# Abortion is wrong

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 20, 2003, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151 "2003-12-20T08:58:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/101 "2003-12-23T17:14:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Stratocaster \*  
> There are laws prohibiting certain acts. Then there are programs to help people who might otherwise have committed those acts. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have both. Are you suggesting we must do one or the other, but we can’t do both?

No. I’m suggesting that you’re concentrating your efforts on the wrong one. Your protest is meaningless if you only want someone else to enforce your version of right and wrong.

> [@](#):
>
> Sorry, but I think you’re dodging the prior question. If you feel this way, do you oppose laws against mugging? Shouldn’t all our efforts go toward helping the poor who are inclined to behave in such a desperate manner?

I don’t oppose laws against crime. Crime needs a definition that is consistent with a cultures own version of what it is. It is subjective. I think you actually dodged my last question, but I’ll re-phrase it. Do you think that all acts that cause a new life to cease to exist are crimes? Any exceptions. Where is the line in what is considered, and where does your version of good and evil become the standard for someone else’s.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m asking you how consistently you apply this philosophy, or whether it permits abortions only out of all the acts you personally find wrong.

I think in order for me to know how to respond to this, I need to clarify what, in your honest opinion would be a suitable law and what punishment would be appropriate. Otherwise this argument is abstract. My main point was new law should be consistent and equal for the majority and also in the majorities best interest. Just stating that abortion should be illegal is a knee-jerk reaction and doesn’t indicate a well thought out alternative or plan of action. So answer this and then I will be able to answer your questions, knowing what your point really is. To put it another way, I need to know if you have a valid point or just a judgment?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/102 "2003-12-23T17:25:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by beagledave \*  
> I take it then, that we have you on the record for decriminalizing shoplifting.?

No.

[quote]  
Can you tell us what other “crimes” you wish to decriminalize?

> [@](#):
>
> Armed robbery?

No.

> [@](#):
>
> Spousal abuse, maybe?

Husband or wife? 😉

> [@](#):
>
> Rape?

No

> [@](#):
>
> Arson?

No

> [@](#):
>
> Carjacking?

No

> [@](#):
>
> serial killings?

No

> [@](#):
>
> None of the perps should be “self righteously condemned”, correct? (you’ve already said we shouldn’t “self righteously condemn” a mugger…correct…we should take pity on him and deal with his personal problems instead?)

There is a difference between striking down all law and being reluctant to make a law that is not in the majorities best interest. And yes I do think we should have compassion for people who commit crime. It is in our best interest that we help and not just condemn. How would you write this abortion law to make it enforceable and fair?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [December 23, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/103 "2003-12-23T22:27:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IWLN \*  
> \*\*No. I’m suggesting that you’re concentrating your efforts on the wrong one. Your protest is meaningless if you only want someone else to enforce your version of right and wrong.I don’t oppose laws against crime. Crime needs a definition that is consistent with a cultures own version of what it is. It is subjective.

\*\*I’m not sure what your point is here, and I’m also not sure how you know what I’m concentrating my efforts on. Let’s try this. Crimes include activities that cause egregious harm to other people. Does that help?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I think you actually dodged my last question, but I’ll re-phrase it. Do you think that all acts that cause a new life to cease to exist are crimes? Any exceptions.

\*\*I believe that all deliberate acts that would stop a new life should be prohibited, except to the extent that it may be required to save the life of the mother. In those instances it _may_ be possible that the best outcome is one that saves the mother at the expense of the unborn.

And I see that you did finally answer my question, in response to Dave. He must just have a way with words that I lack, I guess, that old smoothie.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Where is the line in what is considered, and where does your version of good and evil become the standard for someone else’s. I think in order for me to know how to respond to this, I need to clarify what, in your honest opinion would be a suitable law and what punishment would be appropriate.

