# An analogical examination of pro-life/pro-choice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2007, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160 "2007-11-12T18:47:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/61 "2007-11-15T05:09:28Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] !!! I agree that that is the great ethical question (as opposed to a moral one), which is exactly why I’m ambivalent about the ethical implications (as stated in the OP). Who is to decide the answer to that question? Science? How? Science [hasn’t even defined “life”](http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_020829.html) to everyone’s satisfaction. How will it define “person”? Will politicians do it? Encoding it in legislation? If so, God help us. I don’t know the answer. It is one of the most perplexing puzzles I’ve ever encountered. [/QUOTE] Who should decide what an “adult” is? Should politicians do it? Should it be embedded in legislation? Th answer is, of course it should. Legislation in these cases isn’t about deciding absolute truth but deciding what is most pragamatic. There is no magical moment when a child turns into an adult, yet there is no question that a legal bright line must be drawn legislatively. The _philosophical_ debate over whether a zygote or an embryo is a “life” or a “person” is unimportant and irrelevant to deciding what kind of legislation is most _pragmatic_ in preserving the rights of individuals and protecting the stability of society. I believe that the real question is not whether an embryo is a person, but what legislation will cause the least human suffering. You can also put me down as another one who thinks that women have the right to trade sex for money if that is their wish. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/62 "2007-11-15T05:16:14Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Isn’t it the case, then, that pro-choicers would also be inconsistent if they opposed choice in other (arbitrary) matters? For example, shouldn’t a person be free to choose to sell her body as a prostitute? Couldn’t a person say, “It seems to me that freedom of choice for these people ends at abortion.”? [/QUOTE] I agree with you, actually. I think laws outlawing prostitution are even more repugnant than anti-abortion laws. At least the latter is motivated by a perceived desire to protect an innocent person (supposing that a fetus is a person). Prostitution laws are motivated by a paternalistic desire to lock up women (and occasionally men) “for their own good” who rent out their bodies to other people. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/63 "2007-11-15T13:01:26Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] I don’t see how that logically follows. Right now, the law recognizes that parents have a unique obligation to raise their own children; in other words, the law provides a system by which the children are to be taken care of. This is true regardless of whether abortion is legal or not. If we ban abortion, how does this logically imply that all of society must now shoulder the burden of raising each and every child? I don’t think that there is any logical connection between the two conditions. [/QUOTE] The connection in my mind is that if a woman is forced by society to bear a child that she cannot support,financially, physically,emotionlly etc than the persons who forced her to carry it to term have a responsibility to support it and her. There are some women who are already burdened with more children than they can care for, and in some cases the woman is acting in a form of self defense. Monvis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/64 "2007-11-15T13:04:34Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] But that does not make the sperm cell a unique, living organism. Therein lies the problem. You’re using “life” in the broadest sense, referring to any living cell. In the context of the abortion issue though, “life” pertains to the life of a living organism. No rational person – whether pro-life or pro-choice – argues that every single living cell must be preserved. The issue is whether the target of abortion is a living human being or not, not merely whether it is “alive” in the broad sense of the term. [/QUOTE] The people who refer to them selves as Pro-life seem to use the argument that life begins at conception. My point is that life began thousands of years ago. It is a passed on thing and being pro-choice one can also be pro-life. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/65 "2007-11-15T13:07:55Z")
[QUOTE=monavis] The people who refer to them selves as Pro-life seem to use the argument that life begins at conception. My point is that life began thousands of years ago. It is a passed on thing and being pro-choice one can also be pro-life. Monavis [/QUOTE] Cool! So if I, say, give you a deep wound that turns gangrenous, that’s being pro-life too, at least from the point of view of the anaerobic bacteria who’re getting a free feed? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/66 "2007-11-15T17:09:40Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Even with those hedges, I don’t think the term “pro-abortion” is a good one. Consider: are you and all libertarians pro-heroin? Pro-suicide? Pro-horrible-working-conditions? [/QUOTE] Point taken. But in the case of abortion, people really ARE zooming in on a particular issue, a la pro-or-anti suicide. It’s not a more general worldview like libertarianism versus authoritarianism. It’s a specific medical practice. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/67 "2007-11-15T18:08:59Z")
Diogenes: > [@](#): > > I believe that the real question is not whether an embryo is a person, but what legislation will cause the least human suffering. But to decide what will cause the least human suffering, you first need to decide which of the suffering parties in question is human. So the abortion debate all gets back to that anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/68 "2007-11-15T19:06:27Z")
[QUOTE=cmkeller] Diogenes: But to decide what will cause the least human suffering, you first need to decide which of the suffering parties in question is human. So the abortion debate all gets back to that anyway. [/QUOTE] Well, first you need to decide which entities are suffering at all. If an entity is incapable of suffering then it’s irrelevant if it’s a “human.” I don’t thing the “personhood” question in regards to fetuses can ever be objectively answered, so it comes down to a discussion of to what degree the state may compel an entity of _undisputed_ personhood to suffer for the sake of an entity for whom personhood exists only subjectively (often as a purely religious belief) and who is _incapable_ of suffering. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/69 "2007-11-15T19:19:03Z")
