# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![SeanArenas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@SeanArenas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeanArenas)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/121 "2008-12-10T14:39:26Z")
People keep focusing on a couple who is using birth control accidentally getting pregnant as their prime example. I bet that in the U.S., if you add up all of the couples who use birth control, and add up all of the couples who don’t use birth control, what do you think those numbers would be like? Let’s say 50 couples use birth control compared to 1 couple who does not, and birth control is 99% effective. Won’t you have twice the incidence of pregnancies in people who chose to not use birth control? I bet the numbers aren’t as big as 50 to 1, just based on empirical observation of our people. ---
**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, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/122 "2008-12-10T17:37:07Z")
> [@SeanArenas](#): > > People keep focusing on a couple who is using birth control accidentally getting pregnant as their prime example. What people? In what context? I see it brought up to poke holes in justifications that seem to be built on the idea of punishing fornicators. > [@SeanArenas](#): > > I bet that in the U.S., if you add up all of the couples who use birth control, and add up all of the couples who don’t use birth control, what do you think those numbers would be like? They’d be like irrelevant? You have two dirty dirty sluts and one no-sex-before-marriage wife seeking abortions. So what? ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/123 "2008-12-10T19:05:22Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. nice try, but you gave actually no real arguement for belief that personhood comes along with brainwave activity. And of course criticizing my statement concerning abstinance does nothing to combat it. My statement was true and you know it, so you have to attack it without arguing against it. Everything you say is of no matter essentially. The issue is clear. If the fetus deserves treatment like a person than we treat it just like we would a new born baby. Every one of your arguments above is a red hearing. I do not know if it should be illegal. I am hesitant in getting the government involved at all in anything, because I do not think it would solve anything. But like I said above, erring on the side of caution when it could be murder, seems to be the sensible thing to do. Because of this I would caution all my friends who were in such a situation to forgo the option of abortion. ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/124 "2008-12-10T22:21:32Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > nice try, but you gave actually no real arguement for belief that personhood comes along with brainwave activity. **Der Trihs** doesn’t favor that position, so it’s not particularly damning that he’s not arguing for it. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > And of course criticizing my statement concerning abstinance does nothing to combat it. My statement was true and you know it, so you have to attack it without arguing against it. You might as well argue for sterilization or pedophilia or sodomy. They work, sure, but only for certain values of “work” that aren’t valid options for most people. “Abstinence only” didn’t work for Mary. :rolleyes: > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > Everything you say is of no matter essentially. The issue is clear. If the fetus deserves treatment like a person than we treat it just like we would a new born baby. Every one of your arguments above is a red hearing. I wouldn’t support forcing someone to provide their body to keep a newborn alive, either. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I do not know if it should be illegal. I am hesitant in getting the government involved at all in anything, because I do not think it would solve anything. But like I said above, erring on the side of caution when it could be murder, seems to be the sensible thing to do. Because of this I would caution all my friends who were in such a situation to forgo the option of abortion. Do you use any products made of or from living things? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/125 "2008-12-10T23:21:26Z")
Do we really need more babies that badly? ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/126 "2008-12-10T23:26:13Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > nice try, but you gave actually no real arguement for belief that personhood comes along with brainwave activity. It doesn’t; it’s just that you can’t have personhood without it. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > And of course criticizing my statement concerning abstinance does nothing to combat it. My statement was true and you know it, so you have to attack it without arguing against it. It was a sexist, woman hating statement. It was “true” the way that saying that women can avoid being bothered by men ogling them if they gouge out their own eyes is “true”. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > Everything you say is of no matter essentially. The issue is clear. If the fetus deserves treatment like a person than we treat it just like we would a new born baby. And if your dog is made of plutonium we should put it in a lead box under guard. But it’s not made of plutonium, so we don’t; just as a fetus is not a person, so we shouldn’t treat it like one. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I do not know if it should be illegal. I am hesitant in getting the government involved at all in anything, because I do not think it would solve anything. But like I said above, erring on the side of caution when it could be murder, seems to be the sensible thing to do. Because of this I would caution all my friends who were in such a situation to forgo the option of abortion. You are NOT “erring on the side of caution”; you are “erring” on the side of oppressing and harming women. Which of course is the real point of the anti-abortion movement. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/127 "2008-12-11T13:51:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Do we really need more babies that badly? Well, I’ve been told by several anti-abortionists that people having abortions ar selfishly robbing people who want to adopt. ---
