# 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:** 9
**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:** [August 21, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/162 "2013-08-21T21:04:34Z")
> [@huck](#): > > No one here is suggesting any requirement that the mother take extraordinary measures to protect the embryo or the fetus (or the fertilized egg for that matter) from all possible harm or from the failure to thrive. If someone believes that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a child(and **Bob Blaylock** has, more than once) then asking him what measures should be taken to protect the life of that “child” isn’t ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/163 "2013-08-21T23:46:12Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > That _ **pair of subhuman animals** _ who shot a baby in the face some months back, while trying to rob his mother—did they commit a murder, or was that just a very late-term abortion? Oh, you mean those two born (and well past the age where they could take care of their basic needs, and thus have certainly achieved viability by your definition) _ **persons** _ who shot the kid? They’re subhuman animals, now? So I suppose since you consider them subhuman animals, they can be aborted at will? Excellent argument for your side, there, bub. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/164 "2013-08-22T00:05:00Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > > [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > > > **That pair of subhuman animals** who shot a baby in the face some months back, while trying to rob his mother—did they commit a murder, or was that just a very late-term abortion? > > Oh, you mean those two born (and well past the age where they could take care of their basic needs, and thus have certainly achieved viability by your definition) _ **persons** _ who shot the kid? They’re subhuman animals, now? So I suppose since you consider them subhuman animals, they can be aborted at will? > > Excellent argument for your side, there, bub. Apple’s and oranges. You’re on the side that wants to strip human beings of their rights and humanity based merely on their age and stage of development. I say that when someone, with the degree of knowledge and understanding that these vermin surely had of the significance of their acts, choose to commit such a major violation of another human being’s right to exist, that they forfeit their own right to be regarded as human beings. They have chosen this, of their own free will. But then I am on the side that values the life and rights of an innocent child more than I value the life and rights of a conscienceless, murdering monster. You appear to be on the side that holds the opposite view. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/165 "2013-08-22T01:07:01Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > You appear to be on the side that holds the opposite view. Then you would be wrong. I merely point out that you can’t call _them_ subhuman animals (i.e. not deserving of being considered human) and still have any credibility when offering a definition of what is ‘human’ that includes something that looks decidedly _less_ human than they are. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/166 "2013-08-22T01:18:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If someone believes that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a child(and **Bob Blaylock** has, more than once) then asking him what measures should be taken to protect the life of that “child” isn’t ridiculous. This! Thank you! While I am vigorously pro-choice, and constantly ask the opposition to try to understand my point of view, the balancing moral duty is for us to try to understand their point of view. I disagree with their p.o.v., obviously, and I will always oppose their efforts to use the vast power of the law to compel us to follow their views and beliefs. But we do owe them the basic decency of respecting the integrity of their beliefs. (And, of course, to insist they show us the same decency.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/167 "2013-08-22T14:54:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nor does playing semantic games make a mindless lump of flesh anything but a lump; nor does refusing to acknowledge the suffering and degradation you want to inflect on women make them go away either. And this is one of the reasons the answer to the OP seems to be a resounding “NO”. The inability for some to understand that others might be starting from a different philosophical position is astounding. A pro-life stance means that one wants to inflict suffering upon women? :rolleyes: A fetus is a mindless lump of flesh? That’s SO helpful!! :rolleyes::rolleyes: You and your brethren really need to lighten the fuck up. And that come from someone who is pro-choice. ---
**Author:** ![Renee\_RL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Renee\_RL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee_RL)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/168 "2013-08-22T16:32:04Z")
> [@huck](#): > > Not what I said, but I will leave you to read what I did say if you wish. > > Can’t help it if referring to an embryo as a child upsets your emotions. I think it is so, for the reasons I’ve already stated. > > Your analogy between the death of an unborn human child and a blood test or a vasectomy–which obviously do not involve the death of anyone–doesn’t address the ethical question of whether unborn, even not fully developed, humans have a right to live. It is of course simpler to ignore that question, but ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. It isn’t a person…so emotionalizing it doesn’t make it so. Why not call it am adolescent and then more people will be pro choice? Do you have a uterus? ---