\*\*I’m not sure there’s a bright line, but I do believe that the killing of innocents crosses it. I believe society has a compelling interest in prohibiting activity where someone violates a greater right of another. I believe the right to live is the most fundamental right that exists. No other right exists without it. No other right has meaning if the right to live is not real.

A suitable law would be one that bans abortions. Law enforcement and punishment should concentrate on providers, IMO.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*My main point was new law should be consistent and equal for the majority and also in the majorities best interest.

\*\*What does “equal for the majority” mean? There is no shortage of laws on the books that impact different segments of society in enormously different ways, and you yourself are on record here as stating that at least some of those laws should not be overturned. That fact does not by itself render a given law inappropriate, by your own admission.

And do you count the unborn in determining “what is best for the majority”? If not, why not? In fact, if you do not count the unborn, what exactly do you find objectionable about abortions at all? And if you do account for the unborn, please explain how an abortion ban would not be best for the majority of those affected.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Just stating that abortion should be illegal is a knee-jerk reaction and doesn’t indicate a well thought out alternative or plan of action. So answer this and then I will be able to answer your questions, knowing what your point really is. To put it another way, I need to know if you have a valid point or just a judgment? \*\*

Right, so you’re really just struggling with the practical details of an abortion ban. The fact that the issues you cite exist for countless other laws is not a major concern for you, at least not to the extent where you’d want the laws off the books. :rolleyes:

Here’s my position. An abortion ban, similar to the ones that existed 30 years ago, would eliminate a majority of the abortions currently taking place in the U.S. That would be a good thing overall. Individual circumstances should be taken into account in determining how to punish, just as it is with every other law on the books. I don’t think that throwing women in prison should be an objective, and that providers should be the focus of law enforcement. I also believe society has an obligation to assist women in desperate circumstances as best it can, e.g., social programs, etc. Is that specific enough for you?

I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of women who feel abortion is the answer. Hell, there are people I love who have had abortions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/104 "2003-12-24T01:33:04Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Joe Random \*  
> Well, **Bryan Ekers** bet me to it, but the odds of that happening are precisely 1 in 200,000, just like I calculated. That’s how probabilities work, after all.
> 
> My point was that abstaining during those few days is _not_ a 100% effective birth control method. In fact, the failure rate is even higher than that for condoms.
> 
> Huh 😕 ? What you proposed above, “abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time”, is the rhythm method. In fact, you mentioned abstaining from sex for 4 days a month. However, the average fertile period is 6 - 8 days, so not only are you using the rhythm method, you are using it incorrectly (unless you have a significantly shorter menstrual cycle than average).
> 
> Actually, the probability of becoming pregnant while using the rhythm method is pretty high (compared to the pill, or sterilization). It is certainly non-zero.

But I’m not advocating the rhythm method _only_. It is in addition to whatever birth control that normally is used. I can understand the mindset that since one type of birth control is being used, another \*in addition to \*probably isn’t necessary. However, the argument for abortion on demand is because there is still a risk present. If you know you do not want a child, then you need to further eliminate any risk of pregnancy. That is what I’m advocating when I stated:

> [@](#):
>
> Women need to know their bodies and their cycles to use extra protection and/or abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time.

Perhaps I should have said “additional” instead of “extra”.

**CrazyCatLady** I agree with you that sterilization shouldn’t be so difficult to obtain if you don’t fit the “right profile”. That should be changed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/105 "2003-12-24T01:34:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IWLN \*  
> \*\* And yes I do think we should have compassion for people who commit crime. It is in our best interest that we help and not just condemn. \*\*

Well that’s nice and warm-fuzzy sounding. Unfortunately thats not what you said earlier. You did NOT just say we need to help **and** condemn.

You said we should **not** “self righteously condemn” somebody for these criminal acts. You specifically mentioned mugging as an example.

> [@](#):
>
> Don’t self-righteously condemn people after the fact.

My goodness, what the hell does criminalizing an activity **do** but to condemn it (self righteously or not)? It says THIS is a bad thing. It forms a moral or ethical **judgment** that said activity is a bad thing that should be punished.

