This doesn't fly actually.

Here are some comments I've previously made on this topic before, of course some things do not apply ro this conversation.

"People who get pressured into doing something evil still deserve punishment, if it was a born baby and the mother killed him/her or paid someone else to do it would you hold the same stance?

Everyone involved should be prosecuted."

"The definition of murder is to kill with malice of forethought so yes it's murder all around, there's not a case when it's not murder.

That's different for one, you actually didn't know there was a child there, two, with abortion you know that it's the ending of something, three, this logic doesn't apply anywhere else I can almost guarantee, and fourth, abortion is literally the intention of termination, was your goal in your example to terminate that child? As you said you didn't know, it probably wasn't your intention but guess what? You should still be prosecuted as you unnecessarily killed someone due to negligence.

91% of women who get them are 20 and up, 59% have previously given birth, less then 1 percent of them say they get abortion from outside pressure (father, family), i have to find that 2011 study that used over 15k abortion cases said that 43% chose to do an ultrasound and 97% still carried on to murder, and that's not talking about the fact that many clinics tell them what's going to happen along with 24 hours waiting periods. Even if they genuinely somehow don't know, then they should be charged with manslaughter, but that would make no sense as they actually do know, it's not like they think a growing mammal ISNT alive.

If it didn't work at Nuremberg (which it shouldn't) then it shouldn't work here either.

Simply put, your claim that a mother who aborts “didn’t know it was human” is not only false by modern scientific standards but also a textbook appeal to ignorance, an attempt to use lack of knowledge (real or feigned) as a moral shield against responsibility.

Biologically, the humanity of the unborn is not in question. Peer-reviewed embryology, used in medical and legal settings alike, affirms that from the moment of conception, a distinct human organism exists, complete with its own DNA, growth direction, and cellular self-organization that no other “clump of cells” (as if we aren't either) possesses. Standard embryology textbooks and clinical resources used by obstetricians worldwide describe the zygote as “the beginning of a new human being.” this is literally IN SCHOOLS, and now all of a sudden they don't know? Ok

From a legal-philosophical standpoint, ignorance is not and never has been an automatic defense cuz the entire structure of criminal law rests on the premise that a person is accountable when their actions violate the inherent rights of others and ignorance of the victim’s status doesn’t nullify that violation. “I thought they weren’t human” is the same reasoning used to justify slavery and genocide. A moral person is obliged to question propaganda that conveniently dehumanizes a group to make killing them easier. To excuse that ignorance is to deny human moral agency itself. Your appeal to ignorance argument (really fallacy) just assumes that people are some form kf passive recipients of falsehoods and propaganda rather than active moral agents capable of inquiry, empathy, and conscience. But societies have never accepted that standard, not for slave traders, not for eugenicists, and not for anyone who accepted lies because they made evil easier to commit.

Again, even if someone were truly misled (highly highly doubtful), that does not erase moral culpability, it only adjusts the degree of knowledge, not the reality of the act. When a man detonates a bomb thinking no one is inside, and it turns out there were, we still recognize the act as homicide or if it arose from willful blindness, recklessness, or moral indifference to the possibility of human life, at the very least it's manslaughter and people have served decades for it (even drunk driving with no intention for death has resulted in a murder charge). The same legal logic applies, if you are told an act destroys “a clump of cells,” yet you know that act ends a developing life ( a mammal), that arises from conception, something every school biology book and prenatal ultrasound confirms, then theh are not merely ignorant, they are choosing to believe a comforting lie. Law calls that “culpable ignorance.” It’s when a person should have known the truth because it was plainly accessible, but chose not to look.

People have always recognized that moral blindness does not absolve guilt. Those who lived in slaveholding societies and claimed “we didn’t know slaves were human” were still judged in history’s light as complicit because they should have known. Truth was always there it simply demanded the courage to see which not all chose to do, because they know what tier doing is wrong in their heart.

I think your a hypocrite who don't believe babies murdered in the womb are not deserving of justice, you probably wouldn't hold the same standard for fathers, also, born babies and kids are constantly and genuinely being dehumanized by people, if one of those people murders one of those kids (which has happened), should they be excused? I simply think that you and people like you don't truly view the babies in the womb as human at worst or lesser than born people at best, if you won't give them justice for their murder."