# A stuggle with abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289 "2003-01-17T20:13:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/81 "2003-01-20T20:39:17Z")
> [@](#): > > You are missing my point. No one has the right to tell them or you how or what to think. What is hate to one is heaven to another. Just because I like to drink pepsi doesnt mean that you have to. It also doesnt mean that you have the right to make me stop drinking it. But we are not discussing thoughts. We are discussing _actions_. The Grand Wizard of the KKK can _think_ about lynching whomever he likes but if he tries to act on it in any way which is what **Bob** and I have been alluding to, then we have every right, and indeed a duty, to stop him. ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/82 "2003-01-20T20:58:20Z")
My original post: > [@](#): > > For the most part I agree with even sven and december.My own opinion on abortion is that as a man my opinon doesnt matter. I will never be in a position to get pregnant or give birth. I am against makeing it illegal because no one has the right to cloud what should be an objective decision with their own morality originaly by **bob cos** > [@](#): > > explain how this is consistent with your “you can’t get pregnant, therefore, you can’t influence someone else’s decision” position. I never said you couldnt sway the mind of anyone or persuade them over to your side of things. I said “no one has the right to cloud what should be an objective decision with their own morality”. Forceing someone to believe what you do is the height of arrogance. Removeing peoples free will and ability to determine what is or is not right for them will always be wrong. Control is not the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/83 "2003-01-20T21:07:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BURNER \* > \*\*I never said you couldnt sway the mind of anyone or persuade them over to your side of things. I said “no one has the right to cloud what should be an objective decision with their own morality”. Forceing someone to believe what you do is the height of arrogance. Removeing peoples free will and ability to determine what is or is not right for them will always be wrong. Control is not the answer. \*\* Answer the fucking question. IS IT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TO PREVENT AN ARYAN NATIONS MEMBER FROM LYNCHING A BLACK MAN? Really, skippy, all this will take is a yes or a no. Try answering this particular question, and then I’ll follow up with another question. Go on, you can do it. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Dickerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Scott\_Dickerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Dickerson)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/84 "2003-01-20T21:21:01Z")
SAUCEMAN: “…You can’t have charges against something that is not currently illegal. You seem to measure terminating the life of the unborn child and the negative life impact on the mother and find the former less of a problem. I cannot take your statements expressing your high concern for the unborn seriously if you are willing to see them destroyed. In my view, the debate always comes down to how much value you place in the unborn. No value and you destroy them; little value and you are willing to let others destroy them; highly valued and you want to protect them…” Yes, I’m aware that one can’t legally charge someone for acts not “currently illegal.” I thought my post made clear that I was referring to those who maintain that “…abortion is murder… Willful… Premeditated…” and who are “…working toward a society in which it is so regarded by law.” Furthermore, you completely overlooked my statement “I have to wonder if these people have considered their own capacity for self-deception.” I am not asserting anything about the definite comparative moral weight of terminating the life of a foetus vs. terminating the life of the abortion-procurer. I am, in effect, asserting that the most extreme and vociferous pro-lifers are maintaining their own positions by willfully refusing to consider the logical consequences of them. I’m suggesting that very few people would be able to be so militantly certain of that absolutist position if they took time to consider the scenarios I have presented. BOB COS: “…You understand, of course, that you are crafting a classic logical fallacy, right? A serial killer can offer an argument for murder being unethical. His argument is not rendered incorrect by virtue of his hypocrisy. His argument stands on its own merit. Period…” Correct. Hypocrisy has no particular bearing on whether an argument is logically or morally correct. I do not believe that the extreme views held by those I am addressing in the cited post are in fact logically or morally correct. I explained my contrary views in my earlier post (and referred to that earlier post in my first sentence). “Oh, please. No, I don’t believe you assume otherwise of pro-life beliefs.” I’m using a time-honored form of rhetoric to make a point, namely irony. I’m suggesting that pro-life absolutists have suckered themselves into adopting a doctrine with such extreme real-world consequences that, if one were to accept the whole of it in one great gulp, it would reveal one to have values antithetical to civilized society, much less a generally democratic, individualistic society like that of the United States. I would rather believe these people haven’t considered the consequences, than that they are brutal fanatics. Obviously, those who have EXPRESSLY worked out an approach that prevents those consequences are not those to whom my post was addressed. But you can’t say “abortion is murder, but not when my daughter’s involved.” Incidentally…I’M being sentimental and melodramatic when I depict the logical consequences of these doctrines to the already-born; but the dewy-eyed regard by some pro-life extremists for embryos and foetuses is, what, hard-headed and reasonable? “Please”-squared. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/85 "2003-01-20T21:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scott Dickerson \* > \*\*"…You understand, of course, that you are crafting a classic logical fallacy, right? A serial killer can offer an argument for murder being unethical. His argument is not rendered incorrect by virtue of his hypocrisy. His argument stands on its own merit. Period…" > > Correct. Hypocrisy has no particular bearing on whether an argument is logically or morally correct. I do not believe that the extreme views held by those I am addressing in the cited post are in fact logically or morally correct. I explained my contrary views in my earlier post (and referred to that earlier post in my first sentence). \*\*Then what was your point in this particular post, if not to suggest a logically fallacious foundation for a pro-choice argument? I’m afraid I’m missing it completely. > [@](#): > > \*\*Obviously, those who have EXPRESSLY worked out an approach that prevents those consequences are not those to whom my post was addressed. \*\*Do you really allow for that possibility? I am sincerely curious. If I incorrectly took your post to include all who hold a pro-life view, then I apologize. > [@](#): > > \*\* But you can’t say “abortion is murder, but not when my daughter’s involved.” \*\*Well, yes you can. That would make you a hypocrite. But, again, it would not render your pro-life arguments invalid. > [@](#): > > \*\*Incidentally…I’M being sentimental and melodramatic when I depict the logical consequences of these doctrines to the already-born; but the dewy-eyed regard by some pro-life extremists for embryos and foetuses is, what, hard-headed and reasonable? “Please”-squared. \*\* “Please”-cubed right back at ya. Show me where _I’ve_ described a pro-life position with “dewy-eyed regard.” I will, however, retract my “please” if I misunderstood who you were directing your post to (I took it to be all pro-lifers). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/86 "2003-01-20T22:11:43Z")
**Burner** , the argument of the Pro-Life group is that the organism residing in the womb and deriving nourishment through the placenta of the woman bearing it is in fact a distinct human being, with the rights and privileges of any other human being, including the right to life. Unless you condone infanticide, you will presumably concede that a baby is a human being one minute after birth. Okay, how about during the birth process? If that’s the case, how about one minute before the head presents itself? How about at the beginning of labor? And so on, back to the fertilized egg looking for a place to plant itself. Now, if your driving fast enough to make an appointment results in another person’s death, you’re morally and probably legally culpable of that death. His right to life transcends your convenience. What they’re saying is that the unborn child’s right to life transcends the convenience of the mother, who is forced to remain pregnant, because if she aborts, the child will die. Turning to the other parties, now, the “Pro-Life” group, I raise the question of whether recognizing such a moral obligation gives license to a right to statutorily enact it into law. At least some of you are Catholic, and the RCC teaches that it exclusively has the “fullness of salvation” – does this mean that you are free to enact a law (assuming yourselves to have a majority) requiring that everyone become Catholic? Certainly from your POV there’s a moral onus on everyone to become Catholic; can you therefore require them by law to do so? If not, in what way does this differ from a law prohibiting abortions? And why is one acceptable and the other not? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/87 "2003-01-20T22:45:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Turning to the other parties, now, the “Pro-Life” group, I raise the question of whether recognizing such a moral obligation gives license to a right to statutorily enact it into law. At least some of you are Catholic, and the RCC teaches that it exclusively has the “fullness of salvation” – does this mean that you are free to enact a law (assuming yourselves to have a majority) requiring that everyone become Catholic? Certainly from your POV there’s a moral onus on everyone to become Catholic; can you therefore require them by law to do so? If not, in what way does this differ from a law prohibiting abortions? And why is one acceptable and the other not? \*\* Neither is “acceptable,” necessarily, in God’s eyes. But I (not speaking for the Church) don’t believe any morality that is truly person–i.e., it does not infringe at all on another’s rights–is fair game for legislation. If you don’t want to experience the fullness of the RCC, that is your prerogative. The Church does not teach that all “sin” must be prohibited by man’s law. The RCC also teaches that there is truth and beauty in other churches, even if they don’t enjoy the fullness of the RCC. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/88 "2003-01-20T22:59:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*Why do you set up these boundaries? What’s the logic? What transformation occurs between the last day of the second trimester and the first day of the third, for example? Thanks. \*\* Bob Cos is referring to my statement that I’d allow abortion with no contraints during the first and second trimesters; during the third trimester, I’d allow it only if there was a good reason: to save the life or health of the woman, or in cases where something is wrong with the fetus. No deep reason for setting the boundry there. If anyone thinks it should be at 6 1/2 months or 7 months instead of 6, I’d cirtainly consider any points they had to offer. I just feel that there needs to be a dividing line beyond which abortions should not occur unless there’s a good reason. Pregnancy falls neatly into thirds, so… Why do I think late abortions should only be done if there’s a good reason? Because, IMO, the fetus is too far along; too close to baby-hood. Anyone who does not want to have a baby because the timing isn’t good, or because she dosen’t want to have to raise the child solo, is welcome to abort, as far as I’m concerned, so long as she doesn’t wait too long. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/89 "2003-01-20T23:24:50Z")
In my opinion, the start of personhood is purely a matter of opinion. My opinion is that personhood starts around the time when the baby starts to talk. That does not mean that it’s okay to kill babies who have not yet reached that point; it isn’t. Nor is it okay to kill retarded or brain damaged individuals whose itelligences is too low to attain speech. Once the baby is born, IMO, it has a right to life, regardless of whether it ever learns to talk. Prior to birth, IMO, it does not. But, as I said in an earlier post, I would allow late (3rd trimester) abortions only for good reason, because, IMO, the 3rd trimester fetus is too far along to abort without good reason. I think that requiring a good reason for 3rd trimester abortions is managable. IMO, most abortions occur prior to that point, and IMO most 3rd trimester abortions are performed for good reason. IMO, in most cases, getting approval would be a slam-dunk. One reason for requiring aproval for 3rd trimester abortions would be to establish that this is the case. ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/90 "2003-01-20T23:41:31Z")
originaly by polycarp: > [@](#): > > Unless you condone infanticide, you will presumably concede that a baby is a human being one minute after birth. Okay, how about during the birth process? If that’s the case, how about one minute before the head presents itself? How about at the beginning of labor? And so on, back to the fertilized egg looking for a place to plant itself. I am with you right up untill the end. We just differ on where we see it being an independant human. Head comeing out and cord about to be cut is a lot too late for a woman to say abort it. Anytime before that I think that it is the womans perogative. It isnt a right or wrong thing. It is simply a free to do with ones body as one wishes. If a woman decides that she doesnt want the fetus living within her anymore than it is kind of a moot point. You cant force her to finish its gestation against her will. That amounts to simple slavery. ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/91 "2003-01-20T23:53:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Answer the fucking question. IS IT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TO PREVENT AN ARYAN NATIONS MEMBER FROM LYNCHING A BLACK MAN? Really, skippy, all this will take is a yes or a no. Try answering this particular question, and then I’ll follow up with another question. Go on, you can do it. Again with the temper?? Your going to give yourself a heart attack if you keep getting worked up like this. Anyway, to answer your question; it is moraly neutral. Why do you keep trying to cloud simple things with “morals”? It is simply a matter of whether or not to defend 1 from many or to let the 1 fend for himself. If you turn and walk away then there is no impact on your life. What will happen will happen. If you interfere things may be diffrent or you may be lynched as well. “Right” and "wrong’ have no place in the decision. It is simply an academic assesment of possible outcomes and then decideing on a course of action. To help or not help is no great contest of good -vs- evil. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/92 "2003-01-21T00:06:22Z")
If you think I’m going to try to wade through that drivel, guess again. I’d call it pseudo-intellectual drivel, but it’s not even quite up to those standards. (Ben Hicks warned me. I have no one to blame but myself.) ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/93 "2003-01-21T00:15:54Z")
I should have know I put in too many big words. To bring the answer down to your level I will condese and simplify it. Since morals are far too subjective to base any decision on the answer is , NO. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/94 "2003-01-21T00:18:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > \*\*In my opinion, the start of personhood is purely a matter of opinion. My opinion is that personhood starts around the time when the baby starts to talk. That does not mean that it’s okay to kill babies who have not yet reached that point; it isn’t. \*\* Why? It’s not a person yet. What’s the problem with killing it? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Nor is it okay to kill retarded or brain damaged individuals whose itelligences is too low to attain speech. \*\* Again…why? If speech is the magic “personhood” moment…those poor saps will never reach that point. What’s wrong with offing them? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Once the baby is born, IMO, it has a right to life, regardless of whether it ever learns to talk. \*\* So you go to the trouble of formulating a “personhood” definition that has no real value in this discussion then? 😕 > [@](#): > > \*\* > Prior to birth, IMO, it does not. \*\* So the act of exiting th birth canal is what supplies the baby with its rights…it has nothing to do with the development of the baby? > [@](#): > > \*\* > But, as I said in an earlier post, I would allow late (3rd trimester) abortions only for good reason, because, IMO, the 3rd trimester fetus is too far along to abort without good reason. \*\* Why is it too far along if the babies aren’t persons…what exactly is so special about them that they suddenly deserve protection? You might want to check the late talkers [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=148020&highlight=late+talker) in IMHO…There are children there who didn’t speak for a year or 2…woops, am I “allowed” to call them “children”…cuz they really aren’t persons? Poor Enderw24 didn’t talk for 2.5 years…poor little “it”. MikeG’s friend “did not speak a word until he was 4”…poor little “it”. it’s a good thing that this whole “personhood” thing is pretty reliable…otherwise just **think** of the possibly embarrassing outsomes. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/95 "2003-01-21T00:23:32Z")
