# Can some pro-lifer explain this idiocy to me, please? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933 "2001-01-26T22:58:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/81 "2001-01-29T18:49:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*I would guess that the ban on federally funded research using aborted fetal tissue is based on many of the same arguments that we use when we ban elephant ivory, tropical hardwoods, the products of slave labor, or research done at Auschwitz. \*\* Elephant poaching is illegal in the US. Killing endangered trees is illegal in the US. Slavery is illegal in the US. Genocide is illegal in the US. Abortion is legal in the US. > [@](#): > > \*\*Or for that matter, suppose some Mandarin peasant doesn’t believe that girl children are as valuable as boys. So he cuts his daughter’s throat, or sells her for use in kiddie porn snuff films. I may disagree with his belief that girls are disposable, but isn’t that an issue to be determined between the peasant and his doctor? Who am I to interfere with this very personal, private decision? And once she is dead, why not use her tissues for whatever needs looking into? Maybe we could save some lives! \*\* Infanticide is illegal in the US. Meanwhile, I agree. We SHOULD use her tissues for whatever needs looking into. The government agrees, and would fund this research, if her mother (who didn’t have anything to do with the murder) donated the body to science. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2001, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/82 "2001-01-29T20:07:35Z")
PunditLisa wrote: > [@](#): > > We don’t think dead babies should be put in the dumpster or cut up into pieces to be used for medical research. They aren’t trash. So if a woman delivers a stillborn baby, she should not be allowed to donate that baby’s organs to other babies who can use them? She should not allow an autopsy to be performed on the cadaver, with the purpose of looking into how such a stillbirth might be prevented in the future? ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/83 "2001-01-29T20:12:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Assuming that abortion IS murder: why can’t another family member (the father) who didn’t murder the child, and was AGAINST the abortion, donate the body to science? It happens all the time with real murder victims. Why not with fetal murder victims? No, it doesn’t happen all the time with murder victims. When someone is murdered the body becomes property of the state. An autopsy is done automatically to determine cause of death and to gather forensic evidence. Unless you consider this “donating their body to science.” As far as the father (or someone else) donating the body to science, that would be a slippery slope indeed. Either it’s a person or it’s a ball of tissue. Legally it can’t be both. If you call it a person, then killing it is infanticide. If you call it a ball of tissue, then it is treated the same as tonsils or gall stones – once removed they are considered the personal property of the spouse (not her spouse) to do with as she will. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2001, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/84 "2001-01-29T20:14:24Z")
Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they find some interesting information on treating hypothermia patients from the atrocities in the Holocaust? ---
**Author:** ![Blondie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Blondie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blondie)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/85 "2001-01-29T20:15:20Z")
Bush is cutting off his nose to spite his face. He knows that only good can come from fetal tissue study, yet he refuses to allow it because he is against a law that he cannot personally control – the legal right to abortion. It is the epitomy of STUPID. I think we’re in for a very long, trying four years here. Someone else mentioned that he must not want to run a 2nd term…I’d have to agree. He won’t have a chance. As far as fetal tissue study encouraging more abortions – I think there is plenty of tissue to be obtained simply from women who chose to go this route for reasons other than financial gain. I mean, how many abortions are performed every day? No one is getting rich from it at this point, and I don’t see a shortage of tissue here. ---
**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:** [January 29, 2001, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/86 "2001-01-29T20:18:40Z")
Lisa-you say that murder victims’s bodies are property of the state. HOWEVER…aborted fetuses are not considered murder victims by law, and are not the property of the state. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/87 "2001-01-29T21:05:18Z")
Just as long as the fetuses’ mothers/fathers don’t profit from the abortion, it is okay with me. I decide to donate my body to science when I die. I get murdered. Should my wishes be suspended because I died from an immoral act? I think not. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/88 "2001-01-29T21:13:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > **Elephant poaching is illegal in the US.