# Ban abortions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145 "2003-03-30T02:49:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**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:** [April 12, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/481 "2003-04-12T00:47:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > A fetus, if unmolested, will gain sentience. A 13 year-old, if unmolested, will eventually get the right to vote, but that doesn’t mean we should extend the vote to 13 year-olds. > [@](#): > > What does “previously established identity of personhood” mean, exactly? Wait, don’t tell me. This is now one of my favorite phrases, and I don’t want you to ruin its mystery. I realize you’ve given up trying to debate and have resorted to sniping, but at least make it _good_ sniping. Show some effort, willya? ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/482 "2003-04-12T01:13:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by candida \* > \*\*I like my children. > > I like my children so much that I think they should have control over their own bodies and that means they should have _choice_, just as I’ve had and will continue to have. \*\* Hey, that’s great…I hope they’ll appreciate and “like” you for letting them live instead of being aborted.😕 When you preach choice to them and you get pregnant, I wonder if they are going to understand your rights WRT their brother/sister either living or dying and whether they will continue to “like” you. After all, it’s your/their choice, huh?😕 Maybe they’ll understand, [maybe not…](http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/abort01.htm) [Or worse yet…](http://childpredators.com/) ---
**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:** [April 12, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/483 "2003-04-12T01:42:37Z")
Some hypotheticals for the anti-abortion advocates: 1. Woman’s husband sabotages her form of birth control, substituting sugar pills for her orthotricyclen. She becomes pregnant. Should she have the right to abort? 2. Woman is terminally ill. Pregnancy will not kill her, but it will probably hasten her demise. She is two months pregnant with an expected three months to live. Should she have the right to abort? 3. Woman discovers her husband is a bigamist with an entire family in another state. She is newly pregnant. Should she have the right to abort? 4. Woman is a carrier of a genetic abnormality, as is her spouse. A child would have an extremely high chance of inheriting the abnormality, which will result in death shortly after birth. Should she have the right to abort? 5. Woman has no money, no insurance, and no access to financial aid. Should she have the right to abort? 6. Woman is sole breadwinner for family. She has had two previous pregnancies, both of which required her to have months of bed-rest. Bed-rest will leave her and her family without an income. Should she have the right to abort? 7. Retarded woman is talked into sex by social worker. She becomes pregnant. Should she have the right to abort? 8. Eleven year old played doctor a little too intensely with neighbor boy. Pregnancy is probably not life-threatening, though it could have serious physical complications because of her age and lack of physical maturity. Should she have the right to abort? 9. Woman’s husband dies days before she discovers she is pregnant. She is unemployed and devastated by her husband’s death. Should she have the right to abort? 10. Woman is artificially inseminated with wrong sperm. Should she have the right to abort? Julie ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/484 "2003-04-12T07:10:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > \*\*Some hypotheticals for the anti-abortion advocates: > Julie \*\* I don’t think there are any true anti-abortionists here on this thread to answer your questions. I allow abortions when a woman’s life is in danger, so I do not fit the definition of an “anti-abortionist” that would be duped into negotiating your little minefield of questions. I’m rethinking the abortions in cases of rape…I’ll get back to you (maybe) when I have concluded my thoughts and reading on the matter… No if you’ll excuse me, I have to go get some sugar pills since I’m a husband who wants to trick his wife into pregnancy #9:rolleyes:…I’m such a devil! Then I have to visit wifey number two this weekend because I’m such an idiotic and perverse man who is full of deceit and loves the idea of enslaving numerous women to pump out my babies! Muwwaahahahahahaha!!!:rolleyes: ---