When called on specifics for your statement you backpedal away.

I’ll try **again**

Should muggings be “self righteously condemned”?

Should rapes be “self righteously condemned”?

Should shoplifting be “self righteously condemned”?

Should arson be “self righteously condemned”?

---

<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 24, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/106 "2003-12-24T01:47:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Edlyn \*  
> **But I’m not advocating the rhythm method _only_. It is in addition to whatever birth control that normally is used.**

And what happens when someone uses multiple forms of birth control and _still_ gets pregnant?

> [@](#):
>
> **However, the argument for abortion on demand is because there is still a risk present.**

There will _always_ be a risk present. You could have both parties sterilized, use a condom, the pill, and the rhythm method all at the same time, and there is _still_ a risk of becoming pregnant.

You are correct that using more forms of birth control will _lessen_ the demand for abortions, but it will not eliminate it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/107 "2003-12-24T01:58:19Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Zoe \*  
> All too often the status of that union changes because of death or divorce and the sterilization can have a negative affect on the second marriage(s).

Sterilization should be for those who do not want any (more) children and those factors are what you are to consider before having the procedure done/ Doctors do advise you about this.

> [@](#):
>
> I think that the “morning after” pill is a good solution. One doctor said that most often it actually _prevents_ conception rather than just causing spontaneous abortion of an hours old zygote.
> 
> But even if the effect is to cause the body to throw of the zygote, since this is not illegal, why is their objection to this medication being sold over the counter? Whose business is it?

You may get your wish. Here is a [December 16th Article](http://news.public.findlaw.com/news/s/20031216/healthcontraceptivevotedc.html) about it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/108 "2003-12-24T02:15:16Z")

</div>

I’ll just post my two cent’s worth.

1. Always wrong, because it is murder. (Enough people have explained why WE think it is murder).

2. Many people say, and it IS a valid point, that we pro-life guys should also care about the kid AFTER it is born. While true, it goes only so far, no one would say that Lincoln shouldn’t’ve freed the slaves because he couldn’t provide food or jobs or housing for them. Some even fared, materially, worse than when they were slaves, but freedom trumps almost everything.Living trumps everything else, even quality of life.

---

<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 24, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/109 "2003-12-24T02:21:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Rodrigo \*  
> **Always wrong, because it is murder.**

Is killing in self defense always wrong, because it is murder? Hypothetically, if a woman is suffering complications from pregnancy that are likely to kill her if she does not abort, wouldn’t such an abortion be equivalent to killing in self defense?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/110 "2003-12-24T02:42:12Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \*  
> Edlyn: So what you’re saying is that every woman, if something happens, and she becomes pregnant for some reason, should put her body through the equivalent of nine months of medical proceedures of no small risk to her health and well being and position in society, alterations to her very self image and form, and then give the result away.
> 
> Why should she do that? It’s a heck of investment of her life. Could destroy her social life, her romantic life, and even her economic life, just to give something away that she didn’t want in the first place.
> 
> Why should she not have the option to say no? It’s her body. She can pierce it if she wants to. She can get fat or skinny if she wants to. Why shouldn’t she be pregnant or not as she so chooses?

So you think it’s okay to destroy another’s life for position, social status and romantic life? Because what is being destroyed is not _her_ body and never would be. I can’t honestly say that no abortion should ever take place, but it’s not simply a birth control method. At the rate of abortions being performed, there is a huge failure going on.

As a side note, if you think abortion has no risks, you’re very wrong. [Increased breast cancer risk](http://www.bcpinstitute.org/booklet.htm) is just one of them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/111 "2003-12-24T02:56:20Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Joe Random \*  
> \*\*Is killing in self defense always wrong, because it is murder? Hypothetically, if a woman is suffering complications from pregnancy that are likely to kill her if she does not abort, wouldn’t such an abortion be equivalent to killing in self defense? \*\*

I am aware of labors being induced early because of such complications, but what complications would require an abortion instead?

