# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/101 "2008-12-06T16:18:52Z")
> [@Gregor](#): > > Moving on to Thee Erin: "My rights most certainly DO trump the “rights” of an “unborn child.” Yeah, of course they do, as far as you’re concerned. Selfish prig. > > … > > You are the devil incarnate! > > … > > Then you go on: “It’s not melodramatic to say there can be no middle ground when the goal of one side is to render the other subservient.” I’m sorry, but IDIOT and LIAR both fit here. A woman has the right to choose not to risk a pregnancy by multiple means - abstinence being only one of many. In the vast majority of cases, women who wind up aborting could have avoided pregnancy in the first place much easier. **Gregor** , you are free to express your views in a forceful manner in this forum provided you remain civil. Personal insults, however coyly expressed, will not be tolerated. Don’t do this again. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/102 "2008-12-06T18:02:02Z")
> [@Gregor](#): > > If you wait long enough, will a cow become a person? Will a HUMAN fetus? No, and no. > [@Gregor](#): > > So, why is it NOT reasonable to hold that the “person” starts at conception? It is not reasonable because a fetus is not a “person” by a reasonable definition of the word. > [@Gregor](#): > > Why is it that there are so many who are pro-abortion who work so hard to ensure women never consider adoption anyway? If the primary issue for a woman is the cost/risk of being pregnant and giving birth, adoption is an irrelevant suggestion. For a woman mainly concerned about not being ready to raise/support a child, adoption would be appropriate to offer as a solution. As for putting one of their children up for adoption because they can no longer afford all of them. From a cost-saving perspective, the oldest child would be a better choice than the eventual infant. Is that what you were suggesting? Unless they were going to sell the child, in which case the infant might being in more. Though if they’re going to sell children, perhaps they should consider renting them instead? The would bring in extra money. Maybe mom could work as a sex worker charging premium rates for pregnancy and lactation fetishists. There are many ways to hack the scenario if all you want to do is find a way to not abort, damn the consequences. > [@Gregor](#): > > A woman who, by WHATEVER MEANS, finds herself with an “unwanted pregnancy”, is NOT to be punished, but then again, neither is her unborn child, don’t you agree? Yet you callously sentence that unborn to death by saying, “It’s not a person” or some equally ridiculous argument. Do I callously sentence a pig to death when I eat some delicious bacon? Of course I do. In fact, I’d wager some pigs are with it enough to not want to die as they’re being slaughtered. My desire to dip their charred flesh in the yolks of chicken ova is apparently sufficient to warrant their deaths acceptable. Why? They lack that _je ne sais qua_ that would make them a “person”. A fetus doesn’t have it, either. > [@Gregor](#): > > [W]omen who wind up aborting could have avoided pregnancy in the first place much easier. Does what steps a woman took to cause or prevent unintentional pregnancy have something to do with whether they deserve access to abortion? ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/103 "2008-12-07T18:26:08Z")
**Gregor:** Raising false issues does not help your argument. All pregnancies carry risk to life and health. All pregnancies limit pursuit of happiness. It does not matter which choices were made. It does not matter how the pregnancy occurred. It does not matter whether a fertilized egg is alive or human. It does not matter when a fertilized egg becomes alive or human. What matters is whether others have the right to use your body without your permission. I suspect you will not readily give up that right for yourself. I suspect you might respond, “My rights most certainly DO trump the ‘rights’ of someone that will die without using my body.” Yeah, of course they do, as far as you are concerned. Note: If I am somehow mistaken, please simply post your name, address, and blood type. I am sure you do not want it on your conscience that living human people are dying because of your insistence on preserving your inalienable rights. The question is not whether there are good arguments for abortion. The question is whether there are good arguments to make abortion illegal. The only arguments I have seen are based on denial of inalienable and self-retained rights. There is no middle ground. Either all or not all have equal right of liberty. No one has the right to use another’s body without permission of that person. Peace rwjefferson Abortion is a sin, not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/104 "2008-12-08T19:43:13Z")
[QUOTE=artemis] Until ovulation is a consciously-initiated event, there’s going to be a need for either legal abortion or infanticide. I’d much prefer the former to the latter. [/QUOTE] I still don’t see where **SeanArenas** has argued to make a blanket ban on abortions. What I think I see is **SeanArenas** asking if circumstances of pregnancy matter? Some of you are clearly saying that circumstances of pregnancy don’t matter, abortion should be legal right up to birth. Fine, but then one wonders that when abortion is effectively limited to pre-viability, why then are cases of rape and incest granted special status. If circumstances of pregnancy don’t matter, then they shouldn’t matter whether the legal point is birth or viability or conception. [QUOTE=artemis] The number of women interested in aborting a healthy 37 week fetus are minuscule, so stop focusing so much attention there! [/QUOTE] But that goes right to the heart of the question **I** am trying to answer - when does the developing thing\* become a person? \*For lack of better neutral terminology. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/105 "2008-12-08T21:52:21Z")
