# Abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098 "2008-10-29T15:49:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/181 "2008-11-01T20:06:22Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Why? We routinely restrict the rights of other persons to live. And yes, we do this for people who have committed no crimes. Because we tend not to do so without a very good reason. [QUOTE=Stratocaster] So if a person undergoes an operation where he is temporarily put in the flatlined state, were you to put a bullet in his brain during the operation, would you have violated that entity’s rights? Would any crime have been committed? Would it have been murder? If it troubles you, what would be the reason? [/QUOTE] A crime would have been comitted, at least I would assume it would do so not knowing the exactities of the law. I suspect it would be judged to be murder. In my opinion, no, I have not violated that entity’s rights, because there is no entity. Of course, that tends to be complicated in that I don’t believe in rights except those which are guaranteed by law and the like; I don’t believe in inherent rights. But if I did, I suspect I would assign those rights to persons, and there is no person in that situation (well, besides me). It would certainly trouble me, because many people, the man’s family and friends and the like, would be very upset. Also, i’d be arrested and possibly killed myself, which tends not to be the best motivation to do something. And on a personal level, I doubt I could actually do it, but that’s more of an emotional reaction rather than intellectual. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/182 "2008-11-01T20:39:42Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Within the physical meat of their brains, a flatlined hypothermic still has all the programming of a person buried within them. To use a computer analogy, the program Blalron.Exe would still be on the harddrive and still be retrievable. A fetus is an empty harddrive with no programing in it. But they do have programming that will lead to “personhood,” if we define that as one who possesses consciousness or higher brain functions. They just didn’t possess it previously. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure whether you subscribe to the concept of a soul, but I view things from a purely materialistic perspective. Humans and other animals, at least mammals, share about 95% of the same DNA. > > So what separates man from any other beast in the field? Our ability to truly reflect on our own existence. Humans are unique in being able to contemplate their own death. Most of us prefer to remain alive, so we’ve come up with a social contract to punish and deter humans from killing other humans > > Animals feel pain, so I grant they have some interest in not having unnecessary pain inflicted upon them. Our laws recognize this to some extent. We have animal cruelty laws. However, there’s nothing illegal about a pet owner taking his perfectly healthy animal to the vet to have it painlessly euthanized, purely as a matter of convenience. > > I see no objective reason to treat a human fetus any difference from any other biologically similar organism. Our sapience is what makes us special, and until a human reaches that level of development there’s no reason to give them any special rights. I understand you right up to the point where you would treat the temporary flatliner differently (I think that’s what you’re saying), since that entity cannot reflect upon anything. Can you clarify your Blalron.exe point? ---
**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:** [November 1, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/183 "2008-11-01T20:44:02Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > In my opinion, no, I have not violated that entity’s rights, because there is no entity. Of course, that tends to be complicated in that I don’t believe in rights except those which are guaranteed by law and the like; I don’t believe in inherent rights. But if I did, I suspect I would assign those rights to persons, and there is no person in that situation (well, besides me). It would certainly trouble me, because many people, the man’s family and friends and the like, would be very upset. Also, i’d be arrested and possibly killed myself, which tends not to be the best motivation to do something. And on a personal level, I doubt I could actually do it, but that’s more of an emotional reaction rather than intellectual. Okay. I understand your position. Though I don’t agree with it, it’s at least consistent. I would argue (I’m suspect you can surmise) that such a person does have rights that could be violated. But I acknowledge that for me it’s simply axiomatic that any entity possessing or capable of human consciousness is a person, just as other axioms prevail for others. I’d also speculate, not that this makes my argument, that most people would agree that the flatliner does have rights, that to kill such an being would be to commit a wrong not just to his loved ones, but to him. