# A Compromise on Abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677 "2003-05-07T15:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/201 "2003-05-18T22:50:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*And I posit that a fetus does not properly exist as a person in the sense that you or I exist, therefore that assertion is moot. \*\* Well then, please cite a _precedent_ – that is, an argument which is not rooted in abortion rhetoric – that specifically shows that personhood does not begin until birth. One can “posit” any number of things. One could posit, for example, that [blacks are not persons, and that they do not deserve the protections that whites enjoy](http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html). Positing something is easy, but it does not make a given position reasonable, or in any way justifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/202 "2003-05-19T00:32:39Z")
> [@](#): > > One can “posit” any number of things. One could posit, for example, that blacks are not persons, and that they do not deserve the protections that whites enjoy. Positing something is easy, but it does not make a given position reasonable, or in any way justifiable. I think the crucial difference here is that blacks, just like whites, can appreciate being free and feel distress at the thought of being enslaved. However, a fetus lacks the cognitive capacity to appreciate being alive or to feel distress at the thought of being killed. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/203 "2003-05-19T01:03:50Z")
You keep missing the point, **Blalron**. You posited that the unborn is not a person. As I said, people can posit any number of things. Hence, I challenge you to cite a precedent outside of the abortion issue which specifically shows the unborn to be a non-person. You claim that “the cognitive capacity to appreciate being alive or to feel distress at the thought of being killed” makes the unborn a non-person. By that logic, a newborn child is not a person. Neither is a toddler, and neither is a severely retarded adult. Hence, your criterion – if it were valid – would actually **disprove** the pro-choice claim that personhood begins at the moment of birth. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/204 "2003-05-19T02:06:35Z")
> [@](#): > > **JThunder** said: > Well then, please cite a precedent – that is, an argument which is not rooted in abortion rhetoric – that specifically shows that personhood does not begin until birth. There are only two ways that one can become a citizen of the United States. One of those ways involves an adult person taking an oath. The other is to be **born** on American soil or to American parents abroad. There seems to be quite a legal precedent for fetuses not being citizens. They also cannot hold green cards or resident alien papers or apply for visas. Wouldn’t a ‘person’ be able to do those things? ---
**Author:** ![Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/57b2e6/32.png) [@Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conflict_of_Interest)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/205 "2003-05-19T02:09:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally Posted by emacknight \* > **Live Free Or Die, I read that somewhere, can’t remember where.** Perhaps you saw it on the New Hampshire license plate. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*Originally Posted by emacknight \* > **It reminds me of a case where a man shot someone who was already dead. He was convicted of murder dispite not having killed the guy, since he had the intent, and actually carried out the act.** Sorry, I would need to see a cite on that. I understand that there are laws to protect the cadavers. But by definition murder is the taking of a human life. If the person is already dead, even if the intent is there, I can’t see how it’s murder. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/206 "2003-05-19T03:53:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*There are only two ways that one can become a citizen of the United States. One of those ways involves an adult person taking an oath. The other is to be **born** on American soil or to American parents abroad. > \*\* I see. So instead of arguing about personhood, you are arguing about U.S. citizenship instead, eh? Moreover, what does citizenship have to do with personhood? Are you seriously suggesting that individuals who are _not U.S. citizens_ are not persons? That their lives do not deserve to be protected by law? If so, then does that say about your attitude toward foreigners? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/207 "2003-05-19T03:58:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*There seems to be quite a legal precedent for fetuses not being citizens. They also cannot hold green cards or resident alien papers or apply for visas. Wouldn’t a ‘person’ be able to do those things? \*\* Why should we adopt such a definition of personhood? Once again, I am asking for _precedents_, rather than arbitrary definitions which are concocted specifically to defend abortions. Besides, a newborn baby cannot apply for a visa, either. Nor can a severely retarded adult. Since you cite the ability to apply for visas as a requirement for personhood, I guess that would render then non-persons. Moreover, your arguments only apply to _current_ U.S. law. If the laws were modified, such that Pakistanis could not obtain green cards, would that make them non-citizens? And what about times past, before the concept of green cards and travel visas were even invented? Seems to me that your standard of personhood is _entirely_ arbitrary, and entirely dependent on the current state of legislation. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/208 "2003-05-19T04:16:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* If the laws were modified, such that Pakistanis could not obtain green cards, would that make them non-citizens? \*\* Obviously, I meant to ask if this would render them _non-persons_, rather than non-citizens. This whole issue of citizenship, green cards and U.S. visas is a colossal red herring. For one thing, it appeals to U.S. legislation, rather than any inherent qualities of the unborn – thereby appointing the United States as the final arbiter of personhood, regardless of what other nations may say. For another thing, it seeks to enshrine personhood in the _current_ state of legislation – and as the Dred Scott trial showed, such legislation is subject to change, and not always justified. More importantly, it constitutes a gross misinterpretation of U.S. immigration law. Citizenship, green cards and travel visas allow an individual to stay in the U.S.A. – however, even individuals without citizenship, visas or green card status are subject to the protections of the law. This applies to both the born and the unborn. Hence, even if we misguidedly select U.S. immigration law as the final arbiter of one’s personhood, it would actually _support_ the personhood of the unborn, rather than deny it! ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/209 "2003-05-19T04:48:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Hence, I challenge you to cite a precedent outside of the abortion issue which specifically shows the unborn to be a non-person. You want precedent? Here you go, from the Roe vs Wade decision: > [@](#): > > **The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before “quickening” - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 - was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became “formed” or recognizably human, or in terms of when a “person” came into being, that is, infused with a “soul” or “animated.” A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth.** Incidently, most abortions are performed before quickening. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/210 "2003-05-19T04:57:00Z")
Considering all the beliefs in the rights of the fetus, does it ever seem baffling that the parents ultimately _choose_ the life of the fetus? I’m currently struggling with this concept. If the mother has no rights after conception, what gives her rights before conception? How is it that the law allows parents to make life? As it stands, the law does not allow you to do things you KNOW will cause death, like firing a gun into a crowd. If a death occurred and you knew your actions would cause it, you’re at fault. Here is a situation where your action will directly cause death, and there is no debate on that matter. There is no possible way that fetus is not going to die. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/211 "2003-05-19T05:05:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > **You want precedent? Here you go, from the Roe vs Wade decision:** You’re not paying attention. I specifically, unambiguously and repeatedly asked for a precedent outside of the abortion debate. That is, I asked for a _prior_ definition of personhood that was not specifically concocted in order to justify abortion. More importantly, the Roe vs. Wade text which you cited does **not** say that the fetus is a non-person, nor does it say that personhood begins at birth. Rather, it only asserted that there was a “loose consensus” that personhood and/or fetal formation occured “ **at some point between conception and live birth** ” (emphasis mine). In other words, **Blalron** , if you hold the Roe v. Wade text to be authoritative, then it actually refutes the notion that personhood begins at birth. Thank you very much for generously providing this argument against the pro-choice position! ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/212 "2003-05-19T05:20:15Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re not paying attention. I specifically, unambiguously and repeatedly asked for a precedent outside of the abortion debate. Very tricky of you then. I don’t know how I could come up with a cite like that “outside of the abortion debate.” You want me to find a passage from a book 200 years ago that specifically says “a fetus is not a person” and doesn’t in any way mention abortion? I don’t understand what you are asking. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/213 "2003-05-19T05:28:19Z")
[http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJ71/EJ71B.html](http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJ71/EJ71B.html) Aristotle says that even infants are not human beings and thus we owe them nothing. You do realize, my dear JThunder, you are asking for a nigh-impossibility. Without abortion, you sweet, sweet man, there is no real reason to consider when life begins. Except, of course, from a strictly religious perspective, as it asks when a life gets a soul. Now, clearly, all religions will have different answers on that. Clearly, there are several answers to your lovely question. Unfortunately, you have not phrased it in a way that it can be parsed properly. What do you mean by a “non-person”? I’m afraid that word does not make any sense to me. Do you mean when does the soul enter the body? Do you mean sentience? Sapience? Do you mean when the infant can survive and develop outside the mother’s body? You can’t get an answer until you give me a question that can be answered. Otherwise, I’m afraid the best answer I can give you is “Pudding.” ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/214 "2003-05-19T05:39:04Z")
Here’s a good answer as to when life begins: [http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa091400.htm](http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa091400.htm) I rather like it as it is both accurate and irrelevant to this debate. It can be interpreted as either God knowing every combination of sperm and egg possible on the planet at this very moment… Or God knowing which will survive to be born. After all, it _is_ all part of his plan. So clearly, aborted fetuses, sperms and eggs that never meet, zygotes that never implant, are never alive, and he does not know them as such. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/215 "2003-05-19T05:53:47Z")
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/cloning.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/cloning.htm) Some arguments that are not directly abortion related involve cloning: Simply: Some Christians say yes, some Jewish thinkers say no. [http://tonysteele.blogspot.com/](http://tonysteele.blogspot.com/) This gentleman, and a T-Shirt that I have for no logical reason, inform me that life begins at 40. Thus, logically, I can be aborted. [http://www.cyberstreet.com/trumbore/sermons/s723.htm](http://www.cyberstreet.com/trumbore/sermons/s723.htm) This priest seems to think he has some sort of system. [http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7\_R\_Eile/WhenBeginGame.htm](http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/WhenBeginGame.htm) I’m not sure what this person is saying. It’s not really abortion related, though. If a human life begins at conception… what do you consider a twin, which happens at what, 14 days? A person split in half? ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/216 "2003-05-19T06:18:16Z")