[QUOTE=1010011010] In the case of an unwanted fetus, the only options are to terminate the pregnancy (i.e., cause the death of the fetus) or to continue the pregnancy to term. After birth, when the fetus has become separate from the mother, an additional option to transfer care to someone else becomes available. That additional option makes infanticide (insurmountably?) harder to justify. [/QUOTE] What about the state of care for premature births? That is the sticky issue termed “viability”. While there currently is a developmental limit to viability driven by lung function, what happens as medical science advances, and premie care can handle earlier cases, even to removal and surrogate care or artificial wombs? “Viability” becomes a liability to the strict “Woman’s right to autonomy” crowd. Suddenly, they have the same options as after birth, i.e. transfering care to another. > [@](#): > > The difference is whether that goal [reducing the number of abortions] should be pursued by reducing demand or by reducing supply. I certainly agree there. > [@](#): > > Morally, I think supply side reduction does more harm than good. Yes, unrestricted access might, theoretically, result in morally-repugnant “I’d rather have a cat.” late-term abortions or abortion as first-line birth control. But I agree with **SeanArenas** that I probably wouldn’t want that person to be a parent. OTOH, you have scenarios so unexpectedly hopeless that late-term abortion may be the best option even though it isn’t a special case considered in the pre-approved exceptions to an abortion ban. I’m not particularly concerned over abortions in the first trimester, regardless if the reason is “I’d rather have a cat”. The condition of an unexpectedly hopeless late-term abortion, however, does trouble me. I’m not ready to draw a line yet, but I would like have the best understanding of what the situation actually is before making a moral determination about any specific case. And yes, I probably would allow some medical loophole all the way to birth. How do I justify that seeming contradiction in my position? Because I do recognize that pregnancy is unique, and that in any situation where two lives are at stake and have conflicting needs, the moral determination is complicated. I would be hard pressed, for example, to find fault with any emergency situation where the doctors had to choose between saving the baby and saving the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/106 "2008-12-08T22:14:52Z")
[QUOTE=Gregor] M. Anthony characterizes abortion as “an act of desperation”. Please, that’s as bad as calling those who support it “pro-choice”. Except in the narrow case of rape, getting pregnant is a CHOICE that actually involves a series of CHOICES made by the woman (and the man involved). At any point along that chain of choices, the woman has the power to assert her CHOICE and prevent a pregnancy. [/QUOTE] This has already been covered. No birth control method is 100% effective. People can make choices that limit their risk and still end up pregnant. > [@](#): > > bmoreluv said “many women die in childbirth.” In what country or century are you claiming this is the case? Even in industrialized western countries, this still occurs. The rate of incidence may be fairly low, but it happens. I guess the questionable term is “many”. > [@](#): > > bmoreluv said, “The primary factors are lack of education and reproductive rights.” Now maybe I missed something, but are you saying people that get abortions are stupid, or what? Being uninformed is not being stupid. Being legally barred from certain actions does not make the people stupid. > [@](#): > > I think Irishman did a great job in his post 11-25-2008, 02:48 AM. I win! > [@](#): > > Blacks weren’t “enslaved in America”, they were ENSLAVED IN AFRICA. While many blacks were taken into slavery in Africa by other blacks, they were brought to America in slavery, they were retained in slavery, and their children were born into slavery in America. So your point, while pendantically precise, is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > The bottom line is one a man and a woman let sperm and egg get together, a person is on the way unless something is done about it. So, why is it NOT reasonable to hold that the “person” starts at conception? Because that person is no more identifiable as a person than a mole on my arm? Because that “person” is more liable to be spontaneously [strike]aborted[/strike] miscarried than to be carried to term? > [@](#): > > Well, the "I DON’T WANT TO REPRODUCE is easy - GET YOUR TUBES TIED - male or female. That carries a permanence that does not always apply. For instance, a 20 year old in college may wish to have a family later when older and career established, but not at the moment be prepared for the time and financial burden a child would bring. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/107 "2008-12-08T22:46:56Z")
