# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/241 "2003-05-20T18:32:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emacknight \* > \*\*Is **beagledave** and **JThunder** the same person? \*\* Most assuredly not. We hold similar views, by virtue of having spent many years discussing abortion, but we are not the same person. Moreover, dave and I do not agree on every single thing, [as evidenced here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=180452&perpage=50&highlight=abortion&pagenumber=5). Regarding the rest of your statements, > [@](#): > > \*\*We’re back to the same stupid problem: The terms personhood, alive, dead, and human, are all purely arbitrary definitions that we create. > \*\* That is simply false. Medical science _does_ define the terms “alive,” “dead” and “human.” We have, on many occasions, cited medical texts which assert that the unborn is human and alive. If you insist that these terms are simply arbitrary, then I must challenge you to defend that claim with scientific texts. > [@](#): > > **It seems that all cultures set up a system for a child to become adult, for a boy to become a man, for a girl to become a woman. We have legal definitions that restrict the rights of someone under the age of 16, 18, 19, and 21 that were all arrived at arbitrarily.** None of which pertain to either humanity, life or the fundamental right to life. The beginning of “adulthood” may be a fuzzy boundary, but this does not mean that life has a fuzzy beginning as well. > [@](#): > > **The fact is, outside of the abortion or euthanasia debate, there is no reason to define those terms.** Wrong. Science and medicine have **plenty of reason** to define life, death and humanity. Unless, of course, you’re willing to let a physician pronounce you “dead” without a clear meaning of that term. > [@](#): > > \*\* I don’t care what Aristotle or the Bible say, I’m declaring that you are not a person until you cease to be a parasatoid.\*\* People can declare any number of things. There are people who declare, for example, that blacks are not persons. Your willingness to declare something counts for nothing in reasoned debate. > [@](#): > > **If the government can set forth laws that say a mother decides all aspects of a child’s life up to the age of 12, 16, or 18, why can it not arbitrarily define some point where the mother decides the child’s life?** First of all, your premise is false. It CAN NOT, and DOES NOT, set forth laws which permit a mother to decide “all aspects of a child’s life.” Even children have fundamental rights which their parents can not overturn. Second, even if your assertion would correct, this would not give the mother permission to end the child’s life. It’s one thing to say that the mother can control aspects of the child’s existence; it’s another thing to say she is allowed to end that child’s life. And third, the right to life is _the most fundamental of all human rights_. It is the one right without which all other rights become meaningless. This makes it decidedly more paramount than, say, the mother’s freedom to decide how a child should dress, eat or behave in public. ---
**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 20, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/242 "2003-05-20T19:02:54Z")
So the question is to when people become human, right? You say when they begin to live. Some people say later. Is that, in essence, correct? Is that, in the specifics, correct? You know, this is quite the fun discussion, I’m having these wonderful flashbacks to Alice and the White Knight. The name of the thing is not the thing is not what the thing is called is not what people call the thing. When a sperm and egg meet is not the same as when the soul begins is not the same as when life starts is not the same as when personhood begins is not the same as when people become human. Or they might be. But they do not _have_ to be, each can reference a different point in time. I’m thinking of, and yes, this is citeless and ancedotal, but as we are being philosophical here, I think it’s acceptable… a period in time when babies were only named after they survived, let’s call it a year, thanks to incredibly high infant mortalities. Is that when they became human, became a person, got a soul, began to live? ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/243 "2003-05-20T19:19:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **And third, the right to life is _the most fundamental of all human rights_. It is the one right without which all other rights become meaningless.** Mom’s right to abort supersede’s unborn human’s right to life. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/244 "2003-05-20T19:34:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*So the question is to when people become human, right? > > You say when they begin to live. Some people say later. > > Is that, in essence, correct? > > Is that, in the specifics, correct? \*\* A new human life is created at conception. This is a notion rooted in genetics, embryology and biology in general. To reject this notion is to reject those scientific principles. If people “believe” that an embryo becomes human later in development, that belief is not rooted in science (and I would challenge that person to back up their claim with a cite) > [@](#): > > \*\* > When a sperm and egg meet is not the same as when the soul begins is not the same as when life starts is not the same as when personhood begins is not the same as when people become human. \*\* 1. No pro life person here has mentioned a “soul” as having anything to do with the debate, not sure why you bring it up. 2. You bring up “personhood”. Again. Even though it’s not a point of demarcation for pro life folks, but an arbitrary, culturally based notion. 3. When a sperm and “egg” meet is when a new human life is created. Period. Cites provided earlier (although I eagerly await cites to the contrary) > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m thinking of, and yes, this is citeless and ancedotal, but as we are being philosophical here, I think it’s acceptable… a period in time when babies were only named after they survived, let’s call it a year, thanks to incredibly high infant mortalities. Is that when they became human, became a person, got a soul, began to live? \*\* Why not shift it farther until they’re **completely** self sufficient, are able to fend for themselves? Up until then… **someone** has to help in the food aquisition department, so they’re certainly “parasitic”. I guess until they can hunt or forage for food, and take care of themselves, they’re fair game for killing. For many “people”, I suspect we could be killing them well into their teen years…Whatever’s convienent I guess. ---
