# Another abortion debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245 "2006-08-03T20:32:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/161 "2006-08-04T20:20:30Z")
[QUOTE=erie774] Arizona, California, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington state are just a [few](http://aia.berkeley.edu/information_resources/substance_exposed_newborns.html) States are working on this as part of [CAPTA](http://www.alliance1.org/Public_Policy/fact/CAPTA_02_03.htm) (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) So if the entity is drug or alcohol exposed in utero it can be temporarily removed from parental custody and potentially permanently removed. Therefore, it is being afforded protective rights by the government prior to leaving the womb. Thus, we have a legal standing for saying that this entity is, in fact, a human being prior to the birthing process. Since this pertains to exposure immediately prior to birth, I believe you should concede that the prematurely born infants (drug exposed infants are more prone to be born prematurely) are therefore persons with rights before they leave the womb. Because of the timeframes involved (viability with support usually begins around 24 weeks) we can effectively extrapolate that the provision of rights begins around 24 weeks gestation. [/QUOTE] No. They’re not removed until they’re born. These are protections which are only afforded post-natally. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/162 "2006-08-04T20:20:36Z")
[QUOTE=erie774] So if the entity is drug or alcohol exposed in utero it can be temporarily removed from parental custody and potentially permanently removed. Therefore, it is being afforded protective rights by the government prior to leaving the womb. Thus, we have a legal standing for saying that this entity is, in fact, a human being prior to the birthing process. [/QUOTE] Not really. Seeing as how there are many other rights which a fetus is denied as compared to a newborn baby, there is equal legal standing for saying it is not. Unless rights are equivalent total equivalency cannot be extrapolated in this manner. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/163 "2006-08-04T20:21:16Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s not. My problem is when people want to make that decision for everybody else based on what _they_ think is “responsible.” [/QUOTE] I appologize then, I thought you were saying that she’d be wrong not to get an abortion. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/164 "2006-08-04T20:22:54Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] I was addressing **Diogenes** -he seemed to be implying that it would be irresponsible of her NOT to choose an abortion. Of course, he might not have meant that, but that’s what I got out of his post. [/QUOTE] I think that abortion and adoption are both more responsible choices than keeping a baby you don’t want and/or can’t take care of, so yes, sometimes keeping the baby is irresponsible and hurts the baby. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/165 "2006-08-04T20:52:52Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I guess to me a baby is a little more important that fixing a boiler (or even giving me a million dollars). To me, a baby has to have inherent worth beyond what the mother decides to afford it at any given minute. [/QUOTE] You said you didn’t understand the “disconnect.” There is no “disconnect”; there is a subjective sense of value. Perhaps you would always value a fetus. Perhaps I would never value a fetus. A third woman might value the fetus she wants and not value the fetus she doesn’t want, just as I value certain things at certain times and don’t value them at others. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/166 "2006-08-04T20:55:27Z")
[QUOTE=erie774] I guess the word “murder” is a little inflammatory. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, [murder](http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/murder;_ylt=AlZm4D9d3WaKDvEfMJFm5hqsgMMF) is defined as: NOUN: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. and a [human](http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/human) is defined as: NOUN: 2. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. [/QUOTE] Why do you think the definition of “human” used in the definition of “murder” you cited is the first one in your link (the one you quoted) rather than the second one ( - the one that simply states “a person”)? In other words, why did you cherry-pick your cite? ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/167 "2006-08-04T21:06:33Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] No. They’re not removed until they’re born. These are protections which are only afforded post-natally. [/QUOTE] But the “abuse” took place before they were removed from the uterus. The “crime” was committed on the victim before they were born. This is different from the mother giving her newborn baby some drugs. The drugs are being provided in utero. No, they are not performing c-sections and ripping the baby out to protect it. But upon birth, tests are performed to see if the child had been previously abused. If so, the child is taken into custody. This shows that the entity while in utero is being afforded the right of protection from abuse. [QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by erie774 > So if the entity is drug or alcohol exposed in utero it can be temporarily removed from parental custody and potentially permanently removed. Therefore, it is being afforded protective rights by the government prior to leaving the womb. Thus, we have a legal standing for saying that this entity is, in fact, a human being prior to the birthing process. Not really. Seeing as how there are many other rights which a fetus is denied as compared to a newborn baby, there is equal legal standing for saying it is not. Unless rights are equivalent total equivalency cannot be extrapolated in this manner. [/QUOTE] I agree that there are matters of equivalency involved here. I believe, though, that it is better to provide the rights of protection to an unwilling victim incapable of self-defense than an active abuser. When comatose patients have been abused by their care-givers, the abuser is punished. I know, “The patient had been born already and so has rights.” But if the law states that abuse can occur before birth, then the unborn is afforded some legal standing for protection. How far the protection can be extrapolated is debatable. This could be used by either side of the debate to set clear deadlines (so to speak) on when we can begin affording rights to the unborn that outweigh the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. Could it even be extended to smoking and nutrition? Exposure to hazardous materials? Women have successfully sued companies for exposure to toxic materials that resulted in birth defects. Could women be held accountable for continuing to work around toxic substances while pregnant? If a pregnant woman develops gestational diabetes but doesn’t follow the recommended medical protocol, is she intentionally harming the fetus? Could a child with birth defects sue his mother for pre-natal harm? ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/168 "2006-08-04T21:06:51Z")
