# Abortion, since I haven't seen this thread yet **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2000, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383 "2000-11-30T15:41:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/142 "2000-12-15T18:46:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoidela \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > > \*\* > > And second, both the courts AND civilized society recognize that parents have a unique responsibility to their children. You may not ordinarily be required to sustain or save another person’s life, but if that person is your child, then you most certainly DO have an obligation to keep that child alive. > > \*\* > > I can give up all parental rights and responsibilities, yes?\*\* As a matter of fact, no. You can’t just abandon a child in the woods, for example. You CAN place the child for adoption, but even then, you are taking legal steps to ensure that the child will be taken care of – in keeping with your parental responsibilities. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoidela \* > \*\*[Well, I give up same before the kid is born. > \*\* As I said though, you can’t arbitrarily abandon your responsibilities. By definition, a responsibility is something that you CAN’T simply reject. If you could ensure that the unborn child would be taken care of, then YES, you could transfer your parental duties to someone else. That isn’t possible though - and it certainly is NOT what occurs during an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Cantrip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Cantrip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cantrip)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/143 "2000-12-15T18:58:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > Once again though, I’ll point out that the vast majority of abortions occur long after conception. They occur when the unborn child already has a heartbeat, a circulatory system, facial features, distinct digits, and even motor reflexes. One may quibble about whether life truly begins at conception, but ultimately, that’s merely a fine point that has little impact on the vast majority of cases. Of course they do. So what? In 1997, the last year for which [data](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss4911.pdf) are available, close to 90% of abortions occurred in the first trimester. Over 55% occurred within the first 8 weeks - just about as soon as you could reasonably expect, given human biology. This seems to me to be a strawman argument. Just because the fetus has these features is not **in itself** in independent reason to favor choice or to reject choice. That decision should be based on other factors. I wish you’d stop bringing this up, as I think it really adds nothing to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/144 "2000-12-15T18:59:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cantrip \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > > As a mater of fact, yes. Just page through the previous postings, where I showed that child abuse rose by 500% during the ten years following Roe v. Wade. > > So what? Abortion was not illegal prior to 1973 - it was regulated by the states. \*\* And so? It was still far less accessible prior to 1973. After it became absolutely legal, child abuse skyrocketed. As I said, those are the statistics we have available… and they do NOT support the claim that abortion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cantrip \* > \*\*Do your statistics show that in states that had previously outlawed abortion abuse increased? Or is it just a global statistic? Did it take into account better reporting? \*\* I don’t know about _per state_ statistics, but the reports DID occur prior to the mid-80’s, when new child abuse laws prompted better reporting. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cantrip \* > **I know some of these issues have been asked before, but I just don’t care about correlation without any showing of causation.** That would be problematic, since the vast majority of statistics–economic, political and scientific–do not prove any definite causation. By and large, causation can only be proven in the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry (and to a lesser extent, biology). ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/145 "2000-12-15T19:11:33Z")
> [@](#): > > This is the crux of the matter. If you outlaw abortion because you deem the fetus to be a person whom it is illegal to kill, then why shouldn’t the fetus also be a person whom you could abuse in utero - for example, by smoking cigarettes, or drinking? In the links I’ve posted above, you’ll see that South Carolina is doing this exactly, but backwards - it is protecting the fetus from “abuse” by the mother. Here is how this works. 1. The child will be born; the mother accepts the pregnancy. Then, this is abuse of an accepted life. 2. The child is to be aborted. The mother disregards the pregnancy. It destroys the unaccepted life. I am not saying it makes sense IMO, just how to see why there could be something this contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![Cantrip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Cantrip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cantrip)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/146 "2000-12-15T19:33:54Z")
