# Abortion after 24 weeks - good enough reason?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 5, 2003, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082 "2003-12-05T03:21:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/201 "2003-12-16T03:18:07Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by yguy \*  
> [The root of homosexuality is] **An evil intelligence. Satan, if you like.**

And why do you suppose that? I can see no evil in homosexuality. On what evidence do you proclaim it to be the work of Satan?

> [@](#):
>
> **Now while you don’t see homosexuality and incest as foul inclinations, I doubt it is your belief that such things as foul inclinations do not exist in humans. Let’s say your friend is just a hypocrite. You really think you do him no disservice by sympathizing with his hypocrisy?**

I never said that I _sympathize_ with anyone; only that I tolerate them.

Further, hypocrisy does not fall in line with the Golden Rule when looked at from the point of view of a third party. I would want someone to inform me when a person is being a hypocrite, or to inform me when I, myself, am being hypocritical, and thus I extend the same courtesy.

> [@](#):
>
> [I base my belief in a soul on] \*\* the fact that I have one…or, more properly, that I _am_ one.\*\*

That’s not an answer. On what do you base your belief that you _are_ a soul? What is your evidence? What signs point to it being probable, or even possible? Saying “because I am a soul” is a non-answer, as it merely restates the question as a declaration.

> [@](#):
>
> **There is no such possbility** [that the Creator would reverse morality with no notice] **.**

So are you limiting the power of the Creator? Are you saying that you know what It can and can’t do (or will and won’t)? That sounds pretty arrogant to me, claiming to know the Mind of God.

Face it, your definition of morality requires that it be capable of being changed by this Creator whenever the Creator so desires. The logical conclusion is that the Creator could make murder and rape moral with but a thought. To state otherwise indicates that you are attempting to create God in your own (moral) image, instead of the other way around.

> [@](#):
>
> **My experience has been that [abortion supporters] lack the ability to see where they contradict themselves. So far, you fit the mold very well indeed.**

At this point, I must demand that you indicate where I have contradicted myself.

> [@](#):
>
> **I guess we can look forward to seeing you celebrate the day a NAMBLA member is elected to political office then.**

So you leap from me not wanting to strip people of political power because of their views, to me celebrating when some random fringe group gains political power? Logic must have temporarily escaped you.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*That’s not the issue, since bacteria can be said to possess a sort of consciousness. It’s such consciousness as human beings possess that I’m concerned about. \*\*

And how do you know that bacteria do not possess the same level of consciousness as human beings? Your own definition of an undetectable consciousness pretty well restricts you from saying with any certainty that _anything_ does not possess consciousness akin to that of humans.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/eb9ed0/32.png) [@yguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yguy)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/202 "2003-12-16T04:37:50Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Joe Random \*  
> And why do you suppose that? I can see no evil in homosexuality.

There are people who see no evil in pedophilia. That’s their blind spot. Maybe homosexuality and incest are yours.

> [@](#):
>
> On what evidence do you proclaim it to be the work of Satan?

If satan is the author of all perversions, and homosexuality is a perversion, you have your answer. I imagine you reject the first proposition on the basis that you think satan doesn’t exist. As for the second, either you can see it or you can’t.

> [@](#):
>
> I never said that I _sympathize_ with anyone; only that I tolerate them.

Hey, I’m tolerant of homosexuals in the sense that I have no desire to know what’s going on in their bedrooms and such, but I’m not gonna pretend to believe otherwise than I do for the sake of their feelings.

> [@](#):
>
> Further, hypocrisy does not fall in line with the Golden Rule when looked at from the point of view of a third party. I would want someone to inform me when a person is being a hypocrite, or to inform me when I, myself, am being hypocritical, and thus I extend the same courtesy.

By that logic, anyone who does _not_ desire to be shown his hypocrisy is following the Golden Rule when he pretends not to see the hypocrisy of another. Right?

> [@](#):
>
> That’s not an answer. On what do you base your belief that you _are_ a soul? What is your evidence? What signs point to it being probable, or even possible? Saying “because I am a soul” is a non-answer, as it merely restates the question as a declaration.

Can’t you understand that the ultimate answer to every question taken far back enough in the logic chain is “I don’t know”?