Diogenes: > [@](#): > > Well, first you need to decide which entities are suffering at all. If an entity is incapable of suffering then it’s irrelevant if it’s a “human.” Interesting way of looking at it. Two questions, then, and I hope this doesn’t constitute a hijack of this thread: 1. Do you then consider death to not be, in and of itself, a form of suffering? I realize that there are ways that a person can die that are not suffering in the sense of “painful”, but it still represents the deprivation, to the affected party, of something of value (see next question) he/she/it once had. 2. Do you think the right to life (assuming no due-process capital convictions) which is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution is wrong for treating life itself as having intrinsic value, without considering pain or suffering experienced therein? Because even if I were to grant your point that the purpose of legislation should be to minimize human suffering, legislation must still be consitutional in order to hold up, and that would limit lawmakers’ ability to ameliorate suffering to only those measures that do not deprive individuals of life. And that, in turn, leads back to the question of whether or not the fetus is human - no matter who’s suffering, if it has a right to life, nothing (again, barring due-process capital conviction) can be put ahead of that. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/70 "2007-11-15T19:26:50Z")
[QUOTE=Rucksinator] I believe that the abortion debate hinges solely on the question “When does a fetus become a person?”. [/QUOTE] But then it doesn’t. Folks on the boards have said that even if the fetus IS a person, the rights of the mother still trump the rights of the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/71 "2007-11-15T19:31:17Z")
I’ll make it simple, a human who has no capacity to suffer has no inherent right to life, HOWEVER, the decision about whether to keep such quasi “persons” alive should not be left to the state but to that person’s next of kin or legal guardian. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/72 "2007-11-15T19:45:49Z")
[QUOTE=gigi] But then it doesn’t. Folks on the boards have said that even if the fetus IS a person, the rights of the mother still trump the rights of the fetus. [/QUOTE] Right. To me, _no one_ gets to use my body parts unless I say so, even if it means they will die from lack of them. But that’s outside of the purview of this thread. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/73 "2007-11-15T19:57:14Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] That is also true of every philosophy. It therefore does not set liberalism apart from any other political view in that regard. [/QUOTE] Except maybe extreme pragmatism. But definitely true for Communism, Socialism, and a host of other isms. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/74 "2007-11-15T20:15:48Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] But that’s outside of the purview of this thread. [/QUOTE] Yes, sorry for the straying into The Debate. ---
**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 15, 2007, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/75 "2007-11-15T20:53:16Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Point taken. But in the case of abortion, people really ARE zooming in on a particular issue, a la pro-or-anti suicide. It’s not a more general worldview like libertarianism versus authoritarianism. It’s a specific medical practice. [/QUOTE] I thought the point being made was that “pro-abortion” people are not actually pro-abortion, in the sense that they are for abortion and want lots of it. I’ve never come across a pro-choice person who doesn’t think abortion is pretty much a bad situation for all concerned (though they may disagree on who is included in “all”). As a libertarian you could be said to be “pro-suicide” (as per **LHoD’s** example; you might not be). Does this mean that you want there to be lots of suicides? That you would like the suicide rate to go up? No (again, I assume and in this case hope ;)); it just means you want the _right_ to commit suicide to be avaliable. It doesn’t mean you think suicide is a good thing in and of itself, it’s just the ability to take that option that you’re for. IOW, you’re not pro-suicide, you’re pro-suicide-rights; it’s rights you want, not suicide itself. Likewise, pro-choice people aren’t pro-abortion; they’re pro-abortion rights, a much better term. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/76 "2007-11-15T21:04:53Z")
I’ll think on that some, Revenant. Interesting take. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/77 "2007-11-15T22:23:10Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I thought the point being made was that “pro-abortion” people are not actually pro-abortion, in the sense that they are for abortion and want lots of it. I’ve never come across a pro-choice person who doesn’t think abortion is pretty much a bad situation for all concerned (though they may disagree on who is included in “all”). [/QUOTE] Planned Parenthood always points out that they’d like to make abortions safe, legal and **rare** , though I do think some ‘pro-abortionists’ feel they have to play down their openness to the procedure just so it’s not used as fodder. For example, some people complain that abortions are being used as ‘birth control.’ I think that’s great. I think if a woman can’t prevent a dozen pregnancies, she shouldn’t be having a dozen kids. But I know expressing that opinion at, say, a charity benefit wouldn’t go down too well. As I think i mentioned earlier, one problem with the term ‘pro-abortion’ is that it ignores the fact that most pro-choice activists are also against forced abortion. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/78 "2007-11-15T23:46:53Z")
Diogenes: > [@](#): > > I’ll make it simple, a human who has no capacity to suffer has no inherent right to life, So life = suffering? That sounds so Buddhist. Is it your opinion that the capacity for suffering defining humanity vis a vis a right to life is a definition that is constitutionally defensible? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/79 "2007-11-16T09:24:51Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] Right. To me, _no one_ gets to use my body parts unless I say so, even if it means they will die from lack of them. But that’s outside of the purview of this thread. [/QUOTE] Yes, it is - otherwise I’d be asking if the ethics of the situation change at all when you have chosen to _make_ someone dependent on your body parts. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160/80 "2007-11-16T12:21:14Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Cool! So if I, say, give you a deep wound that turns gangrenous, that’s being pro-life too, at least from the point of view of the anaerobic bacteria who’re getting a free feed? [/QUOTE] I consider your reply to be a foolish one. If you are doing harm to a person then you are in a sense not acting as one who respects life in the sense that most pro-lifers think of as pro-life. I refer to human life, we do not call killing a fly murder, nor bacteria. Monavis [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-analogical-examination-of-pro-life-pro-choice/426160.md?page=5)