# abortion rights, womens rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2008, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358 "2008-11-24T23:52:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/21 "2008-11-25T05:19:37Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > The “brainwaves” argument sounds kind of like calling cardiac contraction a “heartbeat” and attaching far more significance to it than is warranted. > > Many very tasty animals have heartbeats and brainwaves. > “But a cow is not a person.” True. Neither is a fetus. Then again, we use the cessation of brain waves as a legal endpoint of life, why exactly is it so much different to use it as a beginning point? ---
**Author:** ![Cecil\_Adams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cecil\_Adams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cecil_Adams)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/22 "2008-11-25T05:48:47Z")
> [@bmoreluv](#): > > What i want to say is; The primary factors are lack of education and reproductive rights. Well, historically lack of education has been associated with poverty, so I don’t see that we’re in disagreement there. As for reproductive rights, such talk was made possible by the development of safe, reliable methods of birth control and abortion in fairly recent times. Before then the chief methods of disposing of unwanted children were infanticide and abandonment. That was what my column was about. ---
**Author:** ![bmoreluv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@bmoreluv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmoreluv)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/23 "2008-11-25T05:58:28Z")
Cecil, I do truly appreciate your taking the time to reply to me on this post. It’s nothing personal. I also have not been unaware of your insulting the submitters of all kinds of idiot queries in print, regardless of gender. Very entertaining! That being said, I would like to say that reproductive control is a primary issue, because the co-opting of this by men must be accomplished before there is the need for a man to give legitimacy to a child. ---
**Author:** ![bmoreluv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@bmoreluv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmoreluv)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/24 "2008-11-25T08:09:51Z")
> [@Cecil\_Adams](#): > > Well, historically lack of education has been associated with poverty, so I don’t see that we’re in disagreement there. As for reproductive rights, such talk was made possible by the development of safe, reliable methods of birth control and abortion in fairly recent times. Before then the chief methods of disposing of unwanted children were infanticide and abandonment. That was what my column was about. Well, in the fifties and in Victorian England, lack of education about having a healthy, responsible sex life was denied women from all classes, was it not? I mean, even among men…the sex manuals of those times are laughable. And it wasn’t the dirt-poor un-educated who purchased and kept leather-bound books, not in Victorian England, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/25 "2008-11-25T08:48:47Z")
**TimJ** said: > [@](#): > > Does abortion destroy a potential human life? Yes. Does abortion cause the murder of an “unborn child?" No. Does arcane\_eye think she has a right to control of her body? I’ll bet she does, and I and tens of millions of others do too. Once the baby is born, and outside the womb, then it is sentient, and has the same rights as the rest of us walking around humans, subject to the same legal and illegal whims of others. This is a point where there is plenty of disagreement. What defines sentience? When should moral status of personhood be granted? When does terminating a life become murder? Your position is that birth is the determining point. Some of us are trying to look scientifically at the issue to see what light that sheds. Unfortunately, that does muddy the philosophical waters. I’m not talking about religious motivations or unprovable premises like souls. I am talking about awareness, ability to feel pain, and higher brain functions. These questions are legitimate moral questions that do not rely on either religious motivations or power structure efforts to dominate women. While those are certainly issues for the “Pro-Life” crowd, they are not the issues for everyone who is concerned about the moral status of a fetus. > [@](#): > > A woman gets sexually assaulted by some violent criminal, and she is then forced to carry the pregnancy to term? What state of the pregnancy are we talking about? The first two months? The last month prior to delivery? You are lumping all abortions as the same moral equivalency as if there is no difference between a 20 cell blastocyst and a fetus 3 days before expected delivery date. The point Cecil was trying to make with regards to rape and incest is that those conditions do not change the state of the fetus. Consider this: if for some reason the woman did carry the child to term and delivery, would the child being product of rape or incest be grounds to terminate the child then? **1010011010** said: > [@](#): > > The “brainwaves” argument sounds kind of like calling cardiac contraction a “heartbeat” and attaching far more significance to it than is warranted. It’s far more finely delineated that stray activity. As for the significance, brain activity is the only measure we