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/184 "2008-11-01T21:56:10Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I would argue (I’m suspect you can surmise) that such a person does have rights that could be violated. But I acknowledge that for me it’s simply axiomatic that any entity possessing or capable of human consciousness is a person, just as other axioms prevail for others. I’d also speculate, not that this makes my argument, that most people would agree that the flatliner does have rights, that to kill such an being would be to commit a wrong not just to his loved ones, but to him. And yet there are circumstances where such a killing is entirely justifiable, wouldn’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/185 "2008-11-02T00:37:48Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Okay. I understand your position. Though I don’t agree with it, it’s at least consistent. I would argue (I’m suspect you can surmise) that such a person does have rights that could be violated. But I acknowledge that for me it’s simply axiomatic that any entity possessing or capable of human consciousness is a person, just as other axioms prevail for others. I’d also speculate, not that this makes my argument, that most people would agree that the flatliner does have rights, that to kill such an being would be to commit a wrong not just to his loved ones, but to him. The problem for me is the “capable” part. It to me suggests that while certainly that ability may come in time - either with development in the case of a fetus or with medical attention on the part of the flatliner - it is not there currently. And that while the hardware may be there, or may be there with time and the various outside help it requires to work, the software is not yet, and it is the software that I look to when determining personhood. And i’d agree with your final speculation - my view is definetly uncommon. I’d make my own speculation that my view isn’t just incorrect for many people, but quite repugnant. So no, I have no disagreement to that last part. If anything, the general wishes of the majority are a good argument in my book just as those more specific ones of the family and friends. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/186 "2008-11-02T00:52:30Z")
Show me where your sincere belief that a foetus is a person trumps my universally acknowledged legal right to autonomy and bodily integrity. If you believe that abortion is always wrong you condemn 1 in 10,000 women in the first world and 11% of women in the third world to death and many more to long term physical and psychological morbidity. Good for you. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/187 "2008-11-02T00:59:50Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Because we tend not to do so without a very good reason. That’s it? This is your argument? The people who are ostensibly restricting the right of the fetus to live think they have a good reason too. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/188 "2008-11-02T01:03:11Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > That’s it? This is your argument? The people who are ostensibly restricting the right of the fetus to live think they have a good reason too. Right. So what’s needed is for each side to put up their evidence and see what comes out of it. In general, I mean. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/189 "2008-11-02T01:24:36Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Right. So what’s needed is for each side to put up their evidence and see what comes out of it. In general, I mean. Evidence for what? Or do you mean “argument” instead of “evidence”? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/190 "2008-11-02T01:37:04Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Evidence for what? Or do you mean “argument” instead of “evidence”? Both. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/191 "2008-11-02T01:56:28Z")
Really, **The Flying Dutchman**? Because there has been at least one case where a woman was unable to vaginally deliver an early second trimester non-viable foetus due to a uterine abnormality and required hysterotomy- this was after medical induction of uterine contractions (failed medical T.O.P.). The same uterine abnormailty which prevented vaginal delivery of the foetus also prevented a surgical trans-cervical termination of the pregnancy by D&E. Again, this was a wanted pregnancy terminated due to a foetal abnormality discovered at 14 weeks which was incompatible with life. Could you justify hysterotomy then? ---
**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:** [November 2, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/192 "2008-11-02T05:49:26Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Show me where your sincere belief that a foetus is a person trumps my universally acknowledged legal right to autonomy and bodily integrity. Universally acknowledged? It’s not “universally” acknowledged in this thread, for Pete’s sake. There are millions of people who believe that woman (and men) have a right to autonomy and bodily integrity (to a certain extent), but that this right is trumped by the unborn’s right to live. I’m not saying there aren’t many who agree with you, but you’re begging the question. And you don’t have autonomy and bodily integrity in the U.S. even outside the discussion of abortion. There are all kinds of things you can’t do with your body, however much anyone would prefer otherwise. > [@](#): > > If you believe that abortion is always wrong you condemn 1 in 10,000 women in the first world and 11% of women in the third world to death and many more to long term physical and psychological morbidity. > > Good for you. You do see the point, I assume, that if someone believes differently, the “good for you” is turned around–there are over a million people “condemned” in the U.S. alone every year. They just happen to be unborn. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2008, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/193 "2008-11-02T05:58:07Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > And i’d agree with your final speculation - my view is definetly uncommon. I’d make my own speculation that my view isn’t just incorrect for many people, but quite repugnant. So no, I have no disagreement to that last part. If anything, the general wishes of the majority are a good argument in my book just as those more specific ones of the family and friends. Yes, I’d agree that most people would be appalled at the prospect of the flatlined guy not being legally protected (or ethically, or whatever). For you, would the general wishes of the majority be sufficient reason to make abortion illegal, if most people were so inclined? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/194 "2008-11-02T16:00:08Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Universally acknowledged? (One’s legal right to autonomy and bodily integrety) is not “universally” acknowledged… inalienable rights (def.) Rights that cannot be justly denied. Rights retained by the people; no matter even if construed to be denied by law or constitution. **Stratocaster** is correct. The equal and inalienable rights of all are routinely denied by tyrants. What **Stratocaster** and those of his mark do not seem to understand is that denial makes those rights no less inalienable. And that is why there is strife; and that is why we are at war. Peace rwj ---
**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:** [November 2, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/195 "2008-11-02T17:14:12Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > inalienable rights (def.) Rights that cannot be justly denied. Rights retained by the people; no matter even if construed to be denied by law or constitution. > > **Stratocaster** is correct. The equal and inalienable rights of all are routinely denied by tyrants. What **Stratocaster** and those of his mark do not seem to understand is that denial makes those rights no less inalienable. > > And that is why there is strife; and that is why we are at war. > > Peace > rwj We are at war because I’m pro-life? There is strife because of me and “those of my mark”? Sheesh. Kind of makes me think of myself with a bit more respect; I never knew I was that powerful. Kneel, all you vanquished pro-choicers–kneel before my glory! Look on my works, all ye mighty, and despair! By the way, you join the proud tradition established earlier in this thread of begging the question. What makes this a right that cannot justly be denied? Or is that simply a given for you? ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/196 "2008-11-02T17:54:48Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > We are at war because I’m pro-life? It is not that you are pro-life; it is that you seem to judge and condemn sin as crime. It is possible to be pro-life and still forgive the sin of abortion. We are at war against those that judge and condemn sin as crime. You just happen to judge and condemn and persecute a different sin. I hold all are born with the inalienable right of liberty. Tyrants do not. Please Forgive r~ The mark of the beast is revealed by those that judge and condemn sin. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/197 "2008-11-02T17:59:28Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > It is not that you are pro-life; it is that you seem to judge and condemn sin as crime. > It is possible to be pro-life and still forgive the sin of abortion. What makes you think I don’t? > [@](#): > > We are at war against those that judge and condemn sin as crime. > You just happen to judge and condemn and persecute a different sin. There are all kinds of sins that are against the law, and I’m all for enforcing them (e.g., murder, robbery). > [@](#): > > I hold all are born with the inalienable right of liberty. Tyrants do not. Is there a dramatic soundtrack that plays as you type this stuff? ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/198 "2008-11-02T18:09:42Z")
I’m speechless at the “logic” some people go through life with these days. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/199 "2008-11-02T18:46:01Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > What makes you think I don’t? There are all kinds of sins that are against the law, and I’m all for enforcing them (e.g., murder, robbery).Is there a dramatic soundtrack that plays as you type this stuff? I am glad if you do, but I am not convinced you know the difference between sin and crime. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. Crime is the denial of liberty. Murder and robbery are not crime because they are against written Law. Murder and robbery are crime because they deny liberty. No law can be justly construed to deny the self-retained rights of the people. No one has the right to take from another’s body without permission. All have the right to protect their life and health. Abortion is a sin; still it seems you would judge and condemn sin as ‘crime’. Please feel free to convince me you would not. Peace rwj ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098/200 "2008-11-02T18:51:43Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, I’d agree that most people would be appalled at the prospect of the flatlined guy not being legally protected (or ethically, or whatever). For you, would the general wishes of the majority be sufficient reason to make abortion illegal, if most people were so inclined? Just curious. In the most general view, it’s usually better to go with a democratic approach, if only for the sake of keeping democracy going. Taking everything into account… i’m honestly not sure. My metric is usually not just what would make most people happy, but what would potentially make most people happy in the future. I’d have to think that yes, that would be acceptable to me, but it would require a very significant majority and exclude attempts to doubly/triply/super-protect that law so that it couldn’t be repealed. Thank you for the question, by the way. I’ve had to devote considerable time to thinking through it, and I think I may continue to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion/470098.md?page=11)