# Abortions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2016, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691 "2016-03-31T03:25:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/81 "2016-04-02T13:31:53Z")
There is nothing inconsistent in the position that if abortion is illegal doctors providing abortions should be charged but women should not be. This is an analogy to the “nordic model” for prostitution where the “johns” eg the buyers are charged but the women providing the service are not. Personally I think that both the nordic model and abortion being illegal are both bullshit. Abortion should be legal (theres 7.125 billion reasons why) and prostitution should be legal. But the position that women should not be charged for abortion but abortion providers should be is not inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/82 "2016-04-02T14:40:28Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > If these items were also delivered tongue-in-cheek, then I apologize for missing the satire, but I think you might have been serious. Jesus…I crack a joke that’s been analyzed and explained 3 times, where I’ve admitted that it was a joke, and people still can’t tell if it’s a joke. All of which leads me to understand that it obviously wasn’t funny. Or I just demonstrated [Poe’s Law](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law). ---
**Author:** ![chela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chela/32/21582_2.png) [@chela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chela)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/83 "2016-04-02T14:46:12Z")
Where does IVF and fertility efforts fall into the abortioin spectrum of guilt and punishment? Abortion by IVF providers to women who really really really want a child are also performed either in situ in the case of multiples, or the embryos if not useful are tossed in the incinerator. Will Trump want to prosecute people for the deaths of embryos in the IVF lab? I cannot understand why the fertility industry is left out of the abortion argument…it serves pro lifers and pro choicers equally imo. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/84 "2016-04-02T15:11:14Z")
Should women be prosecuted for having miscarriages? Maybe she had a cup of coffee, took an aspirin, or thought bad thoughts. As reported in the book Intern, pre-Roe v. Wade, if a doctor didn’t find any fetal tissue in a woman claiming she miscarried, she was supposed to be reported to the police for a “suspected abortion.” ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/85 "2016-04-02T22:58:27Z")
> [@Arcite](#): > > As I explained in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=788916), it’s not a “pathetic dodge,” they really believe it. The true believers might, in the way you described (though it’s still a dodge, just one that is incorporated into their belief system - in other words, everything they think about women is a giant illogical cloud of shit). But the people at RNC HQ who write the talking points don’t. They know it’s bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/86 "2016-04-02T23:02:08Z")
> [@chela](#): > > Where does IVF and fertility efforts fall into the abortioin spectrum of guilt and punishment? Abortion by IVF providers to women who really really really want a child are also performed either in situ in the case of multiples, or the embryos if not useful are tossed in the incinerator. > > Will Trump want to prosecute people for the deaths of embryos in the IVF lab? > > I cannot understand why the fertility industry is left out of the abortion argument…it serves pro lifers and pro choicers equally imo. Yes, I like to ask them why they aren’t blowing up fertility clinics too. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/87 "2016-04-02T23:03:17Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > There is nothing inconsistent in the position that if abortion is illegal doctors providing abortions should be charged but women should not be. If one argues that abortion is equivalent to murder, there absolutely is an inconsistency. > [@](#): > > This is an analogy to the “nordic model” for prostitution where the “johns” eg the buyers are charged but the women providing the service are not. That’s logically inconsistent too. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/88 "2016-04-04T00:53:28Z")
> [@KarlGrenze](#): > > That would still mean pregnancy, and that could still have consequences for the woman that could impact her life (in various ways including economically) later on, even if she decides to adopt the baby out. Yes, of course. But if those are her reasons for wanting an abortion, those are social/economic reasons, not medical reasons. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/89 "2016-04-04T08:43:07Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Yes, of course. But if those are her reasons for wanting an abortion, those are social/economic reasons, not medical reasons. And I agree with this (I’m not the one claiming most abortions are for medical reasons). My comment was to \*\*Orwell’\*\*s line that most of the babies resulting from the pregnancies that are aborted could be given up for adoption. That is ignoring that pregnancy itself is part of the problem, not the baby at the end of it. It’s not going through 9-10 months of no change whatsoever and poof, baby. I think even those that have had kids would love it if it were that easy. I also want to point out that while I think most early abortions are not for strictly medical reasons, it seems most of the later abortions (or desire for later abortions) are for those reasons. I’m