For decades, there has been a judicially created right to reproduce (back when states tried to prevent mentally and physically handicapped people from reproducing). People who would forgive abortions in the case of rape are recognizing the corresponding right NOT to reproduce however, the right not to reproduce is abdicated once you engage in consensual sex. Otherwise why allow abortions in rape cases? You don’t have to raise the child of your rapist and we stopped punishing children for the sins of the father hundreds of years ago and unless you think that the mental trauma of giving birth to your rapist’s child as enough of a reason to kill it, there is little reason to forgive abortion in the case of rape if you think it is otherwise murder. Most people who talk about late term abortions (partial birth abortions) are either pro-choice but think that additional restrictions are allowable (informed consent, cool down period, ec.), or engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that try to convince people that limiting partial birth abortions will eventually lead to abortions being performed in a back alley with a rusty coat hanger. [QUOTE=Voyager] If the OP believes abortion is justifiable for rape and incest, and to protect the health of the mother, then the OP cannot self-consistently call abortion murder either. Neglecting the case where an abortion is required to save the life of the mother, killing is not murder (used loosely, including manslaughter) if it is in self-defense. But an abortion in these cases does not fall under self defense. Given that there is no harm to the mother that raises to the level which makes killing justified in these cases, either abortion is murder in the case of rape or incest or it is not at all. I believe it is not murder ever. I could be persuaded about abortion when a fetus is viable, but those cases are rare to nonexistent. (I’d suspect most doctors would insist on trying to deliver the baby.) If those opposed to very late term abortions would support early term abortion rights, there would be little controversy. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/169 "2006-08-04T21:08:43Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Nothing, just that the technology might advance to the point where biochemical abortions are less expensive and less hassle than biochemical contraceptives, so the perceived flaw in logic might no longer apply. Besides, you said “Anyone, Catholic or not”. [/QUOTE] Right, Catholic or not who thinks they **shouldn’t use** birth control, but then has an abortion when they get pregnant…" I wasn’t talking about the cost of birth control, I was talking about the faulty logic of thinking that birth control is not moral, but abortion is a acceptable alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/170 "2006-08-04T21:10:03Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] You said you didn’t understand the “disconnect.” There is no “disconnect”; there is a subjective sense of value. Perhaps you would always value a fetus. Perhaps I would never value a fetus. A third woman might value the fetus she wants and not value the fetus she doesn’t want, just as I value certain things at certain times and don’t value them at others. [/QUOTE] I get that, but I believe that human life has **inherent** value. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/171 "2006-08-04T21:10:20Z")
[QUOTE=erie774] But [“person”](http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/person) is defined as: NOUN: 1. A living human [/QUOTE] Well, that’s the first definition. There are others in that cite(and other dictionaries). **My** definition of “person” is closer to the one from Wikipedia: [ > [@](#): > > A person is defined by philosophers as a being who is in possession of a range of psychological capacities that are regarded as both necessary and sufficient to fulfill the requirements of personhood. These are, in general, that it is capable of reasoning, that it is self-conscious, and that it has an identity that persists through time. ]([Person - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person)) - it lacks somewhat my concept of “Societal Actor”, but it fits better than any for the purposes of this debate, with none of the nasty circularity you’ve just introduced by your dictionary definition citations. _Read_ that page, BTW, it has a nice section on the personhood of foetuses too. Common Law, at least, sets personhood at birth. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/172 "2006-08-04T21:16:11Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Why do you think the definition of “human” used in the definition of “murder” you cited is the first one in your link (the one you quoted) rather than the second one ( - the one that simply states “a person”)? In other words, why did you cherry-pick your cite? [/QUOTE] OK. But the definition of “person” refers to “human” and “human” refers to genus _Homo_. I realize it is a little self defining and circuitous. Repetition = redundant = duplication = repetition = etc. And unless the unborn entity is Ororo Monroe or Charles Xavier, they are members of _H. sapiens_ and thus humans/persons. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/173 "2006-08-04T21:21:11Z")
[QUOTE=col\_10022] That is about as enlightened a view as saying that abortion is always murder short of situations where the pregnancy seriously threatens the mother’s life.. [/QUOTE] Hey, if it’s always murder, why make an exception for threatening the mother’s life? That’s not very “enlightened”. Not that I claim my views to be such, and not that I haven’t backed my views with further “illumination” - unlike your drive-by post. You don’t say _why_ it is unenlightened, for instance. Enlighten me. Crap, are we looking at another 9-pager? Why start new threads, maybe we should just petition for an “Abortion Debate Sticky” in GD? ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/174 "2006-08-04T21:28:29Z")
