# Can the abortion issue ever be finally resolved? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2004, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853 "2004-07-13T05:28:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/41 "2004-07-15T06:45:14Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > That isn’t even remotely true, is it? After all, if a person believe that life begins at conception, they would be ‘inherently immoral crusaders’ only if they did nothing to protect that life. Speaking out for unborn children (again, for people who believe that life begins at conception) is the logically consistant thing to do. Then to be _really_ consistent, they should be anti war. After all, a bullet stops a beating heart. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/42 "2004-07-15T07:03:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Abortion, on the other hand, seems to be an issue that can never be finally resolved. So long as it remains legal, pro-lifers will campaign to ban it. If it ever is banned, pro-choicers will campaign to re-legalize it. This could go on for generations. Our grandchildren might be fighting these same battles, or voting in elections where the abortion issue complicates everything else. > > Can any of you see a way out? Of course not. Even the issue of whether or not Adam and Eve had navels hasn’t been resolved and you can still get an argument about it in many places. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/43 "2004-07-15T07:09:15Z")
> [@Mockingbird](#): > > Then to be _really_ consistent, they should be anti war. After all, a bullet stops a beating heart. Perhaps. Or maybe they see war as being potentially justified, but what they see as infanticide as not being justifiable? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/44 "2004-07-15T07:17:52Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Well, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that pregnancy _is_ a form of slavery. (I contest this strongly, since it is the mother who helped create the helpless fetus and holds it captive, but for the sake of argument, let’s grant your analogy.) > > Would the black slaves have been justified in killing the slaveowners in order to achieve their freedom? If your analogy is apt, and pregnant women are indeed enslaved by the unborn fetuses, then abortion is acceptable only if the killing of slaveowners is likewise a morally acceptable choice. Nobody has to lend out their own bodies to keep somebody else alive. Just as you can’t strap a mother to a gurney to give blood to save her infant child, neither can you force her to give blood to her unborn child. Would you suggest otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/45 "2004-07-15T13:18:48Z")
Again, for the sake of argument, let us assume that you are right – that nobody should have to lend their body out in that manner. Does this justify killing the “guilty” party, without any benefit of due process? Do remember that in modern society, civilized people demand that the punishment must meet the severity of the crime. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/46 "2004-07-15T16:53:25Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Again, for the sake of argument, let us assume that you are right – that nobody should have to lend their body out in that manner. Does this justify killing the “guilty” party, without any benefit of due process? Do remember that in modern society, civilized people demand that the punishment must meet the severity of the crime. So, again for the sake of argument, even if we posit that it is not moral right off the bat to abort, we have already posited that a woman is not obligated to provide uterine space, nutrients, etc. So, say a woman who doesn’t want to give up vital resources (for the sake of argument) has the umbilical cord surgically cut. After all, you have already conceded for the sake of argument she is not obligated to keep it attached. So, we are according to argument allowed to starve fetuses and remove them once they have spontaneously aborted or miscarried depending on timeframe, but not actually induce abortion. Did I miss anything? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/47 "2004-07-15T17:45:49Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > So, again for the sake of argument, even if we posit that it is not moral right off the bat to abort, we have already posited that a woman is not obligated to provide uterine space, nutrients, etc. Just for emphasis, I’m only granting that for the sake of argument. Not for one moment do I acknowledge it to be true. > [@](#): > > So, say a woman who doesn’t want to give up vital resources (for the sake of argument) has the umbilical cord surgically cut. After all, you have already conceded for the sake of argument she is not obligated to keep it attached. So, we are according to argument allowed to starve fetuses and remove them once they have spontaneously aborted or miscarried depending on timeframe, but not actually induce abortion. Did I miss anything? In fact, you have missed several things, and so let’s get them straight. It’s only called a miscarriage if it occurs [during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm); otherwise it is called a premature delivery. Second, ia miscarriage is [_the same thing_ as a spontaneous abortion](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miscarriage), and so you’re presenting a false dichotomy between the two. Second, in the event of a miscarriage or premature