> [@](#):
>
> There will always be a risk present. You could have both parties sterilized, use a condom, the pill, and the rhythm method all at the same time, and there is still a risk of becoming pregnant.

Really? How often has pregnancy resulted from that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/112 "2003-12-24T03:10:17Z")

</div>

**Edlyn,** could you clarify something for me please, because I’m not understanding where you’re coming from.

Are you saying that abortion is always wrong, and that people who seek abortions should instead be much more responsible with their birth control, but whether they are or not, they can’t have abortions ?  
Or are you saying that if a person doubles, triples or quadruples up on their birth control, to whatever precautions are considered ‘enough’, that _then_ _they_ could have an abortion, should they fall pregnant, since they’ve obviously been responsible ?

---

<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 24, 2003, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/113 "2003-12-24T03:13:10Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Edlyn \*  
> **I am aware of labors being induced early because of such complications, but what complications would require an abortion instead?**

As I stated, my question was hypothetical in nature.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Really? How often has pregnancy resulted from that? \*\*

Well, I doubt that such drastic birth control methods have ever been used, so it doesn’t matter. My point was that _no_ method of birth control (other than complete abstinence) is 100% effective. You seem to believe that people should be more responsible with respect to using birth control (and I agree), but you have yet to address what you think should happen when someone uses birth control correctly and _still_ gets pregnant. Should they be denied an abortion?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/114 "2003-12-24T08:04:35Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Stratocaster \*  
> I’m not sure what your point is here, and I’m also not sure how you know what I’m concentrating my efforts on. Let’s try this. Crimes include activities that cause egregious harm to other people. Does that help? I believe that all deliberate acts that would stop a new life should be prohibited, except to the extent that it may be required to save the life of the mother. In those instances it _may_ be possible that the best outcome is one that saves the mother at the expense of the unborn.

You know, you’re the one that brought up burglary, murder, rape, etc. I’m still trying to discuss abortion. So you do believe that the forms of birth control that allow fertilization should be banned also. I am just trying to get an idea of what you think a workable solution is. So you _do_ consider the mother’s life to have more value under certain circumstances? What if she is mentally or emotionally unable to tolerate a pregnancy or child-rearing? Should it be the provider who you’re going to prosecute if he and his patient make the wrong choice.

> [@](#):
>
> And I see that you did finally answer my question, in response to Dave. He must just have a way with words that I lack, I guess, that old smoothie. I’m not sure there’s a bright line, but I do believe that the killing of innocents crosses it. I believe society has a compelling interest in prohibiting activity where someone violates a greater right of another. I believe the right to live is the most fundamental right that exists. No other right exists without it. No other right has meaning if the right to live is not real.

I know it’s probably not really obvious from what I’ve been saying, but I was pro-life when I got here, and I continue to be very strongly pro-life. I agree with you here.

> [@](#):
>
> A suitable law would be one that bans abortions. Law enforcement and punishment should concentrate on providers, IMO. What does “equal for the majority” mean? There is no shortage of laws on the books that impact different segments of society in enormously different ways, and you yourself are on record here as stating that at least some of those laws should not be overturned. That fact does not by itself render a given law inappropriate, by your own admission.

So we’re going to have a law again that forbids pro-choice physicians from treating pro-choice women. The woman that decides it is imperative that she end her pregnancy will not bear any of the responsibility for her actions. The provider will be the only one to blame? “Equal for the majority” as in laws that will be enforceable in general and not only for those with fewer options.