[QUOTE=erie774] OK. But the definition of “person” refers to “human” [/QUOTE] Not the one I just quoted - just “a being” - this leaves room for the personhood of A.I.s, uplifted modified chimpanzees, and ETs. But does not equate “humanity” with “personhood” ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/175 "2006-08-04T21:28:39Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I wasn’t talking about the cost of birth control, I was talking about the faulty logic of thinking that birth control is not moral, but abortion is a acceptable alternative. [/QUOTE] Fair enough, though there are reasons other than moral ones why conventional contraceptives are undesirable. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/176 "2006-08-04T21:44:34Z")
I’ve cut your post down so it doesn’t take up too much room, **erie774** ; assume I agree with everything you say in the bits I cut out. [QUOTE=erie774] How far the protection can be extrapolated is debatable. This could be used by either side of the debate to set clear deadlines (so to speak) on when we can begin affording rights to the unborn that outweigh the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. Could it even be extended to smoking and nutrition? Exposure to hazardous materials? Women have successfully sued companies for exposure to toxic materials that resulted in birth defects. Could women be held accountable for continuing to work around toxic substances while pregnant? If a pregnant woman develops gestational diabetes but doesn’t follow the recommended medical protocol, is she intentionally harming the fetus? Could a child with birth defects sue his mother for pre-natal harm? [/QUOTE] Again, though, this only follows one route of rights given to humans; that of protection from the actions of others. Obviously it’s an important right, but it is not the only right we as persons are given; while legal judgements of this kind may in the future increase the protections afforded to fetuses, that again cannot be extrapolated to total personhood without total recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/177 "2006-08-04T21:46:30Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Right, Catholic or not who thinks they **shouldn’t use** birth control, but then has an abortion when they get pregnant…" I wasn’t talking about the cost of birth control, I was talking about the faulty logic of thinking that birth control is not moral, but abortion is a acceptable alternative. [/QUOTE] Most catholics don’t think birth control is immoral. Many refrain from practicing responsible sex because the _church_ disapproves and they feel threatened. > **[News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com](https://www.aol.com/)** > > Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more. > [@](#): > > The response of the laity (in the Western world, at least) has been mixed. The Natural Family Planning movement is stronger than ever, with salaried teachers in many dioceses. Nevertheless, over 80% of Catholic couples within the child-bearing years use some form of artificial contraception at some time to regulate the births of their children. These couples are often regular church-goers who do not seem especially concerned about living in mortal sin. What is interesting is that even though they have turned a deaf ear to the Church’s teachings on birth control, a majority of these same people love Pope John Paul II and value his leadership (Associated Press Poll, 6/5/96). This split between Catholics’ love of the Pope and their blatant disregard for his teachings on human sexuality is one of the most significant (and baffling) signs of the times within the Church. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/178 "2006-08-04T21:49:18Z")
[QUOTE=wm–] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **AHunter3** > I’m aware of that. I’m aware (as I said) that many pro-life posters on this very board are (or appear to me to be) motivated entirely by the honest conviction that abortion is the murdering of human life, and that they have no problems with female emancipation, the sexual revolution, or any of this other “peripheral agenda”. Um, I guess it’s nice to know that you’re not actually accusing anyone here of being part of the patriarchal conspiracy or whatever, but if that’s the case, why bring it into the discussion at all? [/QUOTE] I said you did not appear to be motivated by a desire to re-entrench patriarchy. I didn’t say that your actions (in support of making abortion illegal) were not actively contributing to that end. The point of my post is that you (and other pro-life folks in this thread and elsewhere) do not occupy a moral high ground — you made a moral-imperative argument, “period”. I made one back at you, explaining that whether you have evil intentions or not, the social movement in which you are a participant is attempting to do a great evil, and my opposition to it is a moral cause. You need not agree with it, (just as I do not agree with your moral imperative), but just as I do you the honor of akcnowledging what you say to be your motivations, I ask that you acknowledge that not every pro-choice partisan is arguing for an amoral right to unimpeded convenience. I’m certainly not. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/179 "2006-08-04T21:50:04Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun’s cite] This split between Catholics’ love of the Pope and their blatant disregard for his teachings on human sexuality is one of the most significant (and baffling) signs of the times within the Church. [/QUOTE] Not so baffling. Without getting into the “cafeteria Catholic” issue, it’s entirely possible to agree with the Church/Pope’s overall message while disagreeing with some of the details. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245/180 "2006-08-04T22:00:15Z")
[QUOTE=wm–] Not so baffling. Without getting into the “cafeteria Catholic” issue, it’s entirely possible to agree with the Church/Pope’s overall message while disagreeing with some of the details. [/QUOTE] I agree. It’s just not OK with the pope. And he’s the one calling the shots. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-abortion-debate/367245.md?page=10)