**aynrandlover** , I understand the distinction you’re drawing. BUT - it is very tricky, especially in the context of the abortion debate (not to mention the war on drugs, but that’s a different thread) to declare that a fetus is a “person” for some purposes but not others, because next some pro-life activist will (rightly, by his/her lights) try to use that wedge of “Well, the fetus is a person for purposes of this law” to argue, much more convincingly in that case, against abortion. If the mother has the absolute right to abort pre-viability (forgetting for the moment certain allowable restrictions) because her right to self-determination trumps the fetus’s right to life (in the model I explicated earlier in this thread), why shouldn’t that right extend to ingesting whatever the hell she wanted to? I don’t condone it, nor do I think it is “right”, but I can’t countenance outlawing it, because that fundamentally contradicts my firm belief that, previability, the woman’s right is paramount. Even if someone started drinking, smoking, etc. post-viability, I’d have trouble “protecting” the fetus against activities that are legal for the mother to engage in. ---
**Author:** ![Cantrip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Cantrip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cantrip)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/147 "2000-12-15T19:43:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > That would be problematic, since the vast majority of statistics–economic, political and scientific–do not prove any definite causation. By and large, causation can only be proven in the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry (and to a lesser extent, biology). I don’t agree, **JTC** - what about economic behavior? Monetary policy is all about correlation and causation. E.g., an increase in the Fed funds rate is highly correlated with a lagging decrease in new home buying. The Fed raises rates, and a few months later, voila! Home buying goes down (because mortgage costs have increased, the bond market has gone up and the stock market has tempered a bit). Similarly in psychology, correlation can be shown retrospectively to be linked to causation. I’m not looking for absolute mathematical “proof”, but intuitively it would seem to me that allowing abortion on demand would cut down on the number of unwanted births, which births could lead to abuse by reluctant parents. The converse - by allowing abortion, parents get the message that their kids’ lives are less valuable (Damn, I could have aborted you) and so abuse them - seems counterintuitive to me. That’s why I’m not convinced by the statistics. In fact, I don’t know what happened after 10 years, but that latter scenario (kid born before _Roe_, parents pissed that abortion wasn’t available because they would have chosen it if it had been, parents consequently abuse kids) could conceivably make the argument counter to the one you want to make. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/148 "2000-12-16T06:30:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cantrip \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > > That would be problematic, since the vast majority of statistics–economic, political and scientific–do not prove any definite causation. By and large, causation can only be proven in the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry (and to a lesser extent, biology). > > I don’t agree, **JTC** - what about economic behavior? Monetary policy is all about correlation and causation. E.g., an increase in the Fed funds rate is highly correlated with a lagging decrease in new home buying. \*\* In such situations, correlation can be detected, but causality is ASSUMED. In other words, economists usually can’t prove that a causal relationship exists, but they often assume that it does. In fact, one of my old Economics professors candidly admitted to the class that his field was rife with such assumptions. In other words, should we reject established correlations? Should we demand that causality be explicitly demonstrated? We certainly could – but by doing so, we would be rejecting virtually huge chunks of modern psychology, economics, political science and epidemiology, among other fields. ---
**Author:** ![afireinside](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@afireinside](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/afireinside)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/149 "2000-12-16T20:37:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > \*\*I don’t know that it was ignored, but it is a hard way to be pro-choice. That’s like saying we shouldn’t outlaw murder because people are going to kill each other anyway. The law is an enforcable set of morals, of a sort. > > . \*\* No, it’s not like saying “we shouldn’t outlaw murder, because people will kill each other anyway.” Yes, women will get abortions whether they’re illegal or not, but coat hanger abortions can hurt the mother as well as the fetus. I apologize, because I thought we were arguing whether or not abortion should remain legal. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/150 "2000-12-16T21:09:08Z")
Oh, that is exactly what we are arguing 🙂 Its just that we (as a board) have seemed to focus the issue on whether or not the fetus is expendable/a child/covered under the same laws, not on whether or not the mother is an issue. The line is blurry indeed. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![afireinside](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@afireinside](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/afireinside)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/151 "2000-12-16T22:14:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoidela \* > \*\* > > Well, just because you’re my kid doesn’t mean I have to let you park in my uterus, either. Go away. > > \*\* Don’t get the wrong idea from this. I’m still pro-choice, but I don’t think that Stoid made a very good argument for the pro-choice side. When you have unprotected sex you can usually expect the fetus to “park” in your uterus. Your argument makes it seem kind of unfair; you’re inviting the fetus in and then making it leave. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/152 "2000-12-17T05:11:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by afireinside \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > > \*\*I don’t know that it was ignored, but it is a hard way to be pro-choice. That’s like saying we shouldn’t outlaw murder because people are going to kill each other anyway. The law is an enforcable set of morals, of a sort. > > > > . \*\* > > No, it’s not like saying “we shouldn’t outlaw murder, because people will kill each other anyway.” Yes, women will get abortions whether they’re illegal or not, but coat hanger abortions can hurt the mother as well as the fetus.\*\* Thieves can also get hurt by security gunfire while robbing a bank. Should we make bank robbery legal, so as to protect them from getting hurt? Besides, coat hanger abortions are EXCEEDINGLY rare. (See [http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa21.asp.)](http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa21.asp.)) Also, as I already pointed out, the overwhelming majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians with access to professional medical facilities. There’s no reason to believe that this would change if abortion were outlawed right now. ---