> [@](#):
>
> And do you count the unborn in determining “what is best for the majority”? If not, why not? In fact, if you do not count the unborn, what exactly do you find objectionable about abortions at all? And if you do account for the unborn, please explain how an abortion ban would not be best for the majority of those affected. Right, so you’re really just struggling with the practical details of an abortion ban. The fact that the issues you cite exist for countless other laws is not a major concern for you, at least not to the extent where you’d want the laws off the books. :rolleyes:

No, I don’t think we should discard existing laws off the books until we have a better alternative, nor should we add laws that will by default be flawed, exclusionary and will only exist as a legal deterent for the physicians. The dr. is providing what he considers a needed service. The woman is the one who actually made the decision to end her baby’s life. And the father, if he is aware; then should he be an accesory? I do count the unborn actually as the most important part of the equation, but what I believe or feel isn’t very important to those women who are trying to keep their lives together. As it stands, it’s hard for me to think about forcing them to do what I believe is right and yes I want to. Again, you brought up the other laws as an example that we already have flawed laws, why not more?

> [@](#):
>
> Here’s my position. An abortion ban, similar to the ones that existed 30 years ago, would eliminate a majority of the abortions currently taking place in the U.S. That would be a good thing overall. Individual circumstances should be taken into account in determining how to punish, just as it is with every other law on the books. I don’t think that throwing women in prison should be an objective, and that providers should be the focus of law enforcement. I also believe society has an obligation to assist women in desperate circumstances as best it can, e.g., social programs, etc. Is that specific enough for you?

If you don’t believe women _should_ should be punished, then you don’t really think she’s responsible for her crime?

> [@](#):
>
> I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of women who feel abortion is the answer. Hell, there are people I love who have had abortions.

I’m not unsympathetic to either the mother or the bably. I would just like to see a more workable solution. I would, at this point in time, if I had any right to, change the law to make three months the cut off time. With increased success at viability happening sooner, an abortion at the latter end of the second trimester seems particularly horrifying. I would also like to see us do everything possible to encourage adoption. That would nessecitate an attitude change from feeling like one is being forced to be a breeding machine(one of the most lame of arguments), to attempting to be unselfish and give the baby who has no personal positive value to a family who are desperate for what they can’t have. I have been involved in the adoption process and it was the most excruciating sorrow, that then eventually turned into a great joy for him and about 50 of his new relatives. I’m sure abortion is easier than adoption, but the end result is less damaging to the mother and the baby .

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/115 "2003-12-24T09:03:11Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by beagledave \*  
> Well that’s nice and warm-fuzzy sounding. Unfortunately thats not what you said earlier. You did NOT just say we need to help **and** condemn.You said we should **not** “self righteously condemn” somebody for these criminal acts. You specifically mentioned mugging as an example.My goodness, what the hell does criminalizing an activity **do** but to condemn it (self righteously or not)? It says THIS is a bad thing. It forms a moral or ethical **judgment** that said activity is a bad thing that should be punished.

Well, there you go. I don’t think the answer is to criminalize abortion. That won’t solve the problem. It will just complicate it. I would rather throw more money at it. Make an unplanned baby **not** a rapid decent into loss of dreams and ability to get by financially. Hey, actually reward people for **not** getting abortions. College education, more child-care incentives, whatever it takes. It’s only money. If you think that abortion is murder, then whatever needs to be done to prevent that should be done, without complaint. As for all the other crimes on the list, which really didn’t seem the topic of this thread; yes, I believe we need to have punishment for crime, but in our best interest; we should also find ways to help, so it doesn’t happen again. I am forever aware that I do not have abortions or commit crimes because of the family I was born into and the life I’ve had. I do feel compassion for the people who didn’t have the choices I did.

If it seems like I’ve been backpedaling, I apologize. Nobody was more surprised than me to find I was arguing for a cause I not only don’t believe in; but am violently opposed to and sickened by. That’s the emotional side of me. OTOH, I intellectually can’t see passing a bad and unenforceable law, based on my knee-jerk emotional response. I was trying to be fair and honest. I haven’t made my point well because, hell I don’t believe part of what I’m saying as strongly as I should. The problem is, if someone doesn’t think their pregnancy is “really a baby” and is really intent on _not_ carrying it for 9 months; I still think we can’t force them to. I do have a lot of contradictory feelings on this whole issue and probably shouldn’t be debating anything about it. Sorry. ☹

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [December 24, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/116 "2003-12-24T13:58:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IWLN \*  
> \*\*You know, you’re the one that brought up burglary, murder, rape, etc. I’m still trying to discuss abortion.