**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:** [April 12, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/485 "2003-04-12T11:51:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*A 13 year-old, if unmolested, will eventually get the right to vote, but that doesn’t mean we should extend the vote to 13 year-olds. \*\*Blalron responded to my question regarding the a comatose patient by saying that at least one of the reasons said patient has rights is because he will at some point obtain sentience / consciousness / awareness / whatever you want to call it. I responded by pointing out that a fetus shares this particular attribute, implying to anyone who can actually debate that this particular point doesn’t make for a terribly strong abortion argument. You then helpfully point out that 13-year-olds don’t have the right to vote, a circumstance that is not at all analogous to the specific issue under discussion. Again, though, it was very informative; I had forgotten that law. Who knows what calamity could have occurred if you hadn’t reminded us all? Anyway, do you ever actually respond to something within context, addressing the specific point raised instead of one you’d rather discuss? I’m just wondering. I don’t want you to stop what you’re doing, mind you. Your non sequiturs dressed up as logic make for an amusing time for all. > [@](#): > > \*\*I realize you’ve given up trying to debate and have resorted to sniping, but at least make it _good_ sniping. > > Show some effort, willya? \*\* 'Cause how I’d hate to disappoint you, the patron saint of pointless grandstanding, who simultaneously addresses my point of debate whilst bitching about the fact that I’m no longer debating, _all in response to the same post_. Right. Gotcha. That makes perfect sense. That was a good one, even for you. I’m developing a certain reverence for the consistency of your non sequiturs, their unflagging dedication to creating the illusion of an argument while never actually crossing the line into real debate. There’s a Zen-like purity to them. Anyhow, I know this must be very trying for you, all this highfalutin’ debatin’ folderol. Don’t let it get to you. I’m rooting for ya, pal, and I’m fully confident that one day you’ll actually make a point, even if just by accident. (Hey, wait a minute, I think I said I was done responding to you a few day ago…oh well…I will close by chanting…_clears throat_…previously established identity of personhood, previously established identity of personhood, om mani padme hun, previously established identity of personhood…) ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/486 "2003-04-12T19:40:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Blalron responded to my question regarding the a comatose patient by saying that at least one of the reasons said patient has rights is because he will at some point obtain sentience / consciousness / awareness / whatever you want to call it. (1) The comatose patient is not wholly reliant upon somebody elses body for survival. (2) The comatose patient existed before as a separate, sentient person that people knew and loved. > [@](#): > > I responded by pointing out that a fetus shares this particular attribute, implying to anyone who can actually debate that this particular point doesn’t make for a terribly strong abortion argument. A fetus before the point of viability will not obtain sentience without draining the physical resources of another human. Just as I could not force you to give me your blood even if I needed your blood to survive, you can’t force a woman to give her physical resources to contribute towards the survival of a fetus. If she wants to withdraw her aid at any time, that is her right. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/487 "2003-04-12T19:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*A fetus before the point of viability will not obtain sentience without draining the physical resources of another human. > > Just as I could not force you to give me your blood even if I needed your blood to survive, you can’t force a woman to give her physical resources to contribute towards the survival of a fetus. > > If she wants to withdraw her aid at any time, that is her right. \*\* OK, that clarifies your position. It’s just a different argument than the one you advanced previously. So can I take it that a fetus’s size and _current_ state of sentience/non-setience are NOT relevant in discussions of the rights of the unborn, as far as you’re concerned? IOW, if a fetus could exist outside a mother’s womb, would it be murder to kill him? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/488 "2003-04-12T20:07:37Z")
> [@](#): > > IOW, if a fetus could exist outside a mother’s womb, would it be murder to kill him? I think I agree with Roe vs Wade where it says that the State has an interest in protecting the life of fetuses that are viable outside the womb. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/489 "2003-04-12T20:14:12Z")
People that are not known and loved have less of a right to life. OK. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/490 "2003-04-12T21:12:37Z")
> [@](#): > > People that are not known and loved have less of a right to life. OK. Its just one of the various factors that come into play that add up to the womans control over her body exceeding the rights of the fetus. I never claimed that this is a reason that would stand up all by itself. ---