** It is?? Shit, I guess I’d better cancel my Elephant Hunting trip to Kansas that I was gonna take next week. On a serious note, I keep seeing people in this thread ask: Well, they’re [aborted fetuses] already dead, so why not make the most out of a bad situation? This question leads to a false dichotomy, namely, either we burn their bodies, or we use their bodies for some good. This dichotomy is false because of the third option: we get rid of the dead bodies in the first place. If reducing “abortion-for-profit” is the first step in reducing the number of abortions, so be it. Do I think that aborted fetuses should just be burned as garbage? Do I think that aborted fetuses should be used for “some good”? Neither: I think that they should be allowed the same privilege to life that you enjoy. I can’t stomach these “Well, abortion is legal” arguments. Female Genital Mutilation is legal in many countries–so do you pro-choicers take an “Well, FGM is legal, so it’s the father’s choice to circumsize his daughter” stance? Legality does not mean that something should be allowed. I also cannot stomach these “Well, abortions happen anyways, so let’s make the most of a bad situation” arguments either. Again, FGM is gonna happen anyways, so let’s make the most of a bad situation. Let’s provide sterile surgical equipment to Muslim countries, so that these procedures can happen as safely as possible. BULLSHIT. The proper stance (IMO, of course 🙂 ) is–let’s do everything we can to _discourage_ FGM. If that means reducing our “Money to go to Muslim Countries for Surgical Tools” fund, then let’s do it. [I realize there’s no such fund… try to follow the analogy] You pro-choicers are going to have to help me to understand why we should try to profit from what’s generally agreed to be A Bad Thing (I mean the actual abortion, not necessarily the right to choose an abortion). Quix ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/89 "2001-01-29T22:34:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > \*\* > > > > HA HA HA HA!!! I guess I should have expected that. At least this time you didn’t say “I’ll get back to you with more info in a few days.” > > > > \*\* > > Marc… Do you have a point here? You ask for information the first time, I tell you I don’t know and I’ll go get it, and I produce it 30 minutes later. You don’t like the info I provide and ask for more, and I’m supposed to jump and go dig it up…why? Are you the poster boy for the digitally impaired? I’m not your personal librarian, go look it up for yourself. > > :rolleyes: > > \*\* If you’re going to argue for a particular position then you should at least have the information. You’re very good at not answering direct questions. If you’d simply said “I don’t know” that would have been ok. Instead you choose to answer a question that wasn’t asked. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Tzel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Tzel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzel)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/90 "2001-01-29T23:04:19Z")
It all seems very logical from a pro-life perspective. (which I don’t share, although I’m about as close to pro-life as a pro-choice guy can get, whatever that means) Say, somewhere down the line, there is an initiative to ban abortion, and it has a decent chance to succeed. The pro-lifers don’t want dissenting voices saying, “But we need fetuses for stem cell research! What are you, anti-science?” (Very doubtful, however, that that argument would be used, when there are more compelling arguments, but it would be one more angle, you know?) Also, there is the valid point that if a clinic is making money from fetal tissue, they have an incentive to promote abortions. I don’t think that this is reason enough to ban it, however. Tzel (who thinks abortion should be limited to the first trimester, or thereabouts. I am “not a fan” of partial birth abortions either, and in fact, I would very happily restrict a woman’s “right to choose” when it comes to that, feminist though I am.) As a side note, other posters have made the point that a dead person is a “blob of tissue” when their brain dies. Well, fetuses, at a certain point, also have working brains. Why not regard them as alive? ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/91 "2001-01-29T23:14:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > > **Elephant poaching is illegal in the US.** > > It is?? Shit, I guess I’d better cancel my Elephant Hunting trip to Kansas that I was gonna take next week.\*\* Yep, it is. Elephants are an endangered species. > [@](#): > > **On a serious note, I keep seeing people in this thread ask: Well, they’re [aborted fetuses] already dead, so why not make the most out of a bad situation? This question leads to a false dichotomy, namely, either we burn their bodies, or we use their bodies for some good. This dichotomy is false because of the third option: we get rid of the dead bodies in the first place. If reducing “abortion-for-profit” is the first step in reducing the number of abortions, so be it.** THEN REDUCE ABORTION FOR PROFIT!!! Make it illegal to PAY for aborted fetuses and fetus parts. Enforce existing laws. Do something about this problem. Don’t kill funding to make SOME good out of what you consider a bad situation. GET RID OF THE DEAD BODIES!!! Pass a Constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade. What’s that, you say? It wouldn’t pass because not enough people would support it? Hmm…odd. Don’t cut off funding for perfectly legal research. If you want to make the research illegal, go for it. You’ll fail miserably because of the overwhelming benefit that can come from it. But don’t make an end run around RvW and the courts with this executive order. It’s addressing the wrong problem. You want to end abortion, end abortion. Don’t make the abortions that DO happen, legally, a total waste. > [@](#): > > **Do I think that aborted fetuses should just be burned as garbage? Do I think that aborted fetuses should be used for “some good”? Neither: I think that they should be allowed the same privilege to life that you enjoy.