have for consciousness, sentience, and such. > [@](#): > > Many very tasty animals have heartbeats and brainwaves. > “But a cow is not a person.” True. Neither is a fetus. Well, maybe a fetus _should_ be considered a person. What is it about humans that gives us these rights? What is the determination point for acquiring them, and why? Those are questions that some of us are trying to understand, and answers that affect how we view the status of difference stages of development of a fetus. ---
**Author:** ![bmoreluv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@bmoreluv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmoreluv)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/26 "2008-11-25T16:07:22Z")
Cecil said; “Because it’s a secondary consideration. The primary factors are poverty and illegitimacy, as I said. Presumably if the woman weren’t poor, she’d have better access to birth control and abortion.” Let me put this another way; When considering this question; Why were black people enslaved in America? Which of these two answers carries a racial bias; 1. Inferior weaponry caused them to be easily overcome. or; 2. Not all persons were granted full civil rights under the law. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/27 "2008-11-25T16:07:52Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > Then again, we use the cessation of brain waves as a legal endpoint of life, why exactly is it so much different to use it as a beginning point? Cessation of brainwaves is the far end. There are many stages before complete brain death where circumstances may make it acceptable to kill someone. A comatose patient from which there is no expectation of recovery, someone who would be lucid except for the pain and pain medication they will be on for the rest of their life. Short: brainwaves are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for personhood. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/28 "2008-11-25T16:36:32Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Well, maybe a fetus _should_ be considered a person. What is it about humans that gives us these rights? What is the determination point for acquiring them, and why? Those are questions that some of us are trying to understand, and answers that affect how we view the status of difference stages of development of a fetus. I’d point out that no one is arguing whether an adult human female should be considered a person. Whatever it means to be a person, she is one. It’s highly suspect to me to put protection of women’s rights subordinate to the protection of something we can’t even agree is a person. I don’t claim to have a clear and complete definition of what is necessary and sufficient to be a person. I will agree that a fetus, especially a late-term fetus, has several items on that fuzzy list of criteria, but not enough for me to tell a woman that it’s rights supersede hers. In all honesty, I don’t think we are “sufficiently human” until a while _after_ birth. Before anyone claims I’m arguing infanticide is acceptable, there are more circumstances to consider than just the humanity of a fetus. Birth, the separation of the living fetus from the mother, is a pretty straightforward and clear demarcation point. Consider, in the case of an unwanted fetus, a woman has the options to care for it against her will or to kill it to resolve the conflict. In the case of an unwanted newborn, it can also be transferred into the care of someone else. That additional option takes infanticide off the table as being unnecessary to resolve the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![bmoreluv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@bmoreluv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmoreluv)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/29 "2008-11-25T16:43:10Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > I’d point out that no one is arguing whether an adult human female should be considered a person. Whatever it means to be a person, she is one. It’s highly suspect to me to put protection of women’s rights subordinate to the protection of something we can’t even agree is a person. > > I don’t claim to have a clear and complete definition of what is necessary and sufficient to be a person. I will agree that a fetus, especially a late-term fetus, has several items on that fuzzy list of criteria, but not enough for me to tell a woman that it’s rights supersede hers. In all honesty, I don’t think we are “sufficiently human” until a while _after_ birth. > > Before anyone claims I’m arguing infanticide is acceptable, there are more circumstances to consider than just the humanity of a fetus. Birth, the separation of the living fetus from the mother, is a pretty straightforward and clear demarcation point. Consider, in the case of an unwanted fetus, a woman has the options to care for it against her will or to kill it to resolve the conflict. In the case of an unwanted newborn, it can also be transferred into the care of someone else. That additional option takes infanticide off the table as being unnecessary to resolve the conflict. We are not discussing this issue here. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/30 "2008-11-25T16:52:26Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Cessation of brainwaves is the far end. There are many stages before complete brain death where circumstances may make it acceptable to kill someone. A comatose patient from which there is no expectation of recovery, someone who would be lucid except for the pain and pain medication they will be on for the rest of their life. > > Short: brainwaves are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for personhood. I believe they only pull the plug on comatose patients when brain activity stops. Also, as far as the pain argument goes, those people still have personhood, if they are euthanized, it is because they have exercised their rights, not because they have lost them. > [@1010011010](#): > > I’d point out that no one is arguing whether an adult human female should be considered a person. Whatever it means to be a person, she is one. It’s highly suspect to me to put protection of women’s rights subordinate to the protection of something we can’t even agree is a person. > > I don’t claim to have a clear and complete definition of what is necessary and sufficient to be a person. I will agree that a fetus, especially a late-term fetus, has several items on that fuzzy list of criteria, but not enough for me to tell a woman that it’s rights supersede hers. In all honesty, I don’t think we are “sufficiently human” until a while _after_ birth. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, rights are not binary. They are given gradually. A one year old has right to equal protection under the law, but not the right of free assembly. A sixteen year old has the right to an education, but not the right to vote. An eighteen year old has the right to vote and own a rifle, but not drink or own a handgun. Many, if not most, believe that sometime between conception and birth some rights are accrued. When they supersede the rights of the mother is crux of the debate for most of us. > [@](#): > > Before anyone claims I’m arguing infanticide is acceptable, there are more circumstances to consider than just the humanity of a fetus. Birth, the separation of the living fetus from the mother, is a pretty straightforward and clear demarcation point. Consider, in the case of an unwanted fetus, a woman has the options to care for it against her will or to kill it to resolve the conflict. In the case of an unwanted newborn, it can also be transferred into the care of someone else. That additional option takes infanticide off the table as being unnecessary to resolve the conflict. This of course brings us to one of the many slippery slopes that crop up in this issue. Do premature babies have less rights than those carried to term (both because their brains are less developed and because they need more intensive care)? As medical science gets better, it may be possible to transfer the care of a blastocyte to someone else, how does that change things? Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/31 "2008-11-25T16:54:49Z")
> [@bmoreluv](#): > > We are not discussing this issue here. Um, what are we not discussing here? This thread is about Cecil’s follow column on human life and how that impacts the abortion issue. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![bmoreluv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@bmoreluv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmoreluv)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/32 "2008-11-25T17:01:32Z")
Oh, excuse me. It’s just that Cecil is answering my questions from another post here. Very confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/33 "2008-11-25T17:05:06Z")
> [@bmoreluv](#): > > Cecil said; “Because it’s a secondary consideration. The primary factors are poverty and illegitimacy, as I said. Presumably if the woman weren’t poor, she’d have better access to birth control and abortion.” > > Let me put this another way; > When considering this question; > Why were black people enslaved in America? > Which of these two answers carries a racial bias; > > 1. Inferior weaponry caused them to be easily overcome. > or; > 2. Not all persons were granted full civil rights under the law. or 3. A conflux of economic and social factors lead to need for labor in the colonies, a systemic devaluation of “the other” and religious justification of slavery. or 4. Climate and resource limitation or 5. The spread of Islam in the 10th century along with stagnation of the Axumite empire lead to an Arabic domination of northern Africa or 6. etc. You can always find more causes and factors to almost anything. You could write books on the topic and not cover every possible topic and cause. This was newspaper column addressing the reality of abandoned babies. He mentioned the superficial, immediate reasons, not the reason for the reasons, or the factors and ramifications of those reasons. If that is what you are looking for, you need to go check out a book, not read an entertainment article(no offense Cecil). Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/34 "2008-11-25T17:06:27Z")
> [@bmoreluv](#): > > Oh, excuse me. It’s just that Cecil is answering my questions from another post here. Very confusing. I was wondering about that. Did two threads get merged? The OP is about the beginning of life article, but some of the posts touch on the abandonment article. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![bmoreluv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@bmoreluv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmoreluv)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/35 "2008-11-25T17:29:17Z")
Yeah, seems so. For clarity, i just started a new thread. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/36 "2008-11-25T17:34:37Z")