wondering if perhaps that was what the previous poster was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Sampsiceramos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Sampsiceramos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampsiceramos)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/90 "2016-04-04T11:59:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If one argues that abortion is equivalent to murder, there absolutely is an inconsistency. > > That’s logically inconsistent too. While I am personally in favour of complete legalization, the Nordic model is, in fact, internally logically consistent, in the sense that it is meant to protect trafficking victims who are forced into prostitution. In essence, it presumes that all prostitution occurs involuntarily and as such that the prostitute cannot be legally culpable because they lack mens rea entirely. There is still an enforced criminal statute against pimping, so to say that only the johns are punished, or that prostitution is not illegal, is hardly accurate. We simply make a point of not punishing people who have for all intents and purposes been forced into sexual slavery by traffickers, as is the case with the vast majority of prostitutes in Scandinavia. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/91 "2016-04-04T12:03:47Z")
THat’s not as logical as it sounds to you though. It does make sense in the case of people who have been trafficked, but that’s an argument a defendant can make in court. Automatically holding a woman innocent for being a prostitute makes no sense. Many women work for themselves or work for legitimate escort agencies and have sex even though they aren’t supposed to for extra money, all the while developing a client base from the agency’s customers. These are not just prostitutes, but fraudsters who know exactly what they are doing. What actually makes sense is for prostitution to just be legal and regulated. Just like abortion. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/92 "2016-04-04T14:30:26Z")
> [@Sampsiceramos](#): > > While I am personally in favour of complete legalization, the Nordic model is, in fact, internally logically consistent, in the sense that it is meant to protect trafficking victims who are forced into prostitution. In essence, it presumes that all prostitution occurs involuntarily and as such that the prostitute cannot be legally culpable because they lack mens rea entirely. > > There is still an enforced criminal statute against pimping, so to say that only the johns are punished, or that prostitution is not illegal, is hardly accurate. We simply make a point of not punishing people who have for all intents and purposes been forced into sexual slavery by traffickers, as is the case with the vast majority of prostitutes in Scandinavia. Then you’re talking about criminalizing sexual slavery. Prostitution, alone, is still legal. ---
**Author:** ![Sampsiceramos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Sampsiceramos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampsiceramos)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/93 "2016-04-04T15:36:02Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Then you’re talking about criminalizing sexual slavery. Prostitution, alone, is still legal. I think the way it is formally set up in practice is that selling sex is not illegal, but that organizing the sale of sex is, so technically prostitution is still not entirely legal. It is my understanding that you can still be prosecuted for running a brothel even if every single one of the prostitutes in your employ were willing to sign sworn statements as to their willing, uncoerced participation - but prostitutes cannot be prosecuted for individual transactions. I am not a legal expert and prostitution is not something that comes up often, however, given a relatively relaxed attitude towards it in the general public here, so obviously do not unquestioningly take any statements as fact. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/94 "2016-04-04T15:39:38Z")
> [@Sampsiceramos](#): > > I think the way it is formally set up in practice is that selling sex is not illegal, but that organizing the sale of sex is, so technically prostitution is still not entirely legal. Yes, so it’s a different thing. It’s about criminalizing sexual slavery, not sex for hire. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/95 "2016-04-04T15:50:08Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Or else the lawmakers claim that they’re safeguarding women’s health while simultaneously saving babies. > And then shit like this happens: > > . > . > . > > (Summary: under Texas law, a woman was forced to go home and wait for her fetus to die inside of her because she was 20 weeks along, and the law won’t allow for late term abortions.) > > Seriously, do these guys making these laws really believe that a woman who is already pretty far along in a pregnancy, say, in the third trimester, would want to have an abortion for any reason other than her own health being threatened, or the fetus having developed a severe abnormality? This is why I believe many of these conservatives are lying when they say they want to help babies. Their number 1 concern has always seemed to be to punish women. They can’t conceive of a situation where abortions might be necessary. So many of them have said rape doesn’t cause babies (but if it does, its a gift!) or all abortions are from single, promiscuous women. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/96 "2016-04-04T17:37:16Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > This is why I believe many of these conservatives are lying when they say they want to help babies. Their number 1 concern has always seemed to be to punish women. They can’t conceive of a situation where abortions might be necessary. So many of them have said rape doesn’t cause babies (but if it does, its a gift!) or all abortions are from single, promiscuous women. No, they can’t conceive of a situation where abortion might be justified, even if “necessary.” Why can’t we simply disagree with them instead of trying to turn their views into something less legitimate? Most of them believe abortion is equivalent to murdering a child. Those who support abortion rights don’t believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/97 "2016-04-04T18:08:09Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Why can’t we simply disagree with them instead of trying to turn their views into something less legitimate? Most of them believe abortion is equivalent to murdering a child. However, it’s worth pointing out (and we’ve discussed this at length in some previous threads) ways in which abortion-rights opponents are often inconsistent in supporting their professed beliefs about fetal personhood when abortion **isn’t** involved. There’s pretty much no area of law or custom dealing with pregnancy and the unborn in which an embryo/fetus is treated as a fully human individual person with the same rights as the rest of us right from the instant of conception. But the only situation where self-described “pro-life” advocates object to that approach is when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/98 "2016-04-04T18:09:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > However, it’s worth pointing out (and we’ve discussed this at length in some previous threads) ways in which abortion-rights opponents are often inconsistent in supporting their professed beliefs about fetal personhood when abortion **isn’t** involved. Yes, that’s a legitimate point. > [@](#): > > There’s pretty much no area of law or custom dealing with pregnancy and the unborn in which an embryo/fetus is treated as a fully human individual person with the same rights as the rest of us right from the instant of conception. But the only situation where self-described “pro-life” advocates object to that approach is when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy. They obviously believe that no area of law or custom is necessary to sustain their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/99 "2016-04-04T18:18:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > However, it’s worth pointing out (and we’ve discussed this at length in some previous threads) ways in which abortion-rights opponents are often inconsistent in supporting their professed beliefs about fetal personhood when abortion **isn’t** involved. > > There’s pretty much no area of law or custom dealing with pregnancy and the unborn in which an embryo/fetus is treated as a fully human individual person with the same rights as the rest of us right from the instant of conception. But the only situation where self-described “pro-life” advocates object to that approach is when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy. Not exactly. There must be laws on the books allowing a murder charge/conviction of unborn fetuses/babies. I often see news reports where a criminal is charged with murder of the unborn baby in addition to the mother, even in cases such as car wrecks where the negligent driver couldn’t have known anyone was pregnant. Personally, I don’t think that’s proper, unless the real intent was to kill the fetus. But it does seem to refute your stance that abortion is the “only situation” in which the unborn baby has legal “personhood rights”. Which, I guess, raises a question. For the more strident pro-choice advocates, if a boyfriend punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, should he be charged with anything other than assault on the mother? Does it matter if she is in the 13th, 26th or 39th week? ---
**Author:** ![Sampsiceramos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Sampsiceramos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampsiceramos)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691/100 "2016-04-04T19:07:22Z")
I would argue that knowingly or by way of criminally negligent behaviour inducing abortion against the will of a pregnant woman should carry with it its own criminal statute dependent on the viability of the fetus - in the case where the fetus is not viable, charges similar to other gross violations of bodily autonomy e.g rape, and in the case where the fetus is viable, at the very least manslaughter charges. In both cases I find the behaviour criminal on the basis of violating the bodily autonomy of the mother-to-be, but far more grave in the latter case than the former and thus deserving of more severe punishment because the latter pregnancy is far more likely to be carried to term. With regards to charging a drunk driver with murder, I will opine that murder charges seem to me a miscarriage of justice unless malice aforethought can be demonstrated, but involuntary manslaughter absolutely is a defensible charge to me in that drunk driving constitutes extremely and criminally negligent behaviour. To me, killing a baby you could not possibly have known existed by causing a traffic accident while drunk is little different to killing someone you did not intend to by recklessly discharging a firearm - both invite involuntary manslaughter charges. Strident supporter of unregulated abortion at the behest of the mother, I should add. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortions/750691.md?page=6)