** So you’re saying that IF fetuses are aborted, they should be thrown out and burned. Because you have NOT adressed the issue of “allowing the same privilege of life that” I enjoy. NOTHING to this end has been accomplished with this order, at all. You’re adressing the wrong issue entirely. All this order does is cause more babies to be tossed in the garbage. That’s ALL. > [@](#): > > **I can’t stomach these “Well, abortion is legal” arguments. Female Genital Mutilation is legal in many countries–so do you pro-choicers take an “Well, FGM is legal, so it’s the father’s choice to circumsize his daughter” stance? Legality does not mean that something should be allowed.** THEN MAKE IT ILLEGAL!!! As I’ve said, this order would do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions, all it would do is increse the number of children bounced off the proverbial backboard on the trashbarel of medical waste. That’s it. Not a single life saved. Just more potential research material wasted. > [@](#): > > **I also cannot stomach these “Well, abortions happen anyways, so let’s make the most of a bad situation” arguments either. Again, FGM is gonna happen anyways, so let’s make the most of a bad situation. Let’s provide sterile surgical equipment to Muslim countries, so that these procedures can happen as safely as possible. BULLSHIT. The proper stance (IMO, of course 🙂 ) is–let’s do everything we can to _discourage_ FGM. If that means reducing our “Money to go to Muslim Countries for Surgical Tools” fund, then let’s do it. [I realize there’s no such fund… try to follow the analogy]** Well, while campaigning to end FGM, if I were to come across a father who was going to perform the surgery on his daughter with a rusty razor blade, I would certainly do everything in my power to talk him out of it, save the girl, etc. But failing that, I most certainly WOULD provide the girl with adequate medical care to be sure that she recovered as well as possible. I wouldn’t say, well, I failed, so let’s let her suffer because I couldn’t have my way. > [@](#): > > **You pro-choicers are going to have to help me to understand why we should try to profit from what’s generally agreed to be A Bad Thing (I mean the actual abortion, not necessarily the right to choose an abortion).** Well, I don’t agree that it’s A Bad Thing. I consider it to be a rather Neutral Thing. I don’t encourage it, but I’m not particularly outraged by it either. As for your question raised here, simple. If I went to a casino, and lost $1000 in a night of gambling, I would probably be offered a free room or meal by the hotel. I wouldn’t be happy about losing the money, and the room is certainly worth much less than the $1000 that I’d lost. But, would I accept it? Sure. It’s better than nothing. And rather than banning the system of hotel comps, I’d instead campaign to end legalized gambling. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/92 "2001-01-30T04:33:10Z")
Stoid, don’t you dare say that the views of the other side of the argument are irrelevant. They as citizens would have to pay for the abortions in some states (such as mine), and until a few days ago have to pay for fetal research. If they regard fetal esearch as something even more horrible than Nazi experiments, the fact that they are paying for it alone is the reason that their views are to be honored, not disregarded. This intransegence on the part of both sides of the abortion debate is one of the main reasons for this huge impasse, and, frankly, it sickens me. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/93 "2001-01-30T06:53:32Z")
Flymaster, thank heaven you’re here! I don’t have the time to do this alone, particularly with folks like quixotic showing up. Excellent job! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Capacitor \* \*\* > Stoid, don’t you dare say that the views of the other side of the argument are irrelevant. \*\* Why? Cuz you don’t like me to? Because I haven’t heard (read) one argument that sticks. It’s all about “We hate abortion, so we don’t want any good to come of it” - well, I respect the fact that you feel the way you do about abortion, but I have no respect whatsoever for your willingness to hurt others in your pursuit of making others behave and believe as you want them to, and I think it undermines your position as “pro life” to do so. People who are truly pro life are for improving the lives of all humans, not just fetuses. And yes, it does hurt others. The policy is pure harm, no good at all. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Capacitor \* \*\* > They as citizens would have to pay for the abortions in some states (such as mine), and until a few days ago have to pay for fetal research. If they regard fetal esearch as something even more horrible than Nazi experiments, the fact that they are paying for it alone is the reason that their views are to be honored, not disregarded._\* This has been covered at least once, probably many times. By this reasoning, I’d like the Navy to stop doing the work it is doing in the oceans right now that is screwing up the hearing of killer whales throughout the world and in all likelihood causing their deaths. I don’t want to pay for it, and frankly, I think killing whales is evil and my feelings should be honored. I’m also against most wars, and a host of other things that no one cares that I’m against. If the government always took EVERYBODY’s feelings into account when making spending decisions, the government would never do ANYTHING at all, because there’s always someone somewhere who disagrees, and frankly I’m SICK TO DEATH of anti-abortionists thinking they are somehow special in this regard. And I’m REALLY sick of them being treated so! Meanwhile, back in the 21st Century, the rest of the world is looking at us like we’re exactly as nuts as this is, as our new government sets about hogtying the scientific community to pacify what are, in the main, religous zealots. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Capacitor \* \*\* > This intransegence on the part of both sides of the abortion debate is one of the main reasons for this huge impasse, and, frankly, it sickens me. > \*\* I’m glad to hear you see it on both sides. What intransigence are you sick of in the “pro-life” crowd? stoid ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/94 "2001-01-30T13:10:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, I don’t agree that (abortion) is A Bad Thing. Well, at least you’re honest. ---