\*\*This is still dodging. You are the one who has stated that a problem with an abortion ban is that it would not eliminate abortions, I think. The laws against the above acts have not eliminated these crimes either. Neither do these laws affect every segment of society equally. And still, it is only abortion, apparently, that you feel should NOT be a law. And you have still not explained why a law against burglary is OK–though it affects the poor much more than the rich, and has not eliminated burglaries–but a law against abortions would be wrong.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*So you do believe that the forms of birth control that allow fertilization should be banned also. I am just trying to get an idea of what you think a workable solution is.

\*\*I already answered this.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*So you _do_ consider the mother’s life to have more value under certain circumstances?

\*\* I certainly don’t think it has _less_ value.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*What if she is mentally or emotionally unable to tolerate a pregnancy or child-rearing? Should it be the provider who you’re going to prosecute if he and his patient make the wrong choice.

\*\*It’s the provider I would prosecute because that is the most politically expedient and practical way of dealing with it. BTW, a mother emotionally unable to deal with child rearing needn’t do so, you understand?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I know it’s probably not really obvious from what I’ve been saying, but I was pro-life when I got here, and I continue to be very strongly pro-life. I agree with you here.

\*\*It’s not obvious. You still haven’t answered my question as to whether or not you count the unborn in determining what is good for the majority. Go ahead and re-read it and please answer.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*So we’re going to have a law again that forbids pro-choice physicians from treating pro-choice women. The woman that decides it is imperative that she end her pregnancy will not bear any of the responsibility for her actions. The provider will be the only one to blame?

\*\*I didn’t say it wasn’t possible that women could be prosecuted. But that wouldn’t be a primary objective, nor would it be common. I don’t think prosecuting desperate and deluded women is an effective practice.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*“Equal for the majority” as in laws that will be enforceable in general and not only for those with fewer options.

\*\*And yet you seem to have this requirement only for abortion laws. At this point, this is effectively a meaningless debating point, IMO. You hold a position, but then again you don’t.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*No, I don’t think we should discard existing laws off the books until we have a better alternative, nor should we add laws that will by default be flawed, exclusionary and will only exist as a legal deterent for the physicians. The dr. is providing what he considers a needed service.

\*\*If it’s the law of the land, he doesn’t get to make that decision. It’s the same with euthanasia laws and countless other limitations on what a physician may prescribe as treatment.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I do count the unborn actually as the most important part of the equation, but what I believe or feel isn’t very important to those women who are trying to keep their lives together.

\*\*You count them how? Again, you have not answered my question. If they are part of your “majority,” for the second time I’ll ask you to explain how permitting abortions is the best for the majority. And why do you think abortion is uniquely a province of personal decision where society may not impose a restriction if you do believe that the unborn are people with rights? There are actually people in this world who believe that parents should be able to kill infants for any reason. Would you interfere with this decision? If so, why? They simply don’t believe what you do. Why not let them make their own choices?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*As it stands, it’s hard for me to think about forcing them to do what I believe is right and yes I want to. Again, you brought up the other laws as an example that we already have flawed laws, why not more?

\*\*The “flaws” you refer to are an inherent nature of virtually every law on the book. There is no “perfect” law, one where every person is affected exactly the same, one that eliminates the proscribed activity just by virtue of the grandeur of the law’s wording. Those laws simply do not exist. Why would you make this a requirement of abortion laws, then?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*If you don’t believe women _should_ should be punished, then you don’t really think she’s responsible for her crime?