delivery, the physician is obligated to do everything possible to save both the mother and the premature infant. Before 20 weeks of gestation, this is not always possible, although babies have been successfully saved at only [17 weeks of gestation](http://www.sbhcs.com/hospitals/obgyn/news/maplewood.htm). So even if a miscarriage or premature delivery occurs, the physician cannot simply say, “Oh, well” and then leave the fetus to starve. And third, by highlighting this case, you have exposed a false dilemma in this old pro-choice argument. If the mother does not feel that her body should be enslaved to this fetus, then _at best_, it would only justify abortion very early in her pregnancy. After 17 weeks or so, the mother can free herself from this so-called “enslavement” by having a premature delivery, and then placing the child on external life support. So even if that argument were valid, it would only do so in rather narrow cases, and would not justify abortion in general. Finally, you’ve ignored what I said about punishment being meted out in accordance with the severity of a crime. Even if the fetus is indeed guilty of enslaving a woman, this was done unwittingly and unwillingly. (Indeed, it is the mother’s own actions which caused the fetus to come into being, so the fetus cannot be reasonably held to blame.) Moreover, abortion amounts to an irrevocable death sentence–one which is meted out without any benefit of due process whatsoever. Life is the most fundamental of all human rights. It is is the one right without which no other rights (the right to vote, to free expression, and so forth) cannot be exercised. Even in cases of capital punishment, this is typically meted out only when the defendant has been deemed guilty of murderous offenses. While I do not consider the pregnant woman’s suffering to be trivial by any means, it simply does not merit the taking of another human being’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/48 "2004-07-15T18:13:43Z")
Yes. When pro-life people end the absurdity of claiming that a wad of cells with no nervous system has moral interests and killing those cells is akin to murder. When pro-choice people end the absurdity of claiming that fetuses feel no pain, have no awareness, and have no moral interests at any stage of their development. When pro-choice people stop using the ridiculously empty argument that personal ownership over ones body has any bearing on whether or not it is okay to kill something with moral interests. Then maybe we’ll see some progress. Until then, only nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/49 "2004-07-15T18:21:35Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > When pro-choice people stop using the ridiculously empty argument that personal ownership over ones body has any bearing on whether or not it is okay to kill something with moral interests. That’s interesting. It seems that would be the start of all justification for action, from war, to self-defense, to abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/50 "2004-07-15T18:55:36Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s interesting. It seems that would be the start of all justification for action, from war, to self-defense, to abortion. Not in that sense, it wouldn’t. The point is that you can’t kill another human being just because it places a physical burden on you. Self-defense (life of the mother at stake if she bears the child) certainly makes sense. But this “it’s my body, so I can legitimately take actions to kill something that’s inside it” line just doesn’t hold water. Whether or not a fetus should be considered as morally important as a child is another matter, and in that case it might be that killing a fetus is less wrong than it causing a lot of pain and suffering and burden. But if a fetus is a being with moral interests then you can’t just automatically moot them because it’s co-mingled with yours and you happen to be more powerful. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/51 "2004-07-15T19:14:17Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > The point is that you can’t kill another human being just because it places a physical burden on you. That’s a bit of an understatement. That’s like saying you can’t go to war just because you don’t like another country. It trivializes the issue at hand. > [@](#): > > But if a fetus is a being with moral interests then you can’t just automatically moot them because it’s co-mingled with yours and you happen to be more powerful. I don’t think that has ever been the justification for abortion. There’s no will to power argument going on here. Another life is dependent on a woman’s body. Up to a certain point, that woman should have control over it because her body is in her interests, and an _unwanted pregnancy_ would certainly act against that. For me, after a period of time the “right” to abortion definitely fades–I mean, you’ve known you’re pregnant, if you wanted to terminate the pregnancy then why wait until the third trimester, you know? But before that point, the fully-integrated adult definitely trumps the non-integrated, not-fully-formed, wholly dependent life. We have two competing interests: that of the woman, and that of the fetus (ignoring **AHunter** ’s qualifications for the ease of typing). A decision must be made as to whose rights are more valuable. I hold it axiomatically true that a decision should only be made on how choices/qualities differ. So in that case, the power one holds over another is definitely something to consider in such a choice–it is what makes the two individuals distinct and should not be tossed aside at all. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/52 "2004-07-15T22:40:24Z")