**Author:** ![dewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@dewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dewt)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/95 "2001-01-30T13:51:48Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* \*\* > [@](#): > > You’ve heard of the notion of fruit of a poisonous tree, haven’t you? G.W. is using this premise. That is, there can be NO good from the deaths of these infants. > \*\* er… he’s not _ **using** _ this premise. He’s defining it. He wants to make damn sure that no good **does** come from the deaths of these infants. I’m with stoid. (hey, wasn’t that a t-shirt from the 70s) dewt ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/96 "2001-01-30T18:34:28Z")
Our previous President stated that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal - and rare”. Our current President is carrying that out. This ban on federal funding for research on fetal tissue will have no effect on the safety and legality of abortions. It is meant to remove what may turn out to be a motivation to have them performed. Not paying women who allow their aborted fetuses to be used in research will not eliminate the issue. There are lots of people (myself for instance) who donate blood for free. There are others who donate their plasma and other blood products for pay. There are also women who are willing to serve as surrogate mothers for others who cannot conceive on their own. I for one can see someone deciding to become pregnant in order to have an abortion and thus provide tissue, either for research or for some medical treatment, should one be discovered. (I realize Stoid does not wish me to make this argument. I would like, if possible, to hear her justifications for imposing limits on the debating positions of others. If you cannot think of a counter-argument to this one, ma’am, please say so. Otherwise, prove your position.) I am struggling mightily to stake out a moderate position on abortion. I am deluged with those who post that abortion is legal, and that the only possible limitations that can be imposed are an outright ban. Is there no common ground between those who regard abortion as morally wrong, and those who regard it as somewhat like blowing your nose? flymaster writes: > [@](#): > > Elephant poaching is illegal in the US. Killing endangered trees is illegal in the US. Slavery is illegal in the US. > Genocide is illegal in the US. > > ``` > Abortion is legal in the US. > > ``` Indeed. Before the law was passed, killing endangered trees was legal. In 1850, slavery was legal. Are you taking a snapshot of the current law in the US, and telling us that _nothing_ about it can possibly be changed? Is there a distinction to be made between that which is legal but undesirable, and that which is legal and good? Slavery was legal at one point. Were those who bought slaves and gave them their freedom wasting their time, because slavery was legal? I frankly do not accept the argument that states that we cannot do other than fund abortion research thru federal dollars, because if we allow exceptions for conscience, the government would not be able to do anything. I cannot find a reason why this same argument does not apply to conscientious objectors in war. The immediacy of the need for conscripts in wartime is clear. The immediacy of the need to compel _everyone_ to fund abortion escapes me. Pro-abortionists refer to themselves as ‘pro-choice’. Fine. Does this not also include the right of people to refuse to fund abortions? Otherwise, what is the choice? I personally would never support the Ku Klux Klan. But if the government taxes me to pay the dues of those who do, where is my choice? And what is the distinction between paying their dues, and giving them federal money to dissect the bodies of those they lynched? Stoid (and others) object to the intransigence of the anti-abortion movement. Well and good, if you disagree that a pre-viable fetus is a human being. But if it is, the logic of the anti-abortionists follows almost inescapably. The intransigence that I object to appears in the pro-abortion movement. They are not willing to accept any restriction, of any sort, at any time, for any reason, for anyone, and they insist that their right to say Yes must necessarily deny me my right to say No. You want to fund research using fetal tissue? Go right ahead - but get your hand out of the pocket of those who disagree. You think abortion is a keen idea? Great - but do not attempt to compel others to pay for it. Re-read the Tenth Amendment. Based on that, how do you think the federal government should proceed in funding research using fetal tissue? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/97 "2001-01-30T20:12:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Our previous President stated that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal - and rare”. > > Our current President is carrying that out. This ban on federal funding for research on fetal tissue will have no effect on the safety and legality of abortions. It is meant to remove what may turn out to be a motivation to have them performed. > > Not paying women who allow their aborted fetuses to be used in research will not eliminate the issue. There are lots of people (myself for instance) who donate blood for free. There are others who donate their plasma and other blood products for pay. There are also women who are willing to serve as surrogate mothers for others who cannot conceive on their own. I for one can see someone deciding to become pregnant in order to have an abortion and thus provide tissue, either for research or for some medical treatment, should one be discovered. (I realize Stoid does not wish me to make this argument. I would like, if possible, to hear her justifications for imposing limits on the debating positions of others. If you cannot think of a counter-argument to this one, ma’am, please say so. Otherwise, prove your position.) \*\* Bush’s order, however, does NOT make such research illegal. It removes no “motivation” to do this, as it’s still legal, and still will be done, although to a lesser extent. Instead, he’s saying, “Well, it’s legal, it’s reasonable medical research…I just don’t feel like having us pay for it, even though it could cure cancer.” > [@](#): > > **I am struggling mightily to stake out a moderate position on abortion. I am deluged with those who post that abortion is legal, and that the only possible limitations that can be imposed are an outright ban. Is there no common ground between those who regard abortion as morally wrong, and those who regard it as somewhat like blowing your nose?** Well, although this has little to do with the topic at hand, I was very much in support of the “partial birth abortion” bill that would have been signed into law with a “health of the mother” clause added to it. In fact, I would support any legislation to ban abortion after the 5th, and PERHAPS the 4th month, IF there were a loophole that allowed it to save the mother’s health. Of course, the republicans refused to add such a clause, as they felt that there was no situation in which a D&E procedure could be used to save the mother. For shame. > [@](#): > > \*\*Indeed. Before the law was passed, killing endangered trees was legal. In 1850, slavery was legal. Are you taking a snapshot of the current law in the US, and telling us that _nothing_ about it can possibly be changed? > > Is there a distinction to be made between that which is legal but undesirable, and that which is legal and good? Slavery was legal at one point. Were those who bought slaves and gave them their freedom wasting their time, because slavery was legal? \*\* Well, the people who do it currently in the Sudan are, and in fact, may be increasing demand for slaves. Back in the 1800s US, no, they certainly were not wasting their time. But how does this relate to the topic at hand? Reducing funding isn’t making abortion go away. In fact, it’s just taking away one of the only ways that something truly good can come from an elective abortion. > [@](#): > > **I frankly do not accept the argument that states that we cannot do other than fund abortion research thru federal dollars, because if we allow exceptions for conscience, the government would not be able to do anything. I cannot find a reason why this same argument does not apply to conscientious objectors in war. The immediacy of the need for conscripts in wartime is clear. The immediacy of the need to compel _everyone_ to fund abortion escapes me.** This isn’t part of the debate. Funding abortions is an entirely different thread. This is about funding RESEARCH into saving the lives of thousands or millions of people across the world. > [@](#): > > \*\*Pro-abortionists refer to themselves as ‘pro-choice’. Fine. Does this not also include the right of people to refuse to fund abortions? Otherwise, what is the choice? \*\* Again, this is for another thread entirely. The topic of this thread was fetal stem cell research, not “Rant about abortion in general.” > [@](#): > > \*\*I personally would never support the Ku Klux Klan. But if the government taxes me to pay the dues of those who do, where is my choice? And what is the distinction between paying their dues, and giving them federal money to dissect the bodies of those they lynched? \*\* Whoa. You see no difference between paying to let people into a massive hate/terror organization and paying for medical research on the bodies of murder victims? I hope that this was just emotions talking here, because the difference is QUITE obvious. Autopsies and such are pretty standard. Medical research happens a lot, too. Why should the way in which somebody died change whether or not the state should pay for their autopsy or research on their bodies? What’s next? No federal dollars for people who died on tuesday? > [@](#): > > **Stoid (and others) object to the intransigence of the anti-abortion movement. Well and good, if you disagree that a pre-viable fetus is a human being. But if it is, the logic of the anti-abortionists follows almost inescapably.