Okay, so if I got it into my head that it was morally ok to kill your mother because I didn’t like her hairstyle, you would not be morally justified in stopping me since morals are far too subjective to base any decision on? Is this your position? Or are you just making this shit up as you go along? Your answer to this question will determine whether or not I bother to waste any more of my time on educating you. ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/96 "2003-01-21T00:24:41Z")
My apologies, my above post was addressed to **BURNER**. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/97 "2003-01-21T00:38:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*So the act of exiting th birth canal is what supplies the baby with its rights…it has nothing to do with the development of the baby? > Why is it too far along if the babies aren’t persons…what exactly is so special about them that they suddenly deserve protection? > \*\* A baby in the late second trimester and of the third has this special ability to become alive as a separate being from its mother. Albeit perhaps with some artificial aid in the beginning, but it is this distinction that would qualify it for some protection under the law. If the pregnancy is near term, then instead of abortion then perhaps adoption is now preferable. If available, an incubator can be used instead of forcing the mother to full term. Once the baby is able to breathe on its on, it is now a full person with all rights and privileges given. The birth date should be when the baby is free of artificial aid for the first time. If it does not survive the incubation, there is no criminal act ,or the baby is not yet a fully alive. and just to add gasoline to the inferno, I believe the fathers rights begin when the baby is fully alive and not before. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/98 "2003-01-21T00:42:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BURNER \* > \*\*I should have know I put in too many big words. To bring the answer down to your level I will condese and simplify it. Since morals are far too subjective to base any decision on the answer is , NO. \*\* Way to condese it down to my level, genius. What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was this: > [@](#): > > \*\*IS IT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TO PREVENT AN ARYAN NATIONS MEMBER FROM LYNCHING A BLACK MAN? \*\*And the answer, Mousketeers? You heard it, the answer is “No.” It would be morally wrong to prevent a lynching. Because (stay with me now): > [@](#): > > \*\*It is simply a matter of whether or not to defend 1 from many or to let the 1 fend for himself. If you turn and walk away then there is no impact on your life. What will happen will happen. If you interfere things may be diffrent or you may be lynched as well. “Right” and "wrong’ have no place in the decision. It is simply an academic assesment of possible outcomes and then decideing on a course of action. To help or not help is no great contest of good -vs- evil. \*\*What could be simpler! It is morally wrong because…well because “right” and “wrong” have no place in the decision. Or something like that. In any event, you’d better believe it’s no great contest of good -vs- evil, nosireebub. And anyhow, what will happen will. Happen, that is. Anyway, let’s hear it again for our special guest, BURNER… ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/99 "2003-01-21T00:52:56Z")
originaly posted by :ben hicks > [@](#): > > Okay, so if I got it into my head that it was morally ok to kill your mother because I didn’t like her hairstyle, you would not be morally justified in stopping me since morals are far too subjective to base any decision on? > > Is this your position? Or are you just making this shit up as you go along? Your answer to this question will determine whether or not I bother to waste any more of my time on educating you. Again with the morals? Ok , I’ll bite. No, I wouldnt have any moral obligation to stop you. Objectively I might try because she had taken care of me and fed me. It would be the repayment of a kindness to try to save her. If I were to say “Shit this guy has a shot gun, its been real , mom , but I’m out of here!” That wouldnt make me a moraly wrong person either. It would simply be putting my own needs first. My need of not getting shot-vs- my desire to help my mom.To go in recklessly with only feelings and without thinking is the path of unreason. ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289/100 "2003-01-21T01:28:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally drooled by BURNER_ > Again with the morals? Ok , I’ll bite. If abortion isn’t primarily an ethical and moral question, what on earth is it? **BURNER,** the difference is that in your version of events you yourself are in mortal danger of being killed if you so much as twitch. If protecting the life of another will result in your instant death then you cannot be under a moral _obligation_ to help. The same is true of abortion, if carrying to term would place the woman in real physical jeopardy then abortion would be perfectly justified. However, what if you _aren’t_ in any immediate danger? Moving back to **Bob Cos’s** example of the lynching, if you knew that a lynching was to take place at a certain date and time and you had ample opportunity to inform the authorities to stop it, are you under a moral obligation to pick up that phone? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-stuggle-with-abortion/149289.md?page=6)