how to end an pregnancy yourself (though not safely).

[San Lumen]

Why should someone whose been raped or a victim of incest be forced to have a child they dont wantA?

Because it is fundamentally wrong to kill one's child, regardless of how that child came to be. The child doesn't have a choice in the matter and should be allowed to live. I empathize with that situation, because it's terrible, but I don't think two wrongs make a right.

And what if they dont have means to carry the child to term? The rights of a fetus should trump that of the victim?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I wouldn't necessarily say that your side supports murder because your side doesn't believe that the child is a child, so there cannot be the same level of moral complicity. That's not to say that morality is subjective, but that our beliefs about our action do influence how at fault we are. I call it murder because I believe it is, but I wouldn't support prosecutions for it in the present state of things because of the issue, except maybe for the performers of the action.

In this case I am using murder not in the legal sense but in the sense I see many pro-life people use (like in this very thread).And some pro-choice individuals do see the fetus as a person, and do not think it matters since a person is not allowed to essentially enslave another person. As to going after the doctors who perform abortions will have rich women leaving the country for places where it is legal (and safe), and you will have poor women self harming to end the pregnancy (and possibly badly hurting herself). More then that with the availability of information on the internet it will be impossible to prevent the spread of information on how to end an pregnancy yourself (though not safely).

That is where the issue stops being abstract and the morally correct thing to do becomes fuzzy.

Because it is fundamentally wrong to kill one's child, regardless of how that child came to be. The child doesn't have a choice in the matter and should be allowed to live. I empathize with that situation, because it's terrible, but I don't think two wrongs make a right.

And what if they dont have means to carry the child to term? The rights of a fetus should trump that of the victim?

Ideally, everyone should have whatever means necessary.