**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 20, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/245 "2003-05-20T19:39:48Z")
I’ve mentioned that as a possibility, beagledave. Look up where it says bunghole. (The hole of a barrel where a bung, or stopper, may be driven. Not the anus of a human.) So? We’re left with the Rosey Greer issue. You wake up with Rosey Greer’s head implanted on your shoulder. What are your responsibilites in that case? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/246 "2003-05-20T19:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*Mom’s right to abort supersede’s unborn human’s right to life. \*\* That is an assertion, not logic or evidence. It’s not even an argument, since it does nothing but state the pro-choice position without providing justification for it. WHY should the “right to abort” supercede the right to life? Without the right to life, no other rights can be exercised or enjoyed. This makes it the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. It is the singular right without which no other rights can exist. To baldly state “well, the right to abort supercedes it anyway” is a statement which is empty of logic and devoid of justification. ---
**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 20, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/247 "2003-05-20T19:56:34Z")
The right to control your own body is the most basic and fundamental human right. If you can not control your own body, you are without freedom. That makes it the singular right without which no other rights can exist. The right to eat chocolate is the most basic and fundamental human right… The right to communicate your thoughts is the most basic and fundamental human right. Without it, you may as well be an unthinking beast, rather than a human. ---
**Author:** ![pencilpusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d6d6ee/32.png) [@pencilpusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pencilpusher)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/248 "2003-05-20T20:20:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > _ **The right to eat chocolate is the most basic and fundamental human right…** _ I keep telling my husband that but he won’t listen… wonder if he’ll listen to you :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/249 "2003-05-20T20:32:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **WHY should the “right to abort” supercede the right to life?** It’s not a matter of ‘should’, it just does. Think of it like this - the right to kill supersedes the right to life. ---
**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 20, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/250 "2003-05-20T20:44:26Z")
It’s simple. Either the right to control your body supercedes the right to life of a parasite organism that is a human being, or the right to life of a parasite orgaism that is a human being supercedes your right to control your body. At least that’s where this argument seems to have gone. Beagledave? Your thoughts are welcome. I’m quite glad JThunder’s arguments are so simple and easy to refute… I was afraid I’d be in for a real battle. As far as this sort of thing goes, I’m afraid I’m a bit of an intellectual lightweight. I keep searching for basic roots and compromise instead of stating absolutes and going for the throat. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/251 "2003-05-20T21:16:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \* > \*\*The right to control your own body is the most basic and fundamental human right. If you can not control your own body, you are without freedom. That makes it the singular right without which no other rights can exist. \*\* Need I point out the obvious – that without life, one obviously cannot control one’s body? Moreover, the right to control one’s body is NOT absolute. If you “control” your body in such a way as to harm another human – or worse, to end that human’s life – then the law can prescribe some pretty heavy penalties for such actions. The law can, and rightfully does, limit what people can do with their bodies. This **limits** people’s freedom, but it does not eliminate it. You are speaking as though the right to control one’s body is an all-or-nothing proposition, whereas in reality, limited freedoms and limited restrictions are both allowed. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/252 "2003-05-20T21:19:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > WHY should the “right to abort” supercede the right to life? > > It’s not a matter of ‘should’, it just does. \*\* “It just does.” Sounds to me like you don’t have any actual justification for that claim. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Think of it like this - the right to kill supersedes the right to life. \*\* So you say… and yet civilized society has severe penalties for those who choose to act on that belief. There is no individual “right to kill,” and to suggest that it exists is simply preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/253 "2003-05-20T21:24:36Z")
I wouldn’t exactly consider a fetus be “parasitic”. In my experience many mothers consider pregency rewarding. I guess I would consider the experience one more of symbiotic (sp) than parasitic. But that’s me. continue… ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/254 "2003-05-20T22:08:43Z")
JThunder, you are absolutely wrong, doctors do not know when you die, they have to make a judgement call, I wish you had read page two of this thread, this could have all be avoided. Doctors and the victim’s family routinely have to arbitrarily decide when a person dies. Beagledave, your assertion that a site is required is false too, otherwise there could never be any new thoughts. Would if help you if I made a webpage dedicated to defining the term “alive” and “personhood”? Or do I need to sift through the Journal of Sociology until I find some PhD student that published her thoughts on when life began? Also, when the sperm meets the egg, nothing happens, that’s a really stupid argument. If that’s your assertion that having a sperm and an egg in the same room should count. A lot more has to happen after the sperm meets the egg before anything happens. The comparison with white supremacy is really just a Godwin ploy. Hitler didn’t think Jews were people either. Monkeys have 99.4% of our DNA, why are they not people? Thirdly, the term I used was parasitoid, which is a parasite that eventually kills its host. Symbiotic is a bit silly, implying that the fetus some how makes the mother’s life better/easier. People suffering from malaria eventually feel euphoria from dementia… Last point, the slippery slope argument is also stupid. After birth the baby is still fully dependent, but NOT fully dependent on the mother. The mother can give birth and walk away leaving it to someone else. Before birth she has no option, its either her life or the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/255 "2003-05-20T22:42:52Z")