** Umm…the logic of them outlawing abortion, certainly. But not the logic of them banning funding for research on abortions that already happened. Not funding it isn’t going to reduce the number of abortions in any way that is statistically valid. All it will do is increase the number of fetuses that are going to be tossed into the dumpster. If you wanted logical inescapability, try this: Pass, and enforce, laws that make it illegal for any research institution to pay for fetal tissue. > [@](#): > > \*\*The intransigence that I object to appears in the pro-abortion movement. They are not willing to accept any restriction, of any sort, at any time, for any reason, for anyone, and they insist that their right to say Yes must necessarily deny me my right to say No. \*\* Again, totally off topic, and not relevant to this debate. > [@](#): > > \*\*You want to fund research using fetal tissue? Go right ahead - but get your hand out of the pocket of those who disagree. You think abortion is a keen idea? Great - but do not attempt to compel others to pay for it. \*\* Fine. Then take my funding right out of anything that involves E. Coli, people named Frank, Vanessa, or Anne (with an E…people named Ann can keep their funding) and any research that does anything on Tuesdays in February, June, or October. That’s the logical conclusion of your argument. Anyone can personally stop all federal funding because they personally disagree with it. > [@](#): > > \*\*Re-read the Tenth Amendment. Based on that, how do you think the federal government should proceed in funding research using fetal tissue? \*\* In conjunction with the 16th, sure. Unless you feel funding should be stopped from the Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, public schools, and any number of other things. By the way, and this is an honest question…where does “Executive Order” appear in the constitution? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/98 "2001-01-30T20:41:59Z")
As with all abortion-related debates, the bottom line goes down to the question, “Is a fetus alive?” And since there’s no definitive answer to the question, it becomes a matter of personal interpretation. I’m not fond of abortion myself, but I’d fight to keep it safe and legal, because I realize that my views don’t jive with everyone else’s. If you think abortion is murder, then don’t have an abortion – but don’t interefere with someone else seeking one because **by their personal interpretation** it isn’t. Similarly, I think Dubya’s no-fetal-cell-research order is a boneheaded stupid move (which is par for the course for him; this is what happens when you don’t count votes, kids). he’s imposing one view – his own – on the entire nation, without giving any consideration to or respect for those folks who feel otherwise. But again, that’s par for the course, since IMO Conservatives have seldom had respect for folks whose views differed from theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/99 "2001-01-30T21:07:47Z")
I’ve been wondering all these past two weeks about these little “decisions” our new president has been making. You would think that after his campain and his promise to “change people’s hearts” and unite us in a common cause he would go about trying to do just that. I had almost bought the Howdy Doody routine and thought he was just a big goofy guy that wants us all to get along. He’s made a couple of really large mistakes with his “gag order” and now this new fetal tissue decision. You see the baby boomers who were all for abortion in the early days (and may have even had one themselves) have had a chance to carry and raise a few kids of their own. Many of us (I guess I’m one, I’m 42, maybe not, but close enough.) are hanging on by a thread from being “pro” to “anti” on this isssue. The thing is our new president’s actions seem so much like token pandering, knee jerk reactions, and down right Draconian that I’m afraid any change of heart we might have will not come along during this guy’s stay in office. How have any of these decisions made within the first week at the White House done anything other than incite and inflame the very people this man might have been able to win over? I’m not even sure that personally this guy gives a shit about unborn babies. This is just an instinct I have but it seems to me like this is an issue he must address because it rides along with his pet cause, mo’ money, mo’money, mo’ money for him and his rich friends. It’s become part of the conservative agenda and goes along with tax reform, school wellware vouchers for the rich, and drilling a hole for oil in everything but a can of WD-40. Could be he does have some really good advisors. Could be these controversial decisions are just a smoke screen to throw us off from looking at the real issues that might make a large impact on a lot more people. The tax relief plan worries me, the voucher thing bothers me, and I just don’t trust any of it to benefit someone like me at all. But if we plummet into a recession you can best believe I’ll be one of the first effected. If public schools get worse I’ll be effected right where it hurts, I have kids. I bothers me to think what he will do next to satisfy his constituants. I wanted to give the guy a chance, but it doesn’t appear that he cares much for logic and reason, or uniting this country. He’s just interested in flexing his muscles and washing the other hand. Needs2know ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933/100 "2001-01-30T21:15:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*As with all abortion-related debates, the bottom line goes down to the question, “Is a fetus alive?” And since there’s no definitive answer to the question, it becomes a matter of personal interpretation. > \*\* paging MR2001… from [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57084&pagenumber=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57084&pagenumber=2) ## beagledave said------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think that the author is trying to demostrate that the organism is a human life…not a potential human life. MR2001 replied: “Then it’s a straw man, at best. No one disagrees that an embryo is alive and human.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-some-pro-lifer-explain-this-idiocy-to-me-please/51933.md?page=6)