I can’t tell you _how_ I know I have a soul. I only know _that_ I know.

> [@](#):
>
> So are you limiting the power of the Creator? Are you saying that you know what It can and can’t do (or will and won’t)? That sounds pretty arrogant to me, claiming to know the Mind of God.

I suppose it would then be arrogant, if your dad were a good man accused of pedophilia, to claim he wouldn’t ever do anything like that. Right?

> [@](#):
>
> Face it, your definition of morality requires that it be capable of being changed by this Creator whenever the Creator so desires. The logical conclusion is that the Creator could make murder and rape moral with but a thought. To state otherwise indicates that you are attempting to create God in your own (moral) image, instead of the other way around.

I think it is at least as likely that you are projecting. Perhaps if you were God, that’s the sort of thing you would do…or maybe you had a parent who was like that. Hardly out of the realm of possibility, as the entire Soviet regime was run like that, according to Solzhenitsyn.

> [@](#):
>
> At this point, I must demand that you indicate where I have contradicted myself.

Very well:

\*JR:  
Thus you cannot know with 100% certainty that you are not in the Matrix, and thus you cannot know with 100% anything at all, since there is a small-but-real probability that everything is fake.

y:  
A[nd] you are, I trust, 100% sure of that?\*

> [@](#):
>
> So you leap from me not wanting to strip people of political power because of their views, to me celebrating when some random fringe group gains political power? Logic must have temporarily escaped you.

OK, it’s a stretch. 😃

> [@](#):
>
> And how do you know that bacteria do not possess the same level of consciousness as human beings? Your own definition of an undetectable consciousness pretty well restricts you from saying with any certainty that _anything_ does not possess consciousness akin to that of humans.

Consciousness is only undetectable to the empirical mindset. It is very detectable by human beings. Try this experiment: disrobe in front of a dog. Notice how it looks at you. Now, try disrobing in front of another person. Notice how they look at you. The stare of the dog is no big deal, but the stare of the human is embarassing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/203 "2003-12-16T04:46:58Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by yguy \*  
> \*\*Consciousness is only undetectable to the empirical mindset. It is very detectable by human beings. Try this experiment: disrobe in front of a dog. Notice how it looks at you. Now, try disrobing in front of another person. Notice how they look at you. The stare of the dog is no big deal, but the stare of the human is embarassing. \*\*

What is that supposed to prove? That dogs aren’t conscious?

If you disrobe in front of your wife, and she looks at you in a way that doesn’t embarrass you, does that prove _she_ isn’t conscious?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/204 "2003-12-16T05:13:48Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by yguy \*  
> **There are people who see no evil in pedophilia. That’s their blind spot. Maybe homosexuality and incest are yours.**

You still haven’t shown the basis on which you suppose that homosexuality has, at its root, an “evil intelligence”. Keep trying to redirect the argument though, it may eventually work for you.

> [@](#):
>
> **If satan is the author of all perversions, and homosexuality is a perversion, you have your answer. I imagine you reject the first proposition on the basis that you think satan doesn’t exist. As for the second, either you can see it or you can’t.**

You’re begging the question. On what basis do you claim Satan (or your “evil intelligence”) exists? Where is your evidence that homosexuality is a perversion?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I think it is at least as likely that you are projecting. Perhaps if you were God, that’s the sort of thing you would do…or maybe you had a parent who was like that. Hardly out of the realm of possibility, as the entire Soviet regime was run like that, according to Solzhenitsyn.

\*\* You’re not addressing the issue, merely attacking the poster with a veiled accusation of immorality.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> \*JR:  
> Thus you cannot know with 100% certainty that you are not in the Matrix, and thus you cannot know with 100% anything at all, since there is a small-but-real probability that everything is fake.
> 
> y:  
> A[nd] you are, I trust, 100% sure of that?\*  
> \*\*

The only person who has contradicted **Joe** there is you. **Joe** has been completely consistent with his own beliefs, as stated previously. (Hint: they’re still posted on a previous page if you’d care to review.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/205 "2003-12-16T05:16:21Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by yguy \*  
> **If satan is the author of all perversions, and homosexuality is a perversion, you have your answer. I imagine you reject the first proposition on the basis that you think satan doesn’t exist. As for the second, either you can see it or you can’t.**

For the first, you are correct, I don’t think that Satan exists.

