# Abortion: Why don't pro-choicers just say, "It kills a person, but it's a unique circumstance?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2020, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228 "2020-01-30T16:43:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/181 "2020-02-04T21:25:00Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This proposal doesn’t really make sense, because the right to an abortion is about bodily autonomy: i.e., not carrying an unwanted **pregnancy**. It’s not about a right to abdicate responsibility for a future baby. Avoiding that responsibility is a side effect of terminating a pregnancy, not a right in and of itself. > > Men (at least, cisgender men) already have complete guaranteed bodily autonomy as far as pregnancy is concerned: they’re not even legally required to share the financial costs of pregnancy incurred by a woman they’ve impregnated. So no, they’re not entitled to a legal choice window for rejecting potential future parenthood on top of that. > > A woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy during the “choice window” when elective abortion is legal. If she misses that window for any reason, she’s on the hook for future parenthood just as much as the father is, however unwanted parenthood may be. > (Mind you, I think it’s **ethically** questionable to deliberately demand child support or any other parental duties, in the case of an unintended pregnancy, from a sex partner who consistently made it clear that they don’t want any of the responsibilities or rights of parenthood. But that doesn’t mean that the biological parents shouldn’t **legally** be held responsible. As soon as a baby is born, no matter who did or didn’t want it, it has to be paid for and cared for. And unless the biological parents both agree to transfer the responsibilities and rights of parenthood to a third party, they’re the ones who remain stuck with them, legally speaking.) No, a woman has several options for her pregnancy. She can abort, that’s 100% bodily autonomy. She can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or leave the baby at a safe surrender location which means she’s elected to give up bodily autonomy but is rejecting parenthood and this is the closest analog to what a male DNA contributor should also be granted, minus the bodily autonomy part. Or she can have the baby and parent it, with or without a coparent simply by refusing to name a father or allow a DNA test–of course once the kid is out in the world she can’t keep refusing on her own say-so, if the father decides to sue for parental rights she can be ordered to allow DNA testing of the baby to establish paternity and the father can assert parental rights at that point. Basically, I’m just saying that either genetics donor should have roughly equivalent say in what happens with the baby–after, of course, the mother has exercised her absolute right to bodily autonomy by declining an abortion. Seems fair to me. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/182 "2020-02-04T21:52:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Eventually you can increase the inconvenience/suffering/risk-to-life/loss of freedom to such a degree that it becomes a tricky question for me; and you can continue increasing those factors until they’re no longer a tricky question for me. If every father has a 5% risk of death from the action of saving his kid, I would be a lot less likely to support a law coercing fathers to take this risk. If the risk of death becomes 90%, no way would I support such a law. > > The point of my scenario is not that I’m equating weekly blood donations to pregnancy. I explicitly said as much. The point of the scenario is to distinguish my moral conclusion from that of bodily autonomy absolutists (or at least more absolutist than me, and yes I know there’s an oxymoron there) like MrDibble. If we’re going to relate this to abortion, the risks should be similar, or the argument is invalid. I gave blood from the moment I turned 18 until they wouldn’t take me any longer, and it is nothing like what my wife and daughters went through when they were pregnant - even the daughter who breezed through it. If we could beam the fetus out of the womb and have the state take care of it, I doubt many would object to that alternative. But lets not compare pricking your finger with carrying a child for 9 months. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2020, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/183 "2020-02-05T03:56:24Z")
If an unborn fetus is a person, then logically an undead person is a corpse. Or they are only potential - a fetus is potentially a person after being born, and a live human is potentially a corpse after they discorporate. Is almost-born equal to almost-dead? If a fetus is a person, shouldn’t it be taxed? Does an obviously pregnant woman on a bus or elevator count as one passenger or more? (Extra fares for unborn triplets.) But what if not obvious? How can a fetus be legally protected if we don’t know it exists? Solution: implant each human female of child-bearing age (now ~6-80) with a pregnancy monitor. If an anti-choicer truly wants to protect embryos, they MUST support mandatory pregnancy monitoring and intensive prenatal care. Any other position is hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/184 "2020-02-06T12:02:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You’ve already admitted that those for whom the taking of blood is significant would be excused. Thus even you admit that bodily autonomy is in some way absolute. That’s not correct. I don’t think either sentence represents my views accurately, but I’m not sure what I said that you’re interpreting in this way. Maybe you left out the word “not”? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/185 "2020-02-06T12:36:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > MrDibble’s absolute take on bodily autonomy is what I’m talking about. According to his take, if I understand it, I couldn’t be coerced to have a single blood draw in order to save all humanity, because to do so would be to violate bodily autonomy, and that’s an absolute principle. Woah there! I said I don’t agree with violating bodily autonomy on a constant, weekly basis to save 1 person. I know I phrased it bluntly as " forced blood donation is beyond the pale to me" but that was within the context of your hypothetical of a weekly violation of autonomy. A one-time draw to save all humanity? Strap that sucker down. I’m not an absolutist, I just draw the line different to you. For instance, if you’d phrased your hypothetical as a \*one-time \*draw to save the kid, I’d be OK with that as well, just like I’m OK with mandatory blood alcohol testing if you fail a breathalyzer test. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/186 "2020-02-06T12:54:40Z")
I oppose torturing babies, without exception. At the same time, if aliens ever come to Earth with the Death Star, and tell me I must torture babies or the Earth will be destroyed, then I’d probably consider violating my opposition to baby-torture. Strong principles don’t require exceptions to be brought up for absurd hypotheticals. I endorse **MrDibble** ’s views on bodily autonomy. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t consider violating my ideals if all-powerful aliens came to Earth with absurd and sadistic demands. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2020, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/187 "2020-02-06T15:12:13Z")
A Jehovah’s Witness gets pregnant via rape. The church hierarchy tell her she cannot have an abortion. She gives birth, but the baby needs a blood transfusion to stay alive. The church hierarchy tells her the baby cannot have a transfusion and it dies. Who is to blame on that one? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/188 "2020-02-06T16:12:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Woah there! > > I said I don’t agree with violating bodily autonomy on a constant, weekly basis to save 1 person. I know I phrased it bluntly as " forced blood donation is beyond the pale to me" but that was within the context of your hypothetical of a weekly violation of autonomy. > > A one-time draw to save all humanity? Strap that sucker down. I’m not an absolutist, I just draw the line different to you. > > For instance, if you’d phrased your hypothetical as a \*one-time \*draw to save the kid, I’d be OK with that as well, just like I’m OK with mandatory blood alcohol testing if you fail a breathalyzer test. Oh–my apologies, then. I genuinely thought you were an absolutist on this issue. If you’re not–and if nobody else here is–then I’ve inadvertently raised a straw man, and I withdraw my hesitation. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/189 "2020-02-06T17:27:56Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > A Jehovah’s Witness gets pregnant via rape. The church hierarchy tell her she cannot have an abortion. She gives birth, but the baby needs a blood transfusion to stay alive. The church hierarchy tells her the baby cannot have a transfusion and it dies. > > Who is to blame on that one? That would be Satan. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/190 "2020-02-06T17:33:06Z")
> [@](#): > > You’ve never heard the argument that abortion even at an early stage is wrong because the fetus is a potential person? As far as i can remember the SDMB is the only place I’ve heard the term ‘potential person’. > [@](#): > > My only quibble with RioRico’s argument is that there is a probability the fetus will not become a person even if there is no abortion, but each of us will absolutely someday become a corpse. It would seem you can have a corpse of a potential person. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/191 "2020-02-06T18:44:14Z")
> [@SuntanLotion](#): > > Its a tough subject. On one hand, if she wasn’t raped, she chose to have sex, so its not the baby went commando and took over her uterus in a coup. So its not a real person but it is if she wants it. Hm. Let’s see, a parallel view on the male’s position would be to say, “He got the clap but chose to have sex, so he should leave it untreated and eventually die because it was a consequence of his choice. He shouldn’t have control over his own body and choose to treat the unwanted condition because his first choice gave him the unwanted condition.” Not buying it. Our position is clear. “Our bodies, our choice.” ---
**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:** [February 6, 2020, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/192 "2020-02-06T18:50:09Z")
He chose to rape her, she got pregnant, so he should have paternal rights because the baby didn’t do anything wrong and needs a father. It amazes me that the pro-life crowd does not see anything wrong with typing a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life. I guess they think SHE cause the rape by walking alone, wearing provocative clothing, or sending out signals. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/193 "2020-02-06T18:52:17Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > As far as i can remember the SDMB is the only place I’ve heard the term ‘potential person’. I’ve found this is a really common reason to oppose legal abortion: when I explain that I don’t consider an embryo to be a “person,” because it lacks any of the salient attributes of a person (self-awareness, ability to feel pleasure/pain, memory, preferences, intentionality, etc.), over and over I hear from pro-lifers, “But if nobody interferes, that embryo will BECOME a person by your definition!” They may even use “potential” to describe that dynamic. I 100% don’t find it a compelling argument, any more than I think a fertilized chicken egg must be coddled lest I run afoul of anti-cruelty laws. ---