**Author:** ![afireinside](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@afireinside](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/afireinside)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/153 "2000-12-17T05:31:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > . \*\* Also, as I already pointed out, the overwhelming majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians with access to professional medical facilities. There’s no reason to believe that this would change if abortion were outlawed right now. \*\* [/QUOTE] Many liscensed physicians are also law-abiding citizens who would stop performing abortions if they were made illegal. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/154 "2000-12-17T08:28:44Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by afireinside \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoidela \* > When you have unprotected sex you can usually expect the fetus to “park” in your uterus. \*\* You can reasonably expect that, yes, but thanks to modern science, you can make it leave. Thanks to birth control and abortion, having a child is no longer a natural consequence of sex, so let’s stop manufacturing it as one so. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/155 "2000-12-17T09:04:20Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by even sven \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by afireinside \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Stoidela \* > > When you have unprotected sex you can usually expect the fetus to “park” in your uterus. \*\* > > You can reasonably expect that, yes, but thanks to modern science, you can make it leave. Thanks to birth control and abortion, having a child is no longer a natural consequence of sex, so let’s stop manufacturing it as one so. \*\* And my own case was a classic one: I was barely 18, and yes, amazingly arrogant and foolish, thinking what all kids think: “It won’t happen to me”. It took two years for it to happen, but it did and I ended up pregnant. But after that, in the ensuing 20 years between the abortion and the sterilization, I never got pregnant again. I learned my lesson. stoid ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2000, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/156 "2000-12-17T22:28:51Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by afireinside \* \*\* > [@](#): > > Many liscensed physicians are also law-abiding citizens who would stop performing abortions if they were made illegal. \*\* Some of them would stop, sure. However, many would continue doing it under the table. As Planned Parenthood itself admitted, the **OVERWHELMING** majority of illegal abortions prior to 1973 were performed by licensed physicians. Y’know, this is the third time I’ve pointed this out. Is this truly so difficult to grasp? ---
**Author:** ![afireinside](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@afireinside](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/afireinside)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/157 "2000-12-18T01:02:45Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by afireinside \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Many liscensed physicians are also law-abiding citizens who would stop performing abortions if they were made illegal. \*\* > > Some of them would stop, sure. However, many would continue doing it under the table. As Planned Parenthood itself admitted, the **OVERWHELMING** majority of illegal abortions prior to 1973 were performed by licensed physicians. > > Y’know, this is the third time I’ve pointed this out. Is this truly so difficult to grasp? > \*\* If physicians would keep performing abortions almost as much as they do now, what is the point of making it illegal? ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2000, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383/158 "2000-12-18T08:11:36Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by afireinside \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by afireinside \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Many liscensed physicians are also law-abiding citizens who would stop performing abortions if they were made illegal. \*\* > > > > Some of them would stop, sure. However, many would continue doing it under the table. As Planned Parenthood itself admitted, the **OVERWHELMING** majority of illegal abortions prior to 1973 were performed by licensed physicians. > > > > Y’know, this is the third time I’ve pointed this out. Is this truly so difficult to grasp? > > \*\* > > If physicians would keep performing abortions almost as much as they do now, what is the point of making it illegal? \*\* Huh? Where did I claim that the abortion rate would remain constant? You seem to be confusing two separate issues. (Takes a deep breath.) For the fourth and last time, what I said is that illegal abortions were typically conducted by physicians. This debunks the myth that the majority of illegal abortions were performed using rusty coat hangers. In fact, there are few – if any – documented cases of women using coat hangers to perform abortions. THIS IS NOT THE SAME as saying that the number of abortions would remain constant if abortion were outlawed. It’s not even close! I honestly can’t understand how anyone would conflate the two issues. Just in case you’re still confused… Even if we were to assume that 100% of all abortionists – without exception – were to go underground, this still wouldn’t mean that the abortion rate would be unchanged. The abortion rate isn’t primarily determined by the number of abortionists. Common sense dictates that it would be primarily determined by the number of women who seek the abortions and their ease of access to such. History shows that only a small fraction of all abortions were done by non-professionals. Planned Parenthood itself admitted this. Remember that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-since-i-havent-seen-this-thread-yet/43383.md?page=7)