> [@](#): > > **holmes** said: > I wouldn’t exactly consider a fetus be “parasitic”. In my experience many mothers consider pregency rewarding. I guess I would consider the experience one more of symbiotic (sp) than parasitic. But that’s me. It’s only symbiotic if both organisms benefit. Since a fetus does not provide any kind of direct biological benefit and lives off of the host, often to the detriment of the health of the host, it is by definition parasitic. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/256 "2003-05-20T22:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emacknight \* > \*\* > Beagledave, your assertion that a site is required is false too, otherwise there could never be any new thoughts. Would if help you if I made a webpage dedicated to defining the term “alive” and “personhood”? Or do I need to sift through the Journal of Sociology until I find some PhD student that published her thoughts on when life began? \*\* Umm. No. If you’re making a claim based on science, then a request to back that claim up with a standard scientific type of cite is legitimate. I provided an essay that had several. I provided a link to a partial transcript of Senate subcommitte testimony with statements from other geneticists, embryologists and MDs. If you wish to wax poetically about what “personhood” means to you…groovy, it’s an arbitrary philosophical notion that you won’t find outlined in a medical text. If you wish to opine about a scientific or medical matter (like what constitutes human life)…than yup I’ll call ya on it. I’ve provided several cites that cover my point…you’ve provided zip. If this is all about philosophy and **nothing** about science or biology, then say so. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, when the sperm meets the egg, nothing happens, that’s a really stupid argument. If that’s your assertion that having a sperm and an egg in the same room should count. A lot more has to happen after the sperm meets the egg before anything happens. \*\* Since you’re making a scientific claim, I’ll ask for a cite. I provided several cites that stipulate that fertilization is the beginning of a new human life, you claim otherwise. I eagerly await a cite for that claim. ---
**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 20, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/257 "2003-05-20T22:59:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > Need I point out the obvious – that without life, one obviously cannot control one’s body? Suicide is every persons final choice. Without choice, you can not control your body. > [@](#): > > Moreover, the right to control one’s body is NOT absolute. If you “control” your body in such a way as to harm another human – or worse, to end that human’s life – then the law can prescribe some pretty heavy penalties for such actions. Look up a bit to where I said “An it harm non other.” Please, I don’t ignore what you say, why would you not return the favor? > [@](#): > > The law can, and rightfully does, limit what people can do with their bodies. This **limits** people’s freedom, but it does not eliminate it. You are speaking as though the right to control one’s body is an all-or-nothing proposition, whereas in reality, limited freedoms and limited restrictions are both allowed. \*\* Yes, and it outlaws prostitution and suicide, too. That does not make outlawing prostitution right, any more than it makes abortion wrong. We are looking for a moral answer here, not a legal one. Stay on target, please. What. Is wrong. With aborting a living being, a fetus, which is still dependent on the mother for life? Answer, please. Why is it wrong? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/258 "2003-05-20T23:33:26Z")
**Beagledave** No, you linked to a sociology cite which is in the faculty of arts, not a science. By definition this is not a scientific debate. As for the Senate subcommittee testimony with statements from other geneticists, embryologists and MDs. Yes, there were people that were pro-life, and there were people that were pro-choice. Unless you find a cite that says 100% of ob-gyn’s agree with your stance then it becomes more of a medical ethics debate and not a medical debate. Lots of doctors disagree with lots of things and this is one of them. Read threw the Senate subcommittee meetings on stem-cell research. There is a group that will tell you life really hasn’t begun. But you disagree with them to, so you won’t want to read through that. Frankly speaking, it’s really not up to embryologist, and if you asked one I’m sure he/she would rather not decide what a woman does with her body. And are you sure ALL of them agree? What happens if we find a rogue embryologist that’s pro-life? And again, if a scientist comes up with a new theory, without any precedents, or any links, is that it? Is he a quack? You disagree with him then no science can evolve. I declare intellectual dishonesty on you. Not all scientific claims have the benefit of sites to back them up (ie Galileo). If you look through the life of William Harvey, he had to refute claims that people believed. But in his heart (and the hearts of the cadavers he studied) he knew he was right and the others were just intellectually dishonest. I was refuting the claim that “egg and sperm meeting means life begins.” Back THAT up with a site, if you are intellectually honest. I lot goes on after they meet before the cell becomes diploid and cleavage forms. Technically, lots of sperm meet the egg at the same time, but only one gets through. So which moment exactly are you and your scienticians defining life begins? ---
**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 20, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/259 "2003-05-20T23:36:34Z")
Remember, our founders had four great freedoms: Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness, and Property (which Pursuit replaced). You can make an argument either or any way. Life is only one lynchpin. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/260 "2003-05-20T23:50:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*The law can, and rightfully does, limit what people can do with their bodies. \*\* Ahem. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by JThunder_ > \*\* Granted, but that is irrelevant unless one first assumes that “current law” is righteous and just. That is, of course, circular reasoning, since the justness of said laws is precisely the matter being debated.\*\* Julie [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677.md?page=14)