**Author:** ![Renee\_RL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Renee\_RL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee_RL)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/169 "2013-08-22T16:33:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And this is one of the reasons the answer to the OP seems to be a resounding “NO”. The inability for some to understand that others might be starting from a different philosophical position is astounding. A pro-life stance means that one wants to inflict suffering upon women? :rolleyes: A fetus is a mindless lump of flesh? That’s SO helpful!! :rolleyes::rolleyes: You and your brethren really need to lighten the fuck up. > > And that come from someone who is pro-choice. By forcing a woman to breed against her will is indeed inflicting suffering upon women. Are you a woman? ---
**Author:** ![Renee\_RL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Renee\_RL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee_RL)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/170 "2013-08-22T16:35:50Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > Apple’s and oranges. You’re on the side that wants to strip human beings of their rights and humanity based merely on their age and stage of development. I say that when someone, with the degree of knowledge and understanding that these vermin surely had of the significance of their acts, choose to commit such a major violation of another human being’s right to exist, that they forfeit their own right to be regarded as human beings. They have chosen this, of their own free will. > > But then I am on the side that values the life and rights of an innocent child more than I value the life and rights of a conscienceless, murdering monster. You appear to be on the side that holds the opposite view. No you’re not, you are on the side of the embryo, we are on the side of children ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/171 "2013-08-22T17:04:21Z")
> [@Renee\_RL](#): > > It isn’t a person…so emotionalizing it doesn’t make it so. Why not call it am adolescent and then more people will be pro choice? > Do you have a uterus? Forgive me, evidently you are at such a pitch of emotion (no doubt provoked by the use of the word “child”) that I can’t quite understand your argument. Why would I call an unborn infant an adolescent? Why does it matter to you whether I still have my uterus? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/172 "2013-08-22T18:18:27Z")
> [@Renee\_RL](#): > > By forcing a woman to breed against her will is indeed inflicting suffering upon women. Are you a woman? What gives you the idea that I want a woman to breed against her will"? (:rolleyes:) You’re couching the argument in a way that simply demonizes. There are few bad players in the abortion debate. No one is “pro-abortion”. And no one holds a position because they hate women or want to see them suffer. Start from there and we might have a chance of getting somewhere. And, no, I am not a woman. But I am fervently pro-choice. My point was that the language used by DT, and now, _you_, is counter-productive in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/173 "2013-08-22T20:55:35Z")
> [@Renee\_RL](#): > > No you’re not, you are on the side of the embryo, we are on the side of children You cannot honestly claim to be on the side of children, so long as you take a position that it should be legal or acceptable to kill them. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/174 "2013-08-23T08:21:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If someone believes that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a child(and **Bob Blaylock** has, more than once) then asking him what measures should be taken to protect the life of that “child” isn’t ridiculous. Czarcasm, would you be upset if I said I’m pro-abortion, or pro-choice rather, but I can see that an embryo (or fetus, if you like), is a person? Let’s just call it like it is. There were 1.06 million legal abortions in this country in 2011 > **[U.S. Abortion Statistics](https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/)** > > Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States. There were 32,367 motor vehicle deaths > **[Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)** > > Fatalities that result from motor vehicle crashes are the second largest cause of accidental deaths in the United States. > Motor vehicle fatalities in the United States are reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA only reports deaths that occur on public roads, and does not include parking lots, driveways, and private roads. It also excludes indirect car-related fatalities. For more details, see Transportation safety in the United States. > From the begin... There were 11,101 gun homicides [www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states](http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states) These are acceptable sacrifices in return for freedom … the freedom to not carry a child to term against your will, the freedom to travel efficiently and conveniently, and the freedom to protect yourself against criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/175 "2013-08-23T09:18:30Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > Czarcasm, would you be upset if I said I’m pro-abortion, or pro-choice rather, but I can see that an embryo (or fetus, if you like), is a person? Let’s just call it like it is. But that’s not how it is; they are not people. What makes a person is the mind; if someone doesn’t have a mind they are brain dead, and we can and do break them up for parts because they are not _people_ even if they were walking and talking the week before. > [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > You cannot honestly claim to be on the side of children, so long as you take a position that it should be legal or acceptable to kill them. Embryos are not children. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/176 "2013-08-23T10:49:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But that’s not how it is; they are not people. What makes a person is the mind; if someone doesn’t have a mind they are brain dead, and we can and do break them up for parts because they are not _people_ even if they were walking and talking the week before. > > Embryos are not children. I’ll accept your definition of “people”, but not of “brain-dead”. Here’s my definition: Human embryo is human. It’s alive, and it’s growing into a human, not a turtle, not a Cocker Spaniel. I can accept that the life of the mother, the quality of the life of the mother, the quality of the life of the fetus after it’s born, and the effect of an unwanted child on Society bears on my judgement regarding abortion. My opinion doesn’t affect reality … define the embryo anyway you like, I don’t care, it’s still an unborn child. You can say it’s brain-dead it you like, or a mass of tissue if you want. I don’t care. I’m willing to grant that, in my opinion, the lives of fetuses are an acceptable sacrifice in return for the benefit to the mother, and to society, of ending the pregnancy. It’s hypocritical to me for a society to say, “Soldiers can die in battle, it’s worth it to protect our freedom”, when really they mean ‘protect the wealth of the richest elite and the power of the rulers.’ Say what it is. Say, “We accept soldiers will go to war and die in battle to secure oil supplies”. Similarly, we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/177 "2013-08-23T12:10:13Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > Similarly, we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.” No, we should say “These women have absolute control over their bodies, and these women get to decide who and what is allowed to enter or remain inside their bodies, regardless of how this object or person got inside.” ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/178 "2013-08-23T12:45:39Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > You cannot honestly claim to be on the side of children, so long as you take a position that it should be legal or acceptable to kill them. As I see it The side of children means when one can be recognized as such. It also means giving up one’s time and money to support the child and it’s mother. In all possible ways. Not just be pro-birth, then forget that it is a living human being and already born. Too many people, and it seems the one’s who want a woman to carry a conception to it’s fullest, don’t want to pay taxes , give physical, or emotional help. Talk is cheap, and the money spent traveling around the country harassing a woman ,even when she is not going to a clinic for an abortion, that money could go to a fund to help the woman. If one puts themselves in the shoes of another perhaps they would understand. There is such a thing as self defense. If one doesn’t know the woman’s circumstance they have no right to judge her. It seems to be so easy for some to look for what they call sins, to forget about their own. Strange but there are many so called pro-life people that approve of a war where many innocent lives are lost, even some pregnant women! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/179 "2013-08-23T12:49:43Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > I’ll accept your definition of “people”, but not of “brain-dead”. > > Here’s my definition: Human embryo is human. It’s alive, and it’s growing into a human, not a turtle, not a Cocker Spaniel. I can accept that the life of the mother, the quality of the life of the mother, the quality of the life of the fetus after it’s born, and the effect of an unwanted child on Society bears on my judgement regarding abortion. > > My opinion doesn’t affect reality … define the embryo anyway you like, I don’t care, it’s still an unborn child. You can say it’s brain-dead it you like, or a mass of tissue if you want. I don’t care. I’m willing to grant that, in my opinion, the lives of fetuses are an acceptable sacrifice in return for the benefit to the mother, and to society, of ending the pregnancy. > > It’s hypocritical to me for a society to say, “Soldiers can die in battle, it’s worth it to protect our freedom”, when really they mean ‘protect the wealth of the richest elite and the power of the rulers.’ > > Say what it is. Say, “We accept soldiers will go to war and die in battle to secure oil supplies”. > > Similarly, we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.” You admit with your own words ,"it is growing into human, so it is not yet a human. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/180 "2013-08-23T15:19:02Z")
" … we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.” > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, we should say “These women have absolute control over their bodies, and these women get to decide who and what is allowed to enter or remain inside their bodies, regardless of how this object or person got inside.” That, too. I don’t see the conflict. It’s a matter of perspective. > [@monavis](#): > > You admit with your own words ,"it is growing into human, so it is not yet a human. Here’s the hypocrisy. I’ll say it again …\*\* here’s the hypocrisy\*\*: Woman number one is pregnant, doesn’t want to be pregnant, and would like to have the “not yet a human” removed from her body ASAP. Woman number two is pregnant, married, wants a family and is decorating a nursery. An armed criminal shoots her in a robbery attempt, she lives, but her “unborn child” is killed. The robber is charged with murder. See? defining the fetus’s humanity or personhood isn’t up to a political or religious debate, it’s up to the whim of the mother. Even if she were on her way to an abortion clinic to get an abortion, a mugger who killed her fetus would be charged with murder. It’s then up to the whim of the authorities. It’s hypocrisy. We don’t need to argue the “human-ness” of an unborn child. It’s ridiculous. If a woman wants to end the pregnancy, the doctor kills the “baby-to-be” and removes it. If the woman wants to be a mother, the doctor waits until she gives birth, and slaps it on the behind. In either case, it’s the same human/ non-human. The intentions of the mother don’t change the nature of the being inside her, it’s the same “thing” in both cases. ---
**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:** [August 23, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853/181 "2013-08-23T15:48:23Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > " … we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.” Or we can use more accurate terms, like “fertilized eggs” and “embryo”(depending on how far along the pregnancy is). Less confusing that way, wouldn’t you say? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-abortion-issue-ever-be-finally-resolved/254853.md?page=10)