**Author:** ![Vihaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Vihaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vihaga)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/128 "2008-12-11T19:12:04Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Well, I’ve been told by several anti-abortionists that people having abortions ar selfishly robbing people who want to adopt. I asked this question of the pro-life contingent in another thread: > [@McCain does want to overturn Roe V Wade](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-does-want-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/468147/14): > > I don’t want to hijack too much, but I’ve always wondered about this: what do the pro-lifers want to do about all the babies that would result if people stopped getting abortions? The most recent data I can find indicated that in 2004, 839,226 legal abortions were performed in the US. ([CDC link](http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm#Abortion)) The Republicans haven’t traditionally been the party that supports welfare for these kids, the mothers don’t want them, and the first adoption stats I could find (from the [US dept of Health and Human Services](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm)) seem to indicate that a little more than 51,000 adoptions were recorded in the US in 2007 (and previous years were similar). > > Not to be cold or pragmatic, but what the hell are we going to do with 788,000 unwanted children every year? It was a hijack, so I didn’t really expect an answer, but looking at those numbers, I don’t think we’re going to come up with 788,000 adoptive parents _per year_. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/129 "2008-12-11T22:33:53Z")
[QUOTE=1010011010] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **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. [/QUOTE] You will be held accountable for your actions. Should you choose not to justify them, you will still be held accountable. > [@](#): > > “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. Except in the case of abortion, there is disagreement over whether harm is being caused to someone other than the person making the decision. > [@](#): > > 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. “Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins” is a moral judgment. Conflicts between the rights of one against the rights of another rely on moral judgements of the relative value of each set of rights. [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] Uh, if she used contraception, that is an indication that her will was to remain not pregnant. The contraceptive _failing_ is counter to her intentions. [QUOTE=MsMaverick] 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. [/QUOTE] There is no parallel because men cannot be pregnant. It is, therefore, men who are second class citizens, because they cannot enjoy the privilege of carrying and delivering a baby. [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Do we really need more babies that badly? [/QUOTE] If we kill off some old people, we’ll have room for them. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/130 "2008-12-12T00:30:54Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > You will be held accountable for your actions. Should you choose not to justify them, you will still be held accountable. Thus “No duty to justify yourself to others”. > [@Irishman](#): > > Except in the case of abortion, there is disagreement over whether harm is being caused to someone other than the person making the decision. Yet, no disagreement over whether harm is being caused to the person making the decision. And while the debate is often couched in “think of the children” terms, it seems like the concern is really more about whether the person making the decision deserves to be harmed. > [@Irishman](#): > > “Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins” is a moral judgment. Conflicts between the rights of one against the rights of another rely on moral judgements of the relative value of each set of rights. I disagree. My nose rights don’t supersede your arm rights. I’d be the one at fault for nosing you in the fists against your will just as much as you would be if you punched me in the face. It’s just kung-fu nose-to-fist style isn’t particularly common. It seems that it’s less about whether one right supersedes another and more about who initiated the conflict. Which is fairly abstracted from the specific topic of abortion. I’m not sure how that reasoning would be applied. Probably part of the reason for the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/131 "2008-12-12T01:51:40Z")
> [@Vihaga](#): > > It was a hijack, so I didn’t really expect an answer, but looking at those numbers, I don’t think we’re going to come up with 788,000 adoptive parents _per year_. No singles adopting! Only married heterosexual couples! So you’ll need 1,576,000 parents per year. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/132 "2008-12-12T13:40:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No singles adopting! Only married heterosexual couples! > > So you’ll need 1,576,000 parents per year. I wish every woman considering abortion would have the child and give it to gay/lesbian couple. That would cause some anti-abortionists’ heads to explode. Many (most?) of them are only for adoption by the “right” couples. Something I point out to the people being harrassed by them outside our local Planned Parenthood. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/133 "2008-12-12T16:08:45Z")