**Irishman:** Have you by any chance read post #103 yet? You might find these distractions have already been addressed. Peace rwj ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/108 "2008-12-09T01:05:07Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > What about the state of care for premature births? That is the sticky issue termed “viability”. While there currently is a developmental limit to viability driven by lung function, what happens as medical science advances, and premie care can handle earlier cases, even to removal and surrogate care or artificial wombs? “Viability” becomes a liability to the strict “Woman’s right to autonomy” crowd. Suddenly, they have the same options as after birth, i.e. transfering care to another. Except “transfer” in the case of a fetus would still involve an invasive surgical procedure to separate it from the woman. The rhetoric of the War on Drugs as undermined the human right to bodily autonomy (amongst others), but I still can’t see a path to requiring someone to undergo a surgical procedure against their will. [This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=495044) touches on the issue of forcing someone to undergo a surgical procedure for the reason of benefiting someone else but has veered off into the legal status of fetal homicide. > [@Irishman](#): > > I would like have the best understanding of what the situation actually is before making a moral determination about any specific case. IMO, the “best understanding” is that if it’s not your “actual situation”, your “moral determinations” are irrelevant. Which sounds snarkier than I intend, but I don’t like the implication that someone has a duty to justify themselves to others. ---
**Author:** ![ThomastheRhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@ThomastheRhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThomastheRhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/109 "2008-12-09T17:11:36Z")
Arbitrarily coming up with a list of which rights you think are important like they are your picks for song of the week does not make for good policy or evidence principled or sophisticated political analysis. If a fetus is a person (as you assume), and the mother’s freedom trumps the unborn person’s right to live because pregnancy is onerous, why stop there. I’m sure raising a child to adulthood is more onerous than carrying one to term. Why not say that the rights of parents trump the rights of children and allow parents to kill their children if they become a burden? Why not say that the rights of the strong trump the privileges of the week to live if the week should be felt to be a burden? I think that your argument leads inexorably to the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade if you argue it logically and consistently. Fortunately, I don’t think you are being logical or consistent. Compared to all this, my assertion of the right to use any drug I want in the privacy of my own home seems pretty tame. I can’t see how any rational human could say the convenience of some trumps the right to live of others, and yet have a serious problem with me doing something which hurts no one with the possible exception of myself. > [@SeanArenas](#): > > I’m not trying to be sarcastic or insulting, I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. What you’re saying, basically, is: > > [ul] > [li]Infanticide = murder. It is taking away a child’s right to their life life.[/li][li]Telling a woman she can’t have an abortion is taking away the right to a person’s own body.[/li][li]Telling a person who is too young that she can’t drink until she’s 21 is taking away the right to a person’s own body.[/li][/ul] > > What matters is the value that you place on each of those rights (life, body, body). You think that a woman’s right to abort is more important than a child’s right to drink, and is also more important than a infant’s right to live. So if we were to number them in order of importance, they would go something like: > > Valuation of Rights > [ol] > [li]Woman’s right to abort[/li][li]Infant’s right to live[/li][li]Child’s right to drink[/li][li]Adult’s right to use any illicit substance in their own house[/li][/ol] > > Feel free and rearrange those in the order that you feel they’re important. Again, just trying to make sure we’re on the same page. > > It’s not a complete list, feel free to add to it. We could very well add driving without a seatbelt, riding a bike without a helmet, and other things that are illegal that (arguably) only affect yourself, and no one else. The question that seems to be on people’s minds is whether or not a woman’s right to abort only affects herself. > > You said baby, and ask about child endangerment. I don’t think abortion is considered child endangerment by the law, but IANAL (any here know?). > If a pregnant person went sky diving (or any dangerous recreation) and an _infant_ aborted, should there be any criminal charges brought against her? How far along was she, 3 days before birth? One might ask why she was skydiving. 1 month pregnant? It could be argued she didn’t know she was pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![ThomastheRhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@ThomastheRhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThomastheRhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/110 "2008-12-09T17:21:16Z")
All embarrassing spelling mistakes in my previous message are a result of timing out. “Week” instead of “weak”… blech!!! ---
**Author:** ![SeanArenas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@SeanArenas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeanArenas)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/111 "2008-12-09T18:57:41Z")
> [@ThomastheRhymer](#): > > Arbitrarily coming up with a list of which rights you think are important like they are your picks for song of the week does not make for good policy or evidence principled or sophisticated political analysis. If a fetus is a person (as you assume), and the mother’s freedom trumps the unborn person’s right to live because pregnancy is onerous, why stop there. I’m sure raising a child to adulthood is more onerous than carrying one to term. Why not say that the rights of parents trump the rights of children and allow parents to kill their children if they become a burden? Why not say that the rights of the strong trump the privileges of the week to live if the week should be felt to be a burden? I think that your argument leads inexorably to the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade if you argue it logically and consistently. Fortunately, I don’t think you are being logical or consistent. > > Compared to all this, my assertion of the right to use any drug I want in the privacy of my own home seems pretty tame. I can’t see how any rational human could say the convenience of some trumps the right to live of others, and yet have a serious problem with me doing something which hurts no one with the possible exception of myself. ThomastheRhymer, I hope you realize I was writing that for another poster (Quepasa), and not myself. I am trying to understand the other poster’s point of view, it’s certainly not my own views. Read through my post and I think you will realize that you want to address your points to Quepasa and not to me. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/112 "2008-12-09T21:09:15Z")