**Thunder** I think you ought to consider the word ‘paradigm’ and what I implied by using it (hint: You don’t have to preface everything with “Jesus said . . .” to be making an argument from within a Christian mindset). **Bob Cos** Well, if you notice, I don’t get involved in arguing with the case you make - I patently ignore the case you make. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/217 "2003-05-19T06:22:44Z")
tlw: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Zoe: > > ## I would be interested in knowing what those of you who are “pro-life” have done to improve the lives of the children who are carried to full term by single mothers Also, how many of you donate blood on a regular basis? How many of you have signed your organ donor cards? How many of you are on a list of people willing to donate bone marrow when needed? > > **tls** responded: Since you’ve asked for something akin to a laundry list, I’ll provide one This was followed by a knock out list of service to children and adults that would shame Mother Theresa. I wish that more pro-life activists and pro-choice advocates here could come close to that standard! I really didn’t ask for a laundry list. (I was just giving examples of what I was looking for.) But I’m glad that you posted these. You asked what I have done in the same vein. 1. I spent twenty years teaching in an inner city high school where motherhood and marriage do not go hand in hand. I had opportunities to teach in the city’s academic magnet school but turned them down to remain in the inner city. 2. When I was beaten by one of a group of tresspasser in the school, I asked the judge (through my lawyer) _not_ to put him in juvenile detention so that he would still have a chance at a football scholarship. 3. taught Sunday School and Bible School for children 4. organized a camp retreat for children. 5. served as a voluntary counsellor in church camps for children six times 6. signed my organ donor card 7. solicited crocheted hats for the children at St. Jude’s hospital 8. took in a run away fourteen year old who was being abused, got her medical help and counselling 9. participated in an inner-city program to replace items in homes that burned 10. served as a volunteer drug counsellor at a center for teens for two years (in addition to my teaching job) 11. volunteered my time as a tutor for a middle school child in my home in the summer 12. volunteered to teach a young woman who had been convicted of murder so that she could get enough credits to graduate 13. I tried to donate blood but they wouldn’t take it because of medications that I take. So I sponsored a Red Cross Blood Donation Drive for teenagers. (64 pints from my small high school!) 14. I volunteered to babysit for a single mother while she attended college classes. 15. I let a student in labor take my final exam! (That one was the scariest thing that I’ve done.) 🙂 16. served as a Lamaze coach Both of us have paid our dues. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/218 "2003-05-19T06:23:59Z")
My apologies for getting your initials wrong… ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/219 "2003-05-19T06:28:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*Very tricky of you then. I don’t know how I could come up with a cite like that “outside of the abortion debate.” \*\* Your problem, not mine. If you’re going to argue using the premise that the fetus is a non-person, then you need to demonstrate this without using definitions of personhood that were concocted specifically to justify abortion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You want me to find a passage from a book 200 years ago that specifically says “a fetus is not a person” and doesn’t in any way mention abortion? I don’t understand what you are asking. \*\* I’m asking you provide a precedent – PERIOD. If the only definitions of personhood you can use are those which were specifically developed by the pro-choice crowd, then that says something about the validity of that approach. It suggests that this alleged definition of personhood was cherry-picked in order to justify the desired conclusion – as opposed to, say, using prior definitions from which natural conclusions can be drawn. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/220 "2003-05-19T06:43:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*[http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJ71/EJ71B.html](http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJ71/EJ71B.html) > > Aristotle says that even infants are not human beings and thus we owe them nothing. \*\* And do you agree with that definition? I think that even most pro-choicers would contest that claim. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You do realize, my dear JThunder, you are asking for a nigh-impossibility. Without abortion, you sweet, sweet man, there is no real reason to consider when life begins. \*\* Even if we grant that, then it’s only a problem for the pro-choicers who choose to rely on that definition of personhood. Do you see the problem yet? We have pro-choicers saying “The unborn is not a person! Personhood begins at birth!” If they insist on using this argument, then they must explain what personhood is, and why it begins at birth. If they can not, then their argument is invalid. Furthermore, it becomes abundantly clear that their definition of “personhood” was selected out of convenience, with no valid justification. Witness, for example, **Blalron** ’s attempt to equate personhood with the cognitive ability to justify life. By that standard, a great many fully-born humans would be considered “non-persons.” Obviously, this standard was selected in order to justify the desired conclusion, instead of deriving conclusions from the facts at hand. The same problem is seen with **catsix** ’s attempt to equate personhood with citizenship and/or the ability to acquire green cards and travel visas. Apart from its obvious dependence on ever-changing federal laws, such a standard would likewise eliminate a great number of fully-born people (or alternately, include a great many unborn humans, depending on one’s interpretation). Once again, this is a situation in which the “facts” were massaged and selected in order to craftily produce the desired outcome. So once again: If you can’t explain what personhood IS (i.e. what its defining characteristics are), and why it specifically begins at the moment of birth, then it’s clear that this definition of “personhood” is entirely arbitrary, and is motivated solely by an attempt to justify abortion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677.md?page=12)