As for the second, it’s not a case of “either you can see it or you can’t”. It’s a case of “either you can demonstrate it or you can’t”. Can you demonstrate that homosexuality is a perversion? Do you have anything other than your “gut feeling” to back it up?

> [@](#):
>
> **By that logic, anyone who does _not_ desire to be shown his hypocrisy is following the Golden Rule when he pretends not to see the hypocrisy of another. Right?**

Correct. I never claimed that the Golden Rule is the end-all and be-all of morality; merely that it is a useful tool.

> [@](#):
>
> **Can’t you understand that the ultimate answer to every question taken far back enough in the logic chain is “I don’t know”?**

So then you don’t have a reason to believe that you have a soul?

You base your idea of abortion being wrong because something without brain activity can still be conscious.

Something without brain activity can still be conscious because souls exist.

You know that souls exist because you have one.

You don’t know how you know that you have a soul.  
Not very convincing, if you ask me.

> [@](#):
>
> **I suppose it would then be arrogant, if your dad were a good man accused of pedophilia, to claim he wouldn’t ever do anything like that. Right?**

The difference is that, while I can comprehend my dad fairly well (what with him being a human just like me) you can’t possibly comprehend a being so powerful that it created all of existence.

> [@](#):
>
> **I think it is at least as likely that you are projecting. Perhaps if you were God, that’s the sort of thing you would do**

Maybe so. Since I’m not God, I don’t know what I would do if I were God. Not that it’d matter though, since anything that I made moral would suddenly be moral, so it’s not like anyone would be upset. Everyone would just happily go about raping and pillaging.

So what’s to say that God won’t decide to do exactly that? Because you can’t imagine God doing it? You can’t comprehend God in the first place, so it doesn’t matter what you can and can’t imagine God doing.

I’m just interested to know if it bothers you to believe that your entire system of morality exists at God’s whim, and is capable of being completely rewritten at a moment’s notice.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Consciousness is only undetectable to the empirical mindset. It is very detectable by human beings. Try this experiment: disrobe in front of a dog. Notice how it looks at you. Now, try disrobing in front of another person. Notice how they look at you. The stare of the dog is no big deal, but the stare of the human is embarassing. \*\*

That is only because I believe humans to be conscious. If I suspected that the dog were conscious, I’d be just as embarrassed as if it were a human. So, really, your example is faulty.

Now, if what you are saying is that people can just somehow _know_ that another creature is conscious, then not only should that end the abortion debate, since everyone would instinctively know whether or not a fetus was conscious, but the field of medicine would be completely altered. Consider:

Instead of disrobing in front of a dog vs. a human, try disrobing in front of a live person wearing sunglasses vs. a corpse propped up in a chair and wearing sunglasses. Would you be embarrassed in front of the live human, but not the dead one? In fact, why do we need doctors to pronounce someone as dead when anyone could just disrobe to find out of they were still conscious?

My conclusion, humans do not have any innate ability to discern an otherwise undetectable consciousness. So I ask you again. How do you know that bacteria aren’t conscious to the same degree as humans?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/206 "2003-12-16T06:55:32Z")

</div>

Don’t waste your time, **Joe**. **Yguy** got banned for being a buttweasel in his Pit thread. That’s not to say that Socky McSockerson won’t be along in a day or so to pick up the argument, but for now at least you won’t be getting a reply.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082/207 "2003-12-16T18:59:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by CrazyCatLady \*  
> **Don’t waste your time, Joe. Yguy got banned for being a buttweasel in his Pit thread.**

So I see. Looks like it was shortly after I posted my above reply. I can’t say that I’m too surprised, either; There seems to be a positive correlation between the lack of ability to participate in a logical debate and the tendency to crash-and-burn.

> [@](#):
>
> **That’s not to say that Socky McSockerson won’t be along in a day or so to pick up the argument**

I certainly hope not. Debating (if you can even call it that) with **yguy** was tedious and unfulfilling.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-after-24-weeks-good-enough-reason/217082.md?page=10)