[QUOTE=rwjefferson] Abortion is a sin, not a crime. [/QUOTE] You are correct that there is a distinction between sin and crime. All it would take to make abortion a crime is a law. > [@](#): > > Have you by any chance read post #103 yet? > You might find these distractions have already been addressed. I have read it. I don’t believe they are distractions. [QUOTE=1010011010] IMO, the “best understanding” is that if it’s not your “actual situation”, your “moral determinations” are irrelevant. Which sounds snarkier than I intend, but I don’t like the implication that someone has a duty to justify themselves to others. [/QUOTE] But there is a duty to justify your actions to others. This in implicit in functioning society. Many morals and behavioral restrictions are codified into laws. Society as a whole determines what gets made into a law, what remains a mere taboo, what is frowned upon but allowed, etc. When I spoke of making a moral determination about a specific case, I was speaking of generalities, of trying to find the moral reasoning behind different positions. I was talking about society determining as a whole if it makes sense to retain the current quagmire of inconsistencies with regards to the legal attitude toward fetuses. I was talking about using specific situations as case studies to understand the issues involved, rather than making a blanket determination based purely on hand-waving. I was not talking about walking up to a woman, giving her a detailed quiz, then making _my_ pronouncement about her situation. My moral determinations are as relevant as any other member of society when it comes to reaching a concensus on moral attitudes. I may agree or disagree with the concensus, but my votes contribute to the whole as much as any other individual. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/113 "2008-12-09T23:46:28Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > But there is a duty to justify your actions to others. This in implicit in functioning society. While we can hold you accountable for your actions against others, we cannot force you to account for them. Right to remain silent, etc. > [@Irishman](#): > > Many morals and behavioral restrictions are codified into laws. Society as a whole determines what gets made into a law, what remains a mere taboo, what is frowned upon but allowed, etc. Certainly society as a whole could make whatever laws it chooses, and we’ve made some stinkers over the course of history. What then are the guiding principles that seem to distinguish “good law” vs. “bad law” or what’s better left to informal social control? “Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.” Murder illegal? Good law. Euthanasia illegal? Debate rages. “Good law” is built around the idea of harm to someone against their will being a Bad Thing™. While arguably euthanasia causes harm, it is not cause it against the will of the person being harmed. It’s not clearly a Bad Thing™. Similar observations can be made about drug laws or gay marriage or, yes, abortion. > [@Irishman](#): > > When I spoke of making a moral determination about a specific case, I was speaking of generalities, of trying to find the moral reasoning behind different positions. I was talking about society determining as a whole if it makes sense to retain the current quagmire of inconsistencies with regards to the legal attitude toward fetuses. I was talking about using specific situations as case studies to understand the issues involved, rather than making a blanket determination based purely on hand-waving. I was not talking about walking up to a woman, giving her a detailed quiz, then making _my_ pronouncement about her situation. > > My moral determinations are as relevant as any other member of society when it comes to reaching a concensus on moral attitudes. I may agree or disagree with the concensus, but my votes contribute to the whole as much as any other individual. I disagree with the idea that law is, or should be, a codified reflection of moral consensus. I’d describe it as a system of conflict resolution and redress of grievances. In situations where one or both of those conditions are not clear cut, we find bad law. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/114 "2008-12-10T01:09:25Z")
This thread no longer seems to be about Cecil’s column but has become a more general debate on abortion. So off it goes to the Great Debates forum. bibliophage moderator CCC ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/115 "2008-12-10T01:33:14Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > 1. Rape: A woman is pregnant against her will. > 2. Contraceptive failure: A woman is pregnant against her will. > 3. Contraceptive sabotage: A woman is pregnant against her will. > 4. Hot lurid monkey sex: A woman is pregnant against her will. > > Certainly in the fourth case you could blame the woman for getting herself in that situation… but laying blame puts us in a context of punishing people for their mistakes. Restricting access to abortion isn’t about punishment. Right? Rape and sabotage are really the only one that are against the woman’s will. Contraceptive failure is a possibility that she knew about