**Author:** ![SuntanLotion](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suntanlotion/32/16165_2.png) [@SuntanLotion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuntanLotion)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/194 "2020-02-06T18:52:40Z")
I never said that.(re; the question of rape, no woman chooses that or brings it upon herself) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/195 "2020-02-06T20:19:07Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > As far as i can remember the SDMB is the only place I’ve heard the term ‘potential person’. What LHoD said. That’s exactly the language I’ve seen. > [@](#): > > It would seem you can have a corpse of a potential person. Sure, skip the middle man. How efficient. (Is a few cells excreted during a miscarriage a corpse? We can debate when corpses begin, I see.) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2020, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/196 "2020-02-06T20:20:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I disagree. Pro-choice are willing to compromise. Anti-abortionists anti-life are not. > > The “pro-life” movement is anti-life. “Pro-life” is a oxymoron of sort. Compromising on rights is fairly routine. I have a right to keep and bear arms. Sure there are some absolutists who think that the RTKBA cannot be infringed at all and there are about as many pro-choicers who think the right to an abortion is absolute. But if we are talking about murder the instances where we make exceptions is much narrower. Self defense being the primary exception. And this is analogous to the exception that almost every pro-lifer has for abortions that are required to protect the life of the mother. All you are doing is calling people names, it doesn’t convince anyone that isn’t already convinced and it doesn’t make you right. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2020, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/197 "2020-02-07T00:28:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Compromising on rights is fairly routine. I have a right to keep and bear arms. Sure there are some absolutists who think that the RTKBA cannot be infringed at all and there are about as many pro-choicers who think the right to an abortion is absolute. > > But if we are talking about murder the instances where we make exceptions is much narrower. Self defense being the primary exception. And this is analogous to the exception that almost every pro-lifer has for abortions that are required to protect the life of the mother. > > All you are doing is calling people names, it doesn’t convince anyone that isn’t already convinced and it doesn’t make you right. The term “pro-life” was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it “pro-death”. Anyone who has a problem calling people names would avoid using it, and instead use an **honest** term for their position like “anti-choice” or even “anti-abortion”. (Note that “anti-abortion” isn’t really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it’s not anyone’s right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it’s far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term “pro-choice”.) ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2020, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/198 "2020-02-07T00:39:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The term “pro-life” was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it “pro-death”. … I would like a cite on this one, as the opposite I heard is pro-abortion, or sometimes anti-life. > [@](#): > > (Note that “anti-abortion” isn’t really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it’s not anyone’s right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it’s far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term “pro-choice”.) For the fetus, to be or not to be, that seems like a choice. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2020, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/199 "2020-02-07T00:42:57Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > (Is a few cells excreted during a miscarriage a corpse? We can debate when corpses begin, I see.) It’s never struck me as ambiguous. A corpse is a corpse, of course, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2020, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228/200 "2020-02-07T00:44:14Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I would like a cite on this one, as the opposite I heard is pro-abortion, or sometimes anti-life. Even if you’re right, those are obviously stupid and dishonest terms. > [@](#): > > For the fetus, to be or not to be, that seems like a choice. Fetuses, like all non-persons, have never made a choice and lack the capacity to make a choice. Saying something is “a choice” for a fetus is gibberish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-why-dont-pro-choicers-just-say-it-kills-a-person-but-its-a-unique-circumstance/847228.md?page=11)