> [@bmoreluv](#): > > We are not discussing this issue here. Correct. You and I are not discussing this issue here. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/37 "2008-11-25T18:06:41Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > I believe they only pull the plug on comatose patients when brain activity stops. Also, as far as the pain argument goes, those people still have personhood, if they are euthanized, it is because they have exercised their rights, not because they have lost them. But they have brainwaves! Compassionate euthanasia stops a beating heart! That’s the point. The issue of when it’s acceptable to kill someone (or something that could be someone) is messy. > [@Strassia](#): > > That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, rights are not binary. They are given gradually. A one year old has right to equal protection under the law, but not the right of free assembly. A sixteen year old has the right to an education, but not the right to vote. An eighteen year old has the right to vote and own a rifle, but not drink or own a handgun. Many, if not most, believe that sometime between conception and birth some rights are accrued. When they supersede the rights of the mother is crux of the debate for most of us. Supersession is a non-starter because, IMO, circumstances change to bring other concerns to prominence before the issue is ripe. > [@Strassia](#): > > This of course brings us to one of the many slippery slopes that crop up in this issue. Do premature babies have less rights than those carried to term (both because their brains are less developed and because they need more intensive care)? As medical science gets better, it may be possible to transfer the care of a blastocyte to someone else, how does that change things? Which brings up the question of what happens when there is no one available (or willing) to assume responsibility if you try to exercise the “transfer of care” option. It being theoretically possible to transplant a fetus, but donor-recipient matching, cost, and/or logistics make it practically inaccessible in most cases, wouldn’t be sufficient reason to deny women’s rights. “Fetus transplant” would need to be on par with, e.g., abortion in terms of availability and safety before the issue could be considered fairly. Even then I would find it hard to justify forcing what I might choose on someone else or forcing them to justify their concerns in the matter to me. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/38 "2008-11-25T18:34:28Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > But they have brainwaves! Compassionate euthanasia stops a beating heart! That’s the point. The issue of when it’s acceptable to kill someone (or something that could be someone) is messy. I agree, I just think compassionate euthanasia is on the other end of the debate (free exercise of a personal choice), rather than protection from external forces. > [@](#): > > Supersession is a non-starter because, IMO, circumstances change to bring other concerns to prominence before the issue is ripe. The problem that not everyone has the same opinion on when the fetus’s rights supersede the woman’s. Hence this debate. > [@](#): > > Which brings up the question of what happens when there is no one available (or willing) to assume responsibility if you try to exercise the “transfer of care” option. > > It being theoretically possible to transplant a fetus, but donor-recipient matching, cost, and/or logistics make it practically inaccessible in most cases, wouldn’t be sufficient reason to deny women’s rights. “Fetus transplant” would need to be on par with, e.g., abortion in terms of availability and safety before the issue could be considered fairly. Even then I would find it hard to justify forcing what I might choose on someone else or forcing them to justify their concerns in the matter to me. I actually agree with you. If I could engineer my perfect solution to the problem it would be two things: First perfect positive birth control (meaning you must take positive action to disable it, rather than requiring action to stay effective) readily available to everyone (male an female) of reproductive age. A safe, effective, and supportable means of transferring any fetus at any point during gestation into an artificial support system that is cheap enough that it could be covered by the state if necessary and that could suspend gestation indefinitely if necessary. Together those two would eliminate most of the reasons for abortions. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/39 "2008-11-26T00:15:28Z")
\*\* 1010011010\*\* said: > [@](#): > > But they have brainwaves! Compassionate euthanasia stops a beating heart! That’s the point. The issue of when it’s acceptable to kill someone (or something that could be someone) is messy. That is true. But euthanasia typically does not revolve around the status of personhood, but rather other issues such as the quality of life. > [@](#): > > Supersession is a non-starter because, IMO, circumstances change to bring other concerns to prominence before the issue is ripe. I have no idea what you just said. Again, I have to point out that different stages of pregnancy have different statuses for the developing child. The current legal line hangs on viability, but what happens when developments in medicine do as **Strassia** proposes, and “viability” is lowered all the way to fertilization