\*\*She may or may not be. I believe there are desperate women who are not thinking clearly where prison would serve no purpose. But I believe in virtually every instance, imprisoning women would make the possibility of an abortion ban less likely. Most people would find it distasteful. Hell, so would I, for the most part.

So, if you want an anaology, I would point to drug laws. In many jurisdictions, posession of small amounts is not a felony and would not result in prison time. For the large provider, OTOH, it’s another story. Law enforcement pursues the dealers vigorously and major dealers get big sentences. I’m not saying drugs and abortions are analogous, by the way. I’m just trying to respond to your fixation on the logistical details surrounding an abortion ban. This is how it might work.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I’m not unsympathetic to either the mother or the bably. I would just like to see a more workable solution.

\*\*Workable in the sense that this law must eliminate “flaws” that no other law is required to?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\* I would, at this point in time, if I had any right to, change the law to make three months the cut off time.

\*\*Why? Why isn’t this interfering with the mother’s personal decision? Why do you get to do so in this manner, but anything further is right out? Viability? What does that have to do with the fact that other people disagree with your morality? BTW, at what point do you stop deluding yourself? Think of what you just said. You’re pro-choice, no matter how much it comforts you to think of yourself as pro-life.

Sorry, but your philosophy regarding abortion seems terribly inconsistent and damned convenient.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![WaryEri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ea666f/32.png) [@WaryEri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WaryEri)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/117 "2003-12-24T21:02:33Z")

</div>

IWLN, you’re a saint. I may not agree with your position, but your continued graceful responses to a truly graceless dogpiling has been a pleasure to read (never thought I’d apply THAT word to an abortion debate).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/118 "2003-12-24T22:05:55Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by adaher \*  
> \*\* 1. Abortion is wrong, except when the life of the mother is at stake,
> 
> 1. or in cases of rape. In my view.
> 
> 2. However, just because I think something is wrong doesn’t mean I should call my legislator and try to get it made illegal. \*\*

1. Why do people say that? I dont know any mother who would not rather give her own life in order to save her child(and I am glad that I dont know any mother who would kill their child)? Are there mothers out there who would rather kill their child in order to save their own lives?

(Note: I am not talking about people who like abortion and would kill the child regardless of whether or not it might harm the mother, I am talking about regular mothers. ) I know there are people out there who will kill others, this is not the same thing.

1. a child created from rape is a difficult issue, and the mother was not responsible for creating that child. I would leave it to each individual woman to decide what to do, fortunately, conception from a rape is extremely rare.

2. I agree that it is wrong, and I think it is murder, but I agree that it should not be illegal, just for the practicality of the situation.

When over a million babies a year are killed, it is just physically impossible to punish a million people for murder each year, unless you have the death penalty in every state. I have no problems with giving the death penalty for murder, but seveal state constitutions have to be changed to allow the death penalty for abortion. Without the death penalty, we just cant afford to put the now 30 million guilty women, plus their doctors and nurses, in prison for life terms, and anything less than life in prison for killing a child, is just lip service and rather meaningless. The cost of imprisoning 30 million people is unaffordable. It cost over $20,000 to house a prisoner, times 30 million, is what?

And dont forget to add in the court costs, attorney costs, police time, and how many judges we would have to hire and how clogged up our courts would be just to give trials to a million women a year and their doctors and nurses.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/119 "2003-12-24T22:09:35Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Stratocaster \*  
> \*\*\*\* I believe there are desperate women who are not thinking clearly where prison would serve no purpose. \*\*

The purpose is justice.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\
**Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151/120 "2003-12-24T22:22:44Z")

</div>

As I’ve noted before, I can’t take seriously the claim that someone believes that abortion is as bad as a cold blooded murder of a grown human being. That would mean the equivalent ofmass genocide going on all around you, every day, and yet you’re here chatting to people on a message board about it, mildly complaining? How can we take that seriously? How can YOU take yourself seriously?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151.md?page=5)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-wrong/220151.md?page=7)