Since it’s established that a woman doesn’t have to supply uterus space and nutrients to a fetus, and before the point of viability this termination will cause a fetus to die no matter what, doesn’t this establish that women have a right to have an abortion before a fetus is viable? And doesn’t that back up what the Supreme Court said in Roe vs Wade? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/53 "2004-07-15T23:26:11Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Since it’s established that a woman doesn’t have to supply uterus space and nutrients to a fetus… And that’s where your error lies. This most certainly has not been establish. That premise was granted earlier, but only for the sake of argument, as I repeatedly stressed. In fact, I repeatedly and emphatically said that I do not acknowledge this premise to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/54 "2004-07-15T23:35:36Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > That’s a bit of an understatement. That’s like saying you can’t go to war just because you don’t like another country. No, I don’t think it does. Physical and emotional burdens are not accepted excuses for murder in any other case, so why would they be here? > [@](#): > > I don’t think that has ever been the justification for abortion. There’s no will to power argument going on here. Another life is dependent on a woman’s body. Up to a certain point, that woman should have control over it because her body is in her interests, and an _unwanted pregnancy_ would certainly act against that. But if a baby has moral interests, then it isn’t just her interests that matter. In fact, in a very real sense, she’s sharing her body: it has a dual interest not wholly unlike cojoined twins. But can such a twin legitimately say “well, the liver we share is mostly mine: I’m going to cut you off, you’ll probably die, but it’s my body ultimately.” > [@](#): > > For me, after a period of time the “right” to abortion definitely fades–I mean, you’ve known you’re pregnant, if you wanted to terminate the pregnancy then why wait until the third trimester, you know? But knowledge or how the baby got there doesn’t change the situation. > [@](#): > > But before that point, the fully-integrated adult definitely trumps the non-integrated, not-fully-formed, wholly dependent life. We have two competing interests: that of the woman, and that of the fetus (ignoring **AHunter** ’s qualifications for the ease of g). A decision must be made as to whose rights are more valuable. But except in rare cases, we aren’t weighing the same rights against each other. The right of the woman to body modifcation and to avoid pain and stress not the same as a being’s right not to killed. > [@](#): > > I hold it axiomatically true that a decision should only be made on how choices/qualities differ. So in that case, the power one holds over another is definitely something to consider in such a choice–it is what makes the two individuals distinct and should not be tossed aside at all. I just don’t see the logic. Bargaining power is relevant pragmatically, but since when it is relevant morally? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/55 "2004-07-16T02:39:21Z")
The OP question was, “Does anyone see a way out?” The answer to that question seems obvious from the tenor of the thread in which abortion, pro and con, is discussed and not whether anyone sees a way out. “Never” is a long time, but this sure looks like one of those never ending issures. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/56 "2013-06-29T00:00:50Z")
Bumping this ancient thread because the Pew Research Center came out with [this report](http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/roe-v-wade-at-40.aspx) in January. > [@](#): > > As the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision approaches, the public remains opposed to completely overturning the historic ruling on abortion. More than six-in-ten (63%) say they would not like to see the court completely overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which established a woman’s constitutional right to abortion at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Only about three-in-ten (29%) would like to see the ruling overturned. These opinions are little changed from surveys conducted 10 and 20 years ago. > > Decades after the Supreme Court rendered its decision, on Jan. 22, 1973, most Americans (62%) know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion rather than school desegregation or some other issue. But the rest either guess incorrectly (17%) or do not know what the case was about (20%). And there are substantial age differences in awareness: Among those ages 50 to 64, 74% know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion, the highest percentage of any age group. Among those younger than 30, just 44% know this. > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that abortion is viewed as a less important issue than in the past. Currently, 53% say abortion “is not that important compared to other issues,” up from 48% in 2009 and 32% in 2006. The percentage viewing abortion as a “critical issue facing the country” fell from 28% in 2006 to 15% in 2009 and now stands at 18%. > > Decades after the Supreme Court rendered its decision, on Jan. 22, 1973, most Americans (62%) know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion rather than school desegregation or some other issue. But the rest either guess incorrectly (17%) or do not know what the case was about (20%). And there are substantial age differences in awareness: Among those ages 50 to 64, 74% know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion, the highest percentage of any age group. Among those younger than 30, just 44% know this. > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that **abortion is viewed as a less important issue than in the past.