# can a moral person support abortion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2001, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747 "2001-10-06T05:05:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/81 "2001-10-07T18:59:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by atypicalcarl \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by atypicalcarl \* > > > \*\ ***JThunder** , my point was that no one considers a very early spontaneous abortion to be the loss of a human life - regardless of its potential. \*\* > > > > First of all, that’s not true. There are many people who DO consider these to be the loss of a human life. The loss was not deliberately induced, but it is a loss nonetheless.\*\* > > I didn’t mean to imply that no one felt a sense of loss or disappointment. \*\* I said nothing about “feeling” a loss. Rather I was addressing your question of whether people COSNIDER it to be a loss – and many people do. Read up on women mourning their miscarriages, for example. I happen to know several such women. > [@](#): > > **I maintain that we don’t treat it as a death, from a morality standpoint.** First of all, many people DO treat it as death. Not everyone, but many people do. And second, there’s a good reason why we don’t just miscarriages “from a morality standpoint.” Miscarriages are NOT deliberately induced, whereas abortions are. > [@](#): > > \*\*If we did, we wouldn’t dump the cells in the trash. There is a developmental point at which we _would_ treat it as a death (buy a coffin, etc.) \*\* First of all, the body is often too small to be distinctly isolated, so that question becomes moot. Second, I distinctly recall reading about women who DID bury their miscarried babies. And third, just because we don’t dispose of the bodies in the same way doesn’t make it a real death. You’re confusing what _is_ with what _should be._ > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*Hence, even if your objection were valid, it would by no means justify abortion in general. \*\* > > It is not my intent to “justify” abortion in general. I intended to point out moral ambiguities that are common to both sides of the issue.\*\* Once again, let me quote your exact words. > [@](#): > > Does anyone honestly consider a collection of cells “a human life?” I can’t imagine even the staunchest pro-lifer getting her period a few days late and crying over the “dead baby.” > > Would you give the pad a proper burial? We all have a point at which we define what is or isn’t a baby. It’s obvious that the morality issue isn’t about killing babies; it’s about unnaturally terminating a pregnancy. Do I consider a medical procedure that removes the possibility of a human life immoral? No. Are vasectomies immoral? Condoms? Perhaps it would help if the OP replaced the word “immoral” with the word “sin.” Your message said nothing about “both sides of the issue.” It also discussed _early_ miscarriages, andfrom this drew conclusions about terminating pregnancies _in general._ Maybe your intent was not to justify abortion in general, and maybe not. Either way, the same fallacy applies. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/82 "2001-10-07T19:03:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > SHOULD we treat acts of rape as morally acceptable (in at least some situations) or as absolutely wrong? I can not imagine ANY situation in which, say, child rape by a mentally competent individual can be morally justified. > > I can. Pretend children are not people and have no rights. Voila! You can do whatever you want to them. \*\* Emphasis on the word “pretend.” In other words, that scenario has no basis in reality. Children are people, and they do have rights. Ergo, this line of reasoning can not be used to justify child rape. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/83 "2001-10-07T19:14:27Z")
About whether people treat miscarriage as a death… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by atypicalcarl \* > \*\*If we did, we wouldn’t dump the cells in the trash. There is a developmental point at which we _would_ treat it as a death (buy a coffin, etc.) > \*\* As I already explained, many people DO treat miscarriage as a death. In fact, I know two women who went into serious depressions this year due to their miscarriages. Still not convinced? Then I recommend that you look up the following books: _Silent Grief: Miscarriage – Finding Your Way Through the Darkness_, _Forever Silent, Forever Changed: The Loss of a Baby in Miscarriage, Stillbirth, Early Infancy. A Mother’s Experience and Your Personal Journal_, _Miscarriage: Women Sharing from the Heart_, \* A Silent Sorrow: Pregnancy Loss - Guidance and Support for You and Your Family\*, _Unspeakable Losses : Healing from Miscarriage, Abortion and Other Pregnancy Loss_ and much more. These are all available from [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). ---
**Author:** ![Theobroma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@Theobroma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Theobroma)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/84 "2001-10-07T19:15:47Z")
OK, Justin. You said: “you said that every family should decide when its ok to kill (terminate,abort,cleans,…)” No, I never said any such thing, so don’t put words in my mouth. You imply clearly that you KNOW that life begins at conception. I don’t see it that way, and it is not a fact that is agreed upon by every American, or abortion would indeed be considered horrifying by all. I did not say it is okay to kill if the family decides it’s okay to kill. Do you imagine I think it’s okay to kill an annoying nephew if everyone agrees to it? :rolleyes: The people who disagree with you are not suggesting that murder is cool. Murder is the taking of a human life. Now, define “human life” as it relates to a blastocyte. You consider that life? Fine, then you consider using the pill to be abortion and therefore murder. I don’t consider that to be human life yet, and so it is not murder. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/85 "2001-10-07T19:21:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > > \*\*JThunder: you insist on arguing that when a lump of cells becomes a human being is a medical issue. Yes, I am aware that there are Christian MD’s out there who will agree with you and try to support it with some medical evidence… but it is not a medical issue; it is a moral one. \*\* > > Why can’t it be both? The end of life is both a medical question and a moral issue. To say that it must be one or the other is a patently false distinction.\*\* I should also emphasize that medical textbooks DO make claims on when life begins. Consider the following excerpt from [http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter11.html](http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter11.html) (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the “Human Life Bill.” Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158: > > “_Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is **overwhelming agreement** on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings_.” > > - Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 > > On pages 7-9, the report lists a “limited sample” of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. > > Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several outstanding authorities who testified personally: > > [li]Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome: “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”[/li][li]Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Beginning of human life? — “at conception.”[/li][li]Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “It is an established fact that human life begins at conception.”[/li][li]Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.”[/li] ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/86 "2001-10-07T19:26:30Z")
O.K. JT, would you _recommend_ to people that they watch a graphic video giving all the vivid details of a major operation before they submit to one? Do you think that this might dissuade some from getting the medical help they need, or do you think this would “help” them make an informed decision? ---
**Author:** ![Limerick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Limerick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Limerick)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/87 "2001-10-07T19:30:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > Only if she were FORCING them to watch the videos – which she isn’t. That’s why I find it odd that someone would object to giving women this OPTION. It is certainly an odd stance for an alleged “pro-choicer” to take, especially someone who claims to be a developmental biologist. JThunder, I am certainly not saying that women should not be _allowed_ to see videos. Give me a break. However, I _do_ question why they are feeling the need to go to this woman for this service, as opposed to their own doctor. To me, that implies that she’s actively going out of her way to approach these women, so you’re protestations that she’s just sitting there providing a service that women would not recieve if not for her just makes me roll my eyes. Also, I am not an “alleged pro-choicer” nor do I “claim” to be a developmental biologist. These things are facts. Intentionally being a pain in the ass does not strengthen your argument. > [@](#): > > If she were actively engaging in deception, you would have a case there – but she isn’t. She’s showing them LIVE, high-resolution ultrasound footage of what their babies really look like – thereby proving that they’re not just “lumps of tissue” or “a collection of cells.” I was referring to the women who had already had abortions. Therefore, she can’t be showing them “LIVE” footage of their fetus, now can she? And you missed my point. > [@](#): > > Besides, can any intelligent person honestly look at [http://www.unborn.com/window/womb3.htm](http://www.unborn.com/window/womb3.htm) and confuse it for a “sheep fetus”? Not a chance. You’re kidding, right? Why not? Because the website claims that the fetus is “waving hello” and everybody knows that sheep don’t wave? > [@](#): > > I find it extremely odd that pro-choicers can get so agitated over showing women ACTUAL pictures of the unborn, yet they don’t voice the same objections whenever someone falsely claims that the unborn is just a wad of unwanted tissue. Absolutely incredible. You find it odd that I object to this woman seeking out women who are still trying to recover emotionally from a difficult time in their lives, then broadsiding them with video footage that can’t do anything but inflict more damage, since the abortion has already occurred? Really? And I didn’t feel any need to object when posters on this board referred to the embryo as a mass of tissue, since I am a reasonable person and I realized that since they said this when arguing against the idea that an embryo is a person \*from the moment of conception \*, they were talking about the embryo at the time soon after conception, at which point the embryo is, in fact, just a mass of tissue. Extremely primitive tissue at that. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/88 "2001-10-07T19:36:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gomez \* > [B > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by edwino_ > > Also, bearing a fetus to term is always more medically risky than abortion. Even normal vaginal delivery or Caesarean section is more risky than abortion. > > Well frankly that depends on whose position you are considering it from. It’s certainly a lot _less_ risky for a gestating fetus. \*\* Besides which, the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth is patently false, as David Reardon discussed at [http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionMoreDangerous.htm](http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionMoreDangerous.htm) and [http://nichole.simonweb.com/~afterabortion/News/abortiondeaths.html](http://nichole.simonweb.com/~afterabortion/News/abortiondeaths.html) . Moreover, even if this claim were true, it would not constitute a valid argument for abortion. Dr. Francis Beckwith expounds on this at [http://home.earthlink.net/~rexneffect/articles/abortion.htm](http://home.earthlink.net/~rexneffect/articles/abortion.htm) and in his classic text, _Politically Correct Death_ (available from [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com)). ---
**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:** [October 7, 2001, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/89 "2001-10-07T19:37:44Z")
JThunder: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by AHunter3 > > > [@](#): > > > > But as a PRINCIPLE, I do not see the “right to life” as outweighing all other rights, > > That’s a curious position to take. After all, the right to life is THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL right we have. > Someone who is deprived of life can not vote, can not engage in free speech, can not bear arms, and can not pursue liberty or happiness. Life is an essential prerequisite to ALL other rights, and so it must automatically take precedence. That’s a rather silly position to take. If I lower your body temperature substantially, your body will age only very very slowly. You’ll probably last for centuries. Of course you won’t be conscious, but you’ll LIVE. Therefore I’m going to do this to you. In doing so, I may be depriving you of your free will, as it may not be what you want, but your right to LIFE outweighs your right to be free from coercion, so… ::opens freezer door:: Seriously, are you opposed to volitional euthanasia for people with chronic diseases who are in severe pain? And would you deny me the option of killing you in self-defense if you were only intending to rape me and gouge out my eyes and slice off my feet and leave me living when you were done with me? beagledave: > [@](#): > > So, by “separate”, do you mean that you have no problem with abortion up until the umbilical cord is cut? Sounds good to me. A ceremony at the hospital where the mother cuts a symbolic umbilical cord, and thereby pronounced the baby to be a live birth, after a chance to inspect fingers and toes and look at lab reports and so forth. And if she doesn’t, it ain’t. Her call. Legal civil life begins when the mom says so. I’d go with that as a reasonable policy, but I don’t think it will fly in our society. Most people have a real problem with the idea that women should be authorized to make life or death decisions with regards to their pregnancy, therefore the euphemisms and double-talk about “it isn’t alive” or “it isn’t a person” or “it isn’t human yet”, and “it isn’t killing”. All in all, I think _Roe v. Wade_ is a reasonable compromise between people who think as I do and those who wish to deny women access to abortion. _Roe_ restricts unchallenged abortion access to the first trimester, allows abortion during the second trimester for compelling reasons, and allows abortion during the final trimester only to save the life or health of the mother. Fair enough. (As long as abortion services are available and affordable everywhere, that is). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/90 "2001-10-07T19:59:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Limerick \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > > > Only if she were FORCING them to watch the videos – which she isn’t. That’s why I find it odd that someone would object to giving women this OPTION. It is certainly an odd stance for an alleged “pro-choicer” to take, especially someone who claims to be a developmental biologist. > > JThunder, I am certainly not saying that women should not be _allowed_ to see videos. Give me a break. \*\* No, but you’re saying that it’s morally objectionable to show them these videos, which is pretty much the same thing. > [@](#): > > \*\*However, I _do_ question why they are feeling the need to go to this woman for this service, as opposed to their own doctor. \*\* Because she does it for free. Besides which, these women may not have a regular physician, and the abortionist certainly won’t show her the video! > [@](#): > > **To me, that implies that she’s actively going out of her way to approach these women, so you’re protestations that she’s just sitting there providing a service that women would not recieve if not for her just makes me roll my eyes.** Now you’re twisting my words. I never said that she wasn’t _actively_ approaching these women. Quite the contrary. I said that she _invited_ them to view their unborn charges on video. > [@](#): > > **Also, I am not an “alleged pro-choicer” nor do I “claim” to be a developmental biologist. These things are facts. Intentionally being a pain in the ass does not strengthen your argument.** My point is that there’s an inconsistency in claiming to be pro-choice, but objecting to the presentation of this pre-natal information. As for stating that you “claim” to be a developmental biologist, this is not the same as stating that your claim is a false one. I’m perfectly willing to believe that you are, but that makes your objection to the ultrasound footage all the more incongruous. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > If she were actively engaging in deception, you would have a case there – but she isn’t. She’s showing them LIVE, high-resolution ultrasound footage of what their babies really look like – thereby proving that they’re not just “lumps of tissue” or “a collection of cells.” > > I was referring to the women who had already had abortions. Therefore, she can’t be showing them “LIVE” footage of their fetus, now can she? \*\* If post-abortal women want to view the footage, that’s their right. That’s their (ahem) choice, and it would allow them to make more fully informed choices in the future. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Besides, can any intelligent person honestly look at [http://www.unborn.com/window/womb3.htm](http://www.unborn.com/window/womb3.htm) and confuse it for a “sheep fetus”? Not a chance. > > You’re kidding, right? Why not? Because the website claims that the fetus is “waving hello” and everybody knows that sheep don’t wave?\*\* No, it’s because the footage clearly bears far more resemblance to a human being than to a sheep. In fact, many of the images depict distinct fingers and toes, which a sheep does not. Ergo, no rational human being would confuse these images with those of an unborn sheep. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I find it extremely odd that pro-choicers can get so agitated over showing women ACTUAL pictures of the unborn, yet they don’t voice the same objections whenever someone falsely claims that the unborn is just a wad of unwanted tissue. Absolutely incredible. > > You find it odd that I object to this woman seeking out women who are still trying to recover emotionally from a difficult time in their lives, then broadsiding them with video footage that can’t do anything but inflict more damage, since the abortion has already occurred? Really?\*\* If she were simplly blindsiding them, you might have a case… but she isn’t. She warns women of what they are about to see, and only proceeds with their permission. Moreover, while this footage can not undo their previous abortions, it can help them make **future** decisions in a more fully informed manner – something which pro-choice apologists obviously object to. > [@](#): > > **And I didn’t feel any need to object when posters on this board referred to the embryo as a mass of tissue, since I am a reasonable person and I realized that since they said this when arguing against the idea that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception , they were talking about the embryo at the time soon after conception, at which point the embryo is, in fact, just a mass of tissue. Extremely primitive tissue at that.** First of all, I wasn’t talking simply about posters in THIS thread. I was talking about pro-choice defense in general. On the _Great Debates_ forum alone, pro-choicers have habitually claimed that abortion is justified because it only removes “a lump of tissue.” Moreover, as I said earlier, the vast majority of abortions occur long after conception. Hence, if says that they’re only talking about extremely early abortions, that actually undermines the pro-choice argument. And second, I already posted numerous reasons why the embryo is more than “just a mass of tissue.” Granted, it’s at a primitive stage in its development, but it is far more than that. It already has organs, for example, such as a beating heart, a rudimentary brain – and soon after that, a liver. It even has a circulatory system, for example. I know you say you’re a developmental biologist, and I’m sure that you’re a pretty darned good one, but in this case, your claim is demonstrably wrong. One might argue about whether the embryo is truly human at that point, and that would make for some interesting conversation. However, the point remains: It is more than just “tissue.” ---
**Author:** ![atypicalcarl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@atypicalcarl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atypicalcarl)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/91 "2001-10-07T20:10:58Z")
**JThunder** , the OP asked if a moral person could support abortion. The answer is yes. This is because abortion isn’t an absolutely immoral act. Would you argue that an anencephalic pregnancy should be carried to term? Regardless of how you answer, realize that many would think your answer immoral. In my opinion, if you can’t tell the person from the mucus, it’s not a person. You could argue ad nauseam that it would eventually resemble a person, but removal of the potential for it to become a person isn’t immoral. Removal of the _certainty_ of it becoming a person is still not immoral, in my moral framework - because we aren’t killing a person. To me, preventing a person from forming and killing a person are completely different things. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/92 "2001-10-07T20:29:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > > > \*\*JThunder: you insist on arguing that when a lump of cells becomes a human being is a medical issue. Yes, I am aware that there are Christian MD’s out there who will agree with you and try to support it with some medical evidence… but it is not a medical issue; it is a moral one. \*\* > > > > Why can’t it be both? The end of life is both a medical question and a moral issue. To say that it must be one or the other is a patently false distinction.\*\* > > I should also emphasize that medical textbooks DO make claims on when life begins. Consider the following excerpt from [http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter11.html](http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter11.html) (emphasis mine): > > > [@](#): > > > > In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the “Human Life Bill.” Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158: > > > > “_Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is **overwhelming agreement** on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings_.” > > > > - Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 > > > > On pages 7-9, the report lists a “limited sample” of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. > > > > Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several outstanding authorities who testified personally: > > > > [li]Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome: “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”[/li][li]Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Beginning of human life? — “at conception.”[/li][li]Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “It is an established fact that human life begins at conception.”[/li][li]Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.”[/li] > > \*\* Those are all Catholic doctors/professors. As I said in my initial response to you, I realize there are Christian MD’s out there who say life begins at conception. That is a religious opinion (i.e. a matter of faith) disguised as a medical opinion due to an appeal to authority. [Catholic.net](http://Catholic.net) - give me a break. They don’t have quotes from the non-catholic, non-pro-life doctors who blatantly disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Limerick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Limerick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Limerick)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/93 "2001-10-07T20:40:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > And second, I already posted numerous reasons why the embryo is more than “just a mass of tissue.” Granted, it’s at a primitive stage in its development, but it is far more than that. It already has organs, for example, such as a beating heart, a rudimentary brain – and soon after that, a liver. It even has a circulatory system, for example. I know you say you’re a developmental biologist, and I’m sure that you’re a pretty darned good one, but in this case, your claim is demonstrably wrong. > > One might argue about whether the embryo is truly human at that point, and that would make for some interesting conversation. However, the point remains: It is more than just “tissue.” \*\* Ok, I don’t have the time or inclination to argue with you any more, although I disagree with most of what you say in the post. However, I _have_ to disagree with the above in spite of my lack of time and inclination. Yes, at some point, the embryo has the organs you mention. But not for a while. The embryo doesn’t implant into the uterus for weeks after conception. Then, once implantation occurs, gastrulation starts (the formation of the basic germ layers). Then, a very rudiumentary spinal column starts to form… This all takes time. You are talking about one point in time of gestation. I’m talking about another. Therefore, my claim is not remotely wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_The\_Bold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@Dale\_The\_Bold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_The_Bold)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/94 "2001-10-07T21:20:25Z")
As has been covered, it all depends on one’s definition of when life begins. Some say conception, some even say before conception, others say at birth, etc. I personally think it starts when the brain develops. Let’s take this for a sci-fi ride… Imagine a future of cloning. You are sixty years old and sign up for a cloning project. Your DNA is grown in a lab and a new human begins to form. At an early stage in development, the development of a brain is inhibited. The body continues to develop and grows into a healthy human. The result is a body that ixs nothing more than the sum of its parts. You could either part it out, or transplant your old geezer 80 year old brain into your 20 year old body and make it human, or _more_ than the sum of its parts. That’s when that life “begins.” If someone extinguished that body before you inhabited it, it would merely be destruction of property. [new thought] If you think any kind of abortion is murder, then yes, supporting abortion would be immoral, it would make you an accessory to murder by your own definition. I doubt anyone says that its okay to \*kill in order to save a woman from going through childbirth. But IMHO, I do think that people who support abortion later in development are trying to look for justification, and I guess all we can do is try to forgive them, for they know not what they do. [yet another new thought] Except in case of rape, a woman gets pregnant by her own actions. Only for medical/health reasons could someone require an abortion. If a woman gets pregnant, she has made that decision already. To have an abortion later is to back out of a decision she already made, that decision to have sexual intercourse. Yes, sometimes a condom breaks, but that’s why sex is a calculated risk. If you can’t live with the possiblity of getting pregnant, you should’nt be playing house. It’s part of the responsibility. Every time you go for a drive, you are taking the chance that you may get into an accident, so you are taking that chance. If you don’t want to get pregnant, then don’t create the possiblity. If you reduce the possibility and feel its worth the risk, then go for it, but don’t back down if you got the short end of the odds. [disclaimer] These are my opinions deriving from the moral code that was formed in my fetal mind during development (or later). If you disagree with them, please politely ask for clarification or further explanation. I should know better than to throw my thoughts into the lion cage of dopers, but I’m taking that calculated risk. I am hoping that there is enough maturity left to acknowledge and politely disagree with me. We are fighting ignorance so, if I’m being ignorant please enlighten me, but you won’t succeed by being an ass, thank you. \*that is if they define a fetus as a life and an abortion as “killing.” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/95 "2001-10-07T21:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Limerick \* > \*\*Ok, I don’t have the time or inclination to argue with you any more, although I disagree with most of what you say in the post. However, I _have_ to disagree with the above in spite of my lack of time and inclination. Yes, at some point, the embryo has the organs you mention. But not for a while. The embryo doesn’t implant into the uterus for weeks after conception. Then, once implantation occurs, gastrulation starts (the formation of the basic germ layers). Then, a very rudiumentary spinal column starts to form… This all takes time. You are talking about one point in time of gestation. I’m talking about another. Therefore, my claim is not remotely wrong. \*\* Your statement was that “the embryo” was just a lump of tissue. There was no qualifying statement regarding time frames. Moreover, while it DOES take time for the organs to develop, this still happens very early on. Implantation typically occurs within about a week of conception. The unborn’s heart is usually beating by the 21st day – long, LONG before the mother is likely to know that she’s pregnant. Of course, this implies that the heart itself is being formed even sooner than that, and that the unborn **already** has a functioning (albeit rudimentary) nervous system. So even if we grant that there’s a phase in which the embryo is “just tissue,” it doesn’t last very long, and it ends long before the woman would even discover that she’s pregnant. That’s why it is intellectually dishonest to say that abortion merely removes a lump of tissue. It doesn’t. Not even close. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/96 "2001-10-07T21:43:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > **Those are all Catholic doctors/professors.** Not true. They were quoted on a Catholic web page, but that does not make them Catholic themselves. Besides which, these scientists weren’t talking directly to a Catholic audience. Rather, they provided their testimonies to **the United States Senate**. They were asked to provide expert testimony in their capacity as scientific authorities. Moreover, even if they were all Catholic, that would not mean that their statements are automatically “matters of faith.” Also, the Senate report specifically cited thirteen **medical textbooks** , testifying that human life begins at conception. Not religious opinions, mind you. **Medical textbooks!** > [@](#): > > \*\*[Catholic.net](http://Catholic.net) - give me a break. They don’t have quotes from the non-catholic, non-pro-life doctors who blatantly disagree. \*\* Once again, they were simply quoting **a U.S. Senate report** – a decidedly secular source. There is absolutely zero indication that the scientists and physicians were Catholic, or that their claims were rooted in any sort of theology. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/97 "2001-10-07T21:49:18Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* \*\*JThunder: > [@](#): > > : > > > [@](#): > > > > So, by “separate”, do you mean that you have no problem with abortion up until the umbilical cord is cut? > > Sounds good to me. A ceremony at the hospital where the mother cuts a symbolic umbilical cord, and thereby pronounced the baby to be a live birth, after a chance to inspect fingers and toes and look at lab reports and so forth. And if she doesn’t, it ain’t. Her call. Legal civil life begins when the mom says so. > \*\* Hmm… that last sentence doesn’t exactly fit with my read of Roe v Wade…It seems that most pro choice folks continually remind us that Roe v Wade is the law of the land…and yet here is a pro choice position that says screw Roe v Wade. Or is infanticide a permissable right of the birth mother as well? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/98 "2001-10-07T22:24:54Z")
I note, however, that S-158, the “Human Life Bill” was **not** successfully voted into Law. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2001, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/99 "2001-10-07T22:56:17Z")
beagledave: > [@](#): > > Hmm… that last sentence doesn’t exactly fit with my read of Roe v Wade…It seems that most pro choice folks continually remind us that Roe v Wade is the law of the land…and yet here is a pro choice position that says screw Roe v Wade. Or is infanticide a permissable right of the birth mother as well? If you’d read the entire post before you hit the “reply” button, you would note that I view Roe v Wade as a reasonable compromise between my position and that of people who don’t believe abortion should be available to women at all. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747/100 "2001-10-07T23:04:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*beagledave: > > > [@](#): > > > > Hmm… that last sentence doesn’t exactly fit with my read of Roe v Wade…It seems that most pro choice folks continually remind us that Roe v Wade is the law of the land…and yet here is a pro choice position that says screw Roe v Wade. Or is infanticide a permissable right of the birth mother as well? > > If you’d read the entire post before you hit the “reply” button, you would note that I view Roe v Wade as a reasonable compromise between my position and that of people who don’t believe abortion should be available to women at all. \*\* I DID read the entire post. Unless I’m mistaken, you would prefer that the birth mother have a right to infanticide… but will “settle” for RvW [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-moral-person-support-abortion/85747.md?page=6)