[QUOTE=1010011010] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Irishman > You will be held accountable for your actions. Should you choose not to justify them, you will still be held accountable. Thus “No duty to justify yourself to others”. [/QUOTE] If you justify yourself, the accountability may be different. I guess we’re disagreeing over what it means to have a duty. > [@](#): > > Yet, no disagreement over whether harm is being caused to the person making the decision. And while the debate is often couched in “think of the children” terms, it seems like the concern is really more about whether the person making the decision deserves to be harmed. Well, _I_ am not arguing the person making the decision deserves to be harmed. _I_ am talking about the status of the fetus. Does the fetus deserve to be harmed? > [@](#): > > It seems that it’s less about whether one right supersedes another and more about who initiated the conflict. Can you not see that that is a moral judgment? “Initiating a conflict is wrong” is a _moral_ judgment. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/134 "2008-12-12T16:34:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **Irishman** said: > 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. In addition to the point you raise, it is important to consider two additional items. Those being that doctors are often extremely unwilling to (and can be downright hostile to the idea of) perform a surgical sterilization on any woman under a certain age, or who is not married, or who does not already have some number of children. The second of these factors is that surgical sterilization has an effective rate of something less than 100%, and when it comes to tubal ligation, that effectiveness rate is actually lower than that of properly used birth control pills. > [@](#): > > **rwjefferson** said: > Abortion is a sin, not a crime. > [@](#): > > **Irishman** said: > You are correct that there is a distinction between sin and crime. All it would take to make abortion a crime is a law. Laws in the United States should not be based upon religious viewpoints. To make a ‘sin’ a crime purely because it is a ‘sin’ is the height of establishment of religion. > [@](#): > > Uh, if she used contraception, that is an indication that her will was to remain not pregnant. The contraceptive failing is counter to her intentions. So what’s the recourse then? Remember that adoption is not an alternative to _pregnancy_. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/135 "2008-12-12T23:58:29Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Does the fetus deserve to be harmed? Can a fetus be harmed in a way significantly comparable to a person? Does it even make sense to talk about whether a fetus “deserves” anything? If we ascribe rights to a fetus, is it then responsible for its actions and any harm it causes? If it cannot have responsibility or accountability, how can it have rights? > [@Irishman](#): > > Can you not see that that is a moral judgment? “Initiating a conflict is wrong” is a _moral_ judgment. There’s really no point in defining “good” vs. “bad” in operational/functional terms to show “conflict is bad” as an observation and not a moral judgment, since you can just come back with “Function is right (malfunction is wrong) is a _moral_ judgment.” We just end up splitting hairs over axiomatic vs. tautological and/or “what is” vs. “what should be” and/or the scaling problem. At some point we agree, and can work our way in from there. ---
**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 13, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/136 "2008-12-13T00:31:54Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Can a fetus be harmed in a way significantly comparable to a person? Does it even make sense to talk about whether a fetus “deserves” anything? If we ascribe rights to a fetus, is it then responsible for its actions and any harm it causes? If it cannot have responsibility or accountability, how can it have rights? So, does an infant have any responsibilities or accountabilities–or rights? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2008, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/137 "2008-12-13T05:14:54Z")
> [@vison](#): > > It always comes down to this: either a woman has the right to her own body or she does not. That’s what people say when they believe that the unborn is merely part of the woman’s body, as opposed to being a distinct but physically connected organism. ---
**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 13, 2008, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/138 "2008-12-13T05:32:55Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’s what people say when they believe that the unborn is merely part of the woman’s body, as opposed to being a distinct but physically connected organism. No, it’s true either way. I’m a “distinct organism”; if I had massive organ failure and it was possible, would it be OK for me to have a woman forcibly hooked up to me as a life support system ? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2008, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/139 "2008-12-13T05:37:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s true either way. I’m a “distinct organism”; if I had massive organ failure and it was possible, would it be OK for me to have a woman forcibly hooked up to me as a life support system ? Of course not. If she didn’t want to be turned into life support, she shouldn’t have had unprotected sex with that dialysis machine. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2008, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358/140 "2008-12-13T06:03:09Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, does an infant have any responsibilities or accountabilities–or rights? I can only guess the fetus:infant analogizing keeps coming up because people imagine it’s a “gotcha!” or simply can’t be arsed to read the thread(s). Making a conservative argument, you can extend “personhood” downward into the grey area to the moment of birth. Making a conservative argument, you can extend “non-personhood” upward into the grey area to the moment of birth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-rights-womens-rights/474358.md?page=8)