** Currently, 53% say abortion “is not that important compared to other issues,” up from 48% in 2009 and 32% in 2006. The percentage viewing abortion as a “critical issue facing the country” fell from 28% in 2006 to 15% in 2009 and now stands at 18%. > > However, the public continues to be divided over whether it is morally acceptable to have an abortion. Nearly half (47%) say it is morally wrong to have an abortion, while just 13% find this morally acceptable; 27% say this is not a moral issue and 9% volunteer that it depends on the situation. These opinions have changed little since 2006. That bolded part could be the answer. The abortion issue might ultimately be “resolved” not by disagreement fading, but by interest fading. Which amounts to final victory for the pro-choice side. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/57 "2013-06-29T01:36:36Z")
Here’s my (belated) opinion. Let me use a metaphor by comparing overeating with a drinking problem. Now if you have a drinking problem, you can address it by going cold turkey. You can stop drinking any alcohol. That’s not an easy thing for a drinker to do but it’s simple and direct. Compare it to what an overeater has to do. He can’t stop eating cold turkey. He has to keep consuming the substance he’s addicted to several times every day and learn to stop in the middle of consuming what he craves. A person with a drinking problem only needs to stop the behavior he’s addicted to. A person with an eating problem needs to learn how to control the behavior he’s addicted to. And here’s the relevant comparison in my opinion. Slavery is analogous to drinking and abortion is analogous to overeating. (Which means I’ve probably offended four different sets of people with one sentence.) With slavery, you can impose an absolute solution and simply end it completely. A difficult job but one which has a final resolution. But abortion will always be an unresolved issue. People will continue to get pregnant and as long as people get pregnant, abortions will still be an issue. A certain amount of pregnancies will be unwanted and that means you’re either going to have abortions occurring or you’re going to have people who wanted an abortion. So, no, I don’t think the abortion will ever be finally resolved. And least, not until there are fundamental changes in human reproduction. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/58 "2013-06-29T02:39:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But abortion will always be an unresolved issue. People will continue to get pregnant and as long as people get pregnant, abortions will still be an issue. A certain amount of pregnancies will be unwanted and that means you’re either going to have abortions occurring or you’re going to have people who wanted an abortion. No, that means abortion will always **happen.** It does not mean it will always be a political/social issue. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/59 "2013-06-29T03:59:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That bolded part could be the answer. The abortion issue might ultimately be “resolved” not by disagreement fading, but by interest fading. Which amounts to final victory for the pro-choice side. Not necessarily. Lack of widespread public interest could also mean less activity in opposing legislative actions to limit the circumstances in which abortion is legal, or regulatory actions that raise the costs of running a clinic that provides abortions. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/60 "2013-06-29T12:13:40Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Abortions for some, tiny American flags for the rest! > > I believe the others have adequately covered the “bad” part behind this concept, but I’d like to add that this solution is not acceptable for the pro-lifers. Remember, they view abortion as murder. They won’t accept a situation where people are allowed to commit murder. They won’t stop campaiging until it is outlawed and, in some cases, criminalized. > > I don’t think a solution is in sight. Many pro-lifers don’t even accept the “morning after pill” as a legitimate form of birth control, saying that (IIRC) it kills the zygote, which is the beginnings of a person, and thus is a form of abortion (their reasoning, not mine). Many of the more religious types also don’t seem to understand that educating kids on the use of birth control methods prevents pregnancy. I wonder if a so called pro-life person has a funeral for an early Miscarriage. If they think the frozen embryo is a baby. Then what is the difference between a fertile chicken egg and a zygote. In many cases the morning after pill is taken there is a large chance the woman is not pregnant. It is just a safe guard. When abortion was not legal there still were many abortions and some women died and left a child motherless. Abortion is a religious issue and Separation of Church should be the norm. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853.md?page=4)