ahead of time and decided to take the risk any way. (Fact: Abstinence is 100 percent effective, if she did not want a kid she could abstain) The truth is, abortion may be murder. It may be a human being. In alot of ways their is no way for us to truly know if it is. I personally believe that if we cannot know we should err on the side of caution. Rape is a horrible crime, murder is worse. I would advise any friends that I have not to abort their unborn child, for it may possibly be a human. It goes into the area of philosophy, when personhood is granted. I do not really know whether or not it should be illegal though, I do not think a law is an effective way to stop abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/116 "2008-12-10T01:53:52Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > (Fact: Abstinence is 100 percent effective, if she did not want a kid she could abstain) Ah, the classic ‘the slut should keep her legs shut’ argument. If she doesn’t want a kid, she should abstain for the rest of her life. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > The truth is, abortion may be murder. > It may be a human being. In alot of ways their is no way for us to truly know if it is. Yes there is, and it’s not. It’s a thing, not a person. There’s not enough functioning in the brain for there to BE a person. At least, not before the third trimester - and that’s being extremely conservative. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I personally believe that if we cannot know we should err on the side of caution. Funny how “caution” in this case translates as “risk the life and health of the mother”. And within limits, we CAN know. We DO know. The anti-abortionists just don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![vison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e47774/32.png) [@vison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vison)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/117 "2008-12-10T02:15:47Z")
It always comes down to this: either a woman has the right to her own body or she does not. The rest is legalism, semantics, and often an ill-concealed desire to control women’s reproductive behavior, to portray a sexually active woman as careless and immoral. Abortion is, at best, a necessary evil. Both the words “necessary” and “evil” are important. I’ve had 2 children, I know what it means to be happily pregnant, and to regard the foetus as a “baby”. But that was my experience and not anyone else’s. I have no right to tell any other woman what she may or may not do. If a tithe of the energy spent on attempting to abolish abortion was spent on sex education and easily obtainable safe birth control this world would be a better place. The best outcome is not to make abortion illegal, but to make it unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![MsMaverick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@MsMaverick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsMaverick)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/118 "2008-12-10T04:00:59Z")
I totally agree with your response to Cecile. I would like to add… I dispute your blithe dismissal of the argument of a woman’s right to determine the destiny of her own body. It is not “foolishly radical” to desire self-determination, free from a government intervention that is based on entrenched religious dogma and a patriarchal political system. To put it in another perspective: By quoting the Supreme Court’s language, you infer that a woman’s decision-making power is diminished by state interest in the unborn. This automatically presumes therefore, that the government has an interest in the person and bodily functions of any male or female. If it applies to women, why then wouldn’t it also apply to men? As there is no parallel subjugation of men’s right to self-empowerment/self-determination, women automatically have less right to their own bodies than men, making them second class citizens. ---
**Author:** ![MsMaverick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@MsMaverick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsMaverick)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/119 "2008-12-10T04:52:34Z")
BTW, it’s somewhat amusing that the argument is made that women who don’t want to get pregnant should forgo sex. Let’s say that actually happens (a modern take on Lysistrada)–women who don’t want to get pregnant (regardless of whether using birth control makes it _less likely_). One has to wonder about the resultant impact of substantially less sex on men. Somewhat ready-access to sex with women would no longer be the case, rather very strictly limited. Sex would become what many in the religious right desire: sex for the purpose of procreation only. Men, out there, I ask you: Is this what you want–no more sex because it feels good? On the other hand, I challenge men to avoid sex w/ women to avoid pregnancy. Take on thesame responsibility you expect of women. Go ahead. Do it. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/120 "2008-12-10T12:56:57Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > Rape and sabotage are really the only one that are against the woman’s will. Contraceptive failure is a possibility that she knew about ahead of time and decided to take the risk any way. (Fact: Abstinence is 100 percent effective, if she did not want a kid she could abstain) A married couple might find your “abstinence only” message slightly unrealistic for their family planning. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I personally believe that if we cannot know we should err on the side of caution. Risk management is generally built around the idea of reducing harm. Your “caution” seems to cause a lot of real harm to other people, while not balancing that against anything. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358.md?page=7)