# Dems Need to Accept Moderates on Abortion= capture the House **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819 "2012-05-13T23:52:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/121 "2012-05-16T15:44:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Regardless, I gather we can agree that the Democrats making abortion an issue for 2012 won’t help them. Abortion specifically? No. But they’re going to spend the next six months hammering the Republicans on issues related to birth control and other “women’s issues” because of the way the party tacked sharply to the right on those issues during the primary campaign. That’s a loser issue for Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/122 "2012-05-16T22:22:21Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The fact remains, even if you steadfastly refuse to admit it, that there is no objective scientific metric to claim that a fertilized egg is ‘non-human’ but a viable fetus is ‘human’. This means the pro-life side has no moral right to impose its will on women. You have a few options: 1. Pro-life side – We believe that a fertilized egg is human. Pro-choice side – We do not believe that a fertilized egg is human. The two cancel out. There is no way to decide who is right or wrong. It is merely a belief on both sides. No different than anyone would accept a law that mandates you follow a specific religion. 2) Pro-life side – We believe that a fertilized egg is human. Pro-choice side – We think there is evidence that shows a fertilized egg is not on the same plane as a fully formed human. While there is some gray area in that one cannot pinpoint a switch between human and non-human there is a continuum where the differences are distinct, manifestly obvious and highly relevant to a determination of whether it is human or not. In this case you still merely have a belief on one side and evidence contradicting it on the other. Pro-life side loses again. 3) Pro-life side – We think there is evidence to support that a fertilized egg is human and equivalent to a fully formed human. Pro-choice side – (see answer in #2) Here you now have a worthwhile argument. That is if the pro-life side actually produced this argument. If the pro-life side ever produced this argument we could go through it and determine how the two sides balance out and see what policy should be as a result. Except the pro-life side never produces this argument (probably because there is not a good one to be had here that measures up which is why they fall back on “belief”). Now sure a majority can impose its will on a minority. That in no way makes it right. Many states allowed slavery but I doubt you would defend that by saying the majority spoke. If someone wants to restrict the rights of a woman to control of her _own_ body they need more than “I believe”. With “I believe” you can justify anything you want and that is a particularly shitty way to run a country. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/123 "2012-05-16T22:58:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Try to broadcast something that some folks consider ‘obscene’ but you think is just good clean fun, see how the FCC reacts. We deal with this issue all the time without extensive cognitive dissonance. That’s a very interesting analogy. The reason the FCC can censor here is that these are considered public airwaves. Cable gets away with showing all sorts of stuff that would be forbidden on the public airwaves, and people “broadcasting” on wifi networks get away with even more. So why do I like the analogy? Because it indicates that the pro-life crowd in some sense feel that a woman’s body is public property, like the airwaves, and they have the right to an opinion about what she does with her body, like they have a right to an opinion about what gets broadcast. Say someone feels that obscene material is just awful and harms society. Do they get a right to come into your house and delete your porn? And of course a woman’s body is a lot more her business than your computer is yours, so the right to privacy is far greater. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/124 "2012-05-17T01:20:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That’s a very interesting analogy. The reason the FCC can censor here is that these are considered public airwaves. Cable gets away with showing all sorts of stuff that would be forbidden on the public airwaves, and people “broadcasting” on wifi networks get away with even more. > So why do I like the analogy? Because it indicates that the pro-life crowd in some sense feel that a woman’s body is public property Same issues others have had. Get outside of your paradigm. To them, they are _not_ saying that they can “control a woman’s body”, but that they can _prevent murder_. It really isn’t hard to understand where they’re coming from, so the lack of comprehension seems willful. “You can’t murder that guy.” “Ah hah! You want to control my body!” “Well… no. Just, ya know, don’t murder that guy.” “Ah hah! Looking to control my body again, are ya?!?” This really isn’t that hard to understand. Imagine that you went and put a shotgun to someone’s head, and then pulled the trigger. Someone says they object to that, and you respond “You’re trying to control my trigger finger, it’s my body, hands off!” One would, most likely, note that you weren’t addressing their actual argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/125 "2012-05-17T01:51:07Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > To them, they are _not_ saying that they can “control a woman’s body”, but that they can _prevent murder_. Well, the disconnect comes from failing to recognize that they can’t separate the two in this specific circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/126 "2012-05-17T02:02:40Z")
Well, just like you can’t separate controlling someone’s trigger finger and stopping them from shooting someone. But as far as I’ve seen from most anti-abortion arguments the drive and the point is not to control a woman’s body, but to protect what they see as a human life. If, for instance, a fetus could be teleported to some sort of surrogate cyberwomb, I’m sure they’d be fine with it. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/127 "2012-05-17T03:57:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As I’ve already made clear, I consider them to be liars so I don’t care what they _say_. I care what they _do_. > > Garbage. They force those children on women who don’t want them, and they work to make the women _and_ the children less healthy, or even kill them. Everything they do screams “malice”. > > Bending over backwards to pretend the right is well meaning has led the left and middle of America to disaster after disaster. “Good tactics” is realizing that these people are fanatics & bigots, that they are the enemy not just the loyal opposition, and to stop trying to play by the rules of chess when your opponent is waging war. We are not going to persuade them, and they are not going to compromise. Sigh. I’