via effective transplants and/or artificial wombs? Do all unwanted pregnancies get transferred to wombs as wards of the state? > [@](#): > > “Fetus transplant” would need to be on par with, e.g., abortion in terms of availability and safety before the issue could be considered fairly. Even then I would find it hard to justify forcing what I might choose on someone else or forcing them to justify their concerns in the matter to me. But people have no qualms about forcing their concerns on mothers who dump their babies in dumpsters, or put them on doorsteps. Without safe-haven laws, trying to abandon a baby _in a hospital_ can get one criminal charges. Even premature babies get the same treatment. To me, the salient point is that at some point the developing human is granted the right to existence. What that point is and should be is what is under contention. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/40 "2008-11-26T15:04:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > \*\* 1010011010\*\* said: Inside square brackets type QUOTE=1010011010 > [@Strassia](#): > > I agree, I just think compassionate euthanasia is on the other end of the debate (free exercise of a personal choice), rather than protection from external forces. > [@Irishman](#): > > That is true. But euthanasia typically does not revolve around the status of personhood, but rather other issues such as the quality of life. In cases of hospice care, yes. In cases of brain injury, no. Using the same QOL terminology in the case of brain injury is a nice way of avoiding “Your husband isn’t really a person anymore and never will be again. Let it die.” Though QOL also plays into the abortion question, too, in terms of growing up in foster care, not having the means to adequately support a child, etc. > [@Strassia](#): > > The problem that not everyone has the same opinion on when the fetus’s rights supersede the woman’s. Hence this debate. Not everyone has the same opinion on “fetus’s rights”, for that matter. > [@Irishman](#): > > I have no idea what you just said. Again, I have to point out that different stages of pregnancy have different statuses for the developing child. The current legal line hangs on viability, but what happens when developments in medicine do as **Strassia** proposes, and “viability” is lowered all the way to fertilization via effective transplants and/or artificial wombs? Do all unwanted pregnancies get transferred to wombs as wards of the state? > [@Strassia](#): > > I actually agree with you. If I could engineer my perfect solution to the problem it would be two things: First perfect positive birth control (meaning you must take positive action to disable it, rather than requiring action to stay effective) readily available to everyone (male an female) of reproductive age. A safe, effective, and supportable means of transferring any fetus at any point during gestation into an artificial support system that is cheap enough that it could be covered by the state if necessary and that could suspend gestation indefinitely if necessary. Together those two would eliminate most of the reasons for abortions. Only the birth control eliminates a reason for abortion. The second technology only offers another option besides it. Someone might find the “fetus on ice” scenario more repugnant than abortion. There are also myriad other reasons women choose to have abortions that are relatively minor compared to the simple fact of being kept pregnant against your will. “I don’t want that guy to breed with me.”, “I don’t want my offspring to grow up in foster care.”, “I don’t want to make someone else care for my child.” and so on. While your solution may answer the “I don’t want to be pregnant.” concern, it doesn’t address “I don’t want to reproduce.” That’s a particularly hairy issue, because males have a valid cut on that one, too. > [@Irishman](#): > > But people have no qualms about forcing their concerns on mothers who dump their babies in dumpsters, or put them on doorsteps. Without safe-haven laws, trying to abandon a baby _in a hospital_ can get one criminal charges. Even premature babies get the same treatment. To me, the salient point is that at some point the developing human is granted the right to existence. What that point is and should be is what is under contention. We certainly will say “Whoa, lady,you can’t _do_ that!” but I wouldn’t agree it’s without qualms. Look into the history of infanticide. It’s something of a dirty secret, legally and medically. A mother killing her own child has often been treated differently, sometimes explicitly in the legal code often just in practice. The Puritans apparently had ways parents could get “stubborn” children sentenced to death, for one extreme example. Some people point to trends in SIDS data and question whether it’s a polite cover for infanticide in some cases because our current legal systems don’t recognize it as different from other types of homicide. And all that is a very western, scarcity of life, equality of the sexes type conversation. Gender motivated infanticide has been present in parts of India and China for centuries. Whether gender motivated abortion is an improvement is a potentially interesting question. Routine ultrasound usually can’t identify the sex of a fetus earlier than 18 weeks (sometimes as late as 26). Wonder how that factors in to “late term abortion” statistics? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358.md?page=3)