**Author:** ![occ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8c91f0/32.png) [@occ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/occ)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/491 "2003-04-12T21:45:12Z")
The bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is that banning abortion in the United States would not prevent those who desired one from getting one – assuming they had the financial means to do so. As some posters have noted, a woman who wanted an abortion could simply travel to Canada, or another country where abortions are available to have the procedure done. Those without financial means, and thus arguably less able to raise the yet-to-be-born child, would be unable to afford the costs of this trip, and thus be forced to bear the child. How is this at all beneficial, or even rational? Assuming the entire world doesn’t ban abortion (and really, this isn’t much of an assumption), this will only place more of a burden on those who are least capable of dealing with it. Passing such a law in the US (or, I suppose, overturning a court decision, as the case may be), would serve no purpose other than to make some of the citizenry feel better. Abortion is a difficult issue, and perhaps the classic situation where our morality and empathy collides with the realities of biology, life, and death. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/492 "2003-04-12T23:56:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > 'Cause how I’d hate to disappoint you, the patron saint of pointless grandstanding, who simultaneously addresses my point of debate whilst bitching about the fact that I’m no longer debating, _all in response to the same post_. Right. Gotcha. That makes perfect sense. That was a good one, even for you. I’m developing a certain reverence for the consistency of your non sequiturs, their unflagging dedication to creating the illusion of an argument while never actually crossing the line into real debate. There’s a Zen-like purity to them. The “you’re so great, dumb widdle me can’t possibly keep up with you” saracasm no more proves your point than deliberately pretending the other person is speaking gibberish. Is the phrase “previously established identity of personhood” really so incomprehensible to you? Were you educated in English? In any event, that previously established identity (whether or not the identity was known and loved, as Walloon is also playing pedantic in lieu of argument) is a rather obvious difference between a fetus and a comatose person. You do you position no service by pretending otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/493 "2003-04-13T00:30:51Z")
> [@](#): > > People that are not known and loved have less of a right to life. OK. Fetuses do not have “previously established identities of personhood”… they have NEVER had a sense of self in the past. A comotose patient has. Usually when you’ve been around for 20 or 30 years, you have friends and family that know who you are and love you. I suppose you can bring up the rare case of some jerk that doesn’t have a single person that cares about them, but even in those cases they at least knew themselves and had a sense of self awareness before they entered the comotose state. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/494 "2003-04-13T12:59:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*The “you’re so great, dumb widdle me can’t possibly keep up with you” saracasm no more proves your point than deliberately pretending the other person is speaking gibberish. > > Is the phrase “previously established identity of personhood” really so incomprehensible to you? \*\*No, it’s just funny. I never implied it couldn’t be associated with a sound argument, though I don’t believe this one can stand on its own. > [@](#): > > \*\*Were you educated in English? \*\*Bryan, it’s clear we’re becoming close, close friends, so I’m going to admit something to you. It’s a character flaw of mine that I can’t seem to overcome, but when someone tosses some sarcasm or flip remark my way, I respond in kind. That’s how it worked in my neighborhood. So if you don’t want flip remarks from me, please don’t ask me if I was educated in English, or comment on my “profound ignorance,” or make snide remarks about my “sniping,” or whatever. Don’t misunderstand me–of course you’re free to do so. But if that’s your practice, just don’t get all wounded when somebody bats it right back at ya. > [@](#): > > \*\*In any event, that previously established identity (whether or not the identity was known and loved, as Walloon is also playing pedantic in lieu of argument) is a rather obvious difference between a fetus and a comatose person. You do you position no service by pretending otherwise. \*\* Even if we concede it is an indisputable difference, that does not imply that this difference is meaningful in determining who has the right to live. Take an irreversibly brain-dead patient, for example. He has an established identity in the sense I believe you mean. Do you have any moral concerns regarding taking this person off of life support? I would posit that if you do NOT oppose taking this patient off of life support, then you cannot also hold that a previously established identity is a meaningful distinction in determining who has the right to live. Now, PLEASE, focus on this point in responding. ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/495 "2003-04-13T19:59:50Z")
Yeticus Rex Thank you for one of the best replies I’ve come across in an abortion thread, truly hilarious! Not only do you provide a Jewess with a link to some silly Christian preaching but you also went on to link to one of those amusing “pro-choice bite the heads off kittens” places.! That’ll work - or not! The point, Yeticus, is that I would hope that my children will make their decisions based on the same kind of ethical principles and with the same kind of familial support that I have enjoyed without the context of state-enforced Christian sentimentalism. I have never chosen to have an abortion, Yeticus, but I’m damned sure that that choice is entirely mine and not something that I’m going to have imposed on me by Catholics (of all people) and the reactionary Christian Right. If I found myself in some extraordinary situation where I did make that choice, nothing that you say, or do, would ever prevent me from doing what I chose to do. Sooooo … I’m sorry but, when you decide to link to “[glibcatholics.net](http://glibcatholics.net)” or "[whatafriendwehaveinjesus.com](http://whatafriendwehaveinjesus.com), please forget it, it’ll won’t work/impress me - believe me, I’m a Phil grad, I know these things, goes with the territory. ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/496 "2003-04-13T20:34:13Z")
Sorry for the “it’ll won’t work”; hey I’m migrating to my seriously overpowered new laptop \ and not really paying due attention \ ---
**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:** [April 13, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/497 "2003-04-13T20:36:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Yeticus Rex \* > \*\*I don’t think there are any true anti-abortionists here on this thread to answer your questions. I allow abortions when a woman’s life is in danger, so I do not fit the definition of an “anti-abortionist” that would be duped into negotiating your little minefield of questions. \*\* What could possibly be called a “minefield” about the scenarios I presented. None of these women’s lives are in danger. None of the women were raped. If those are the only possible exceptions, then you should have no problem. What you _would_ have a problem with is pointing out how all of these women are “irresponsible.” And since you’ve said that _that_ is your beef, I hoped you would explain how it applied to these hypothetical women. Julie ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/498 "2003-04-13T21:03:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Even if we concede it is an indisputable difference, that does not imply that this difference is meaningful in determining who has the right to live. Take an irreversibly brain-dead patient, for example. He has an established identity in the sense I believe you mean. Do you have any moral concerns regarding taking this person off of life support? I would posit that if you do NOT oppose taking this patient off of life support, then you cannot also hold that a previously established identity is a meaningful distinction in determining who has the right to live. Now, PLEASE, focus on this point in responding. I drafted a lengthy reply to this but unfortunately the hamsters decided to eat it. Yes, I can hold it as a distinction. Previously Established Identity Of Personhood will be abbreviated as PEIOP from here on. An irreversibly brain dead patient has no PEIOP that could possibly be preserved, keeping him on life support would further no purpose other than keeping a hollow shell of a body alive. A comotose patient this is not brain dead still has a PEIOP that can be preserved. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/499 "2003-04-13T21:33:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > It’s a character flaw of mine that I can’t seem to overcome, but when someone tosses some sarcasm or flip remark my way, I respond in kind. That’s how it worked in my neighborhood. So if you don’t want flip remarks from me, please don’t ask me if I was educated in English, or comment on my “profound ignorance,” or make snide remarks about my “sniping,” or whatever. Hey, I _love_ sarcasm, but it’s gotta be _good_ sarcasm; something that shows a bit of cleverness and not just knee-jerk nastiness. Anyway, some of my earlier questions (like how a ban is going to be enforced; how to distinguish women who can get abortions because they were raped from women who want abortions and _claim_ they were raped, etc.) remain unanswered. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145/500 "2003-04-13T21:53:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*State abortion laws, the ones that would go back into effect if _Roe v. Wade_ is overturned, target the abortion provider. State legislators are canny enough about what is politically feasible and what is not. \*\* I kept meaning to respond to this and kept forgetting. Do you regard this political awareness on the part of the legislators to be a good thing? Is it the provider who should be the target? If so, does the woman commit a “murder” then walk away? And, again, if so, doesn’t that point to a disconnect between the term “murder” and the reality of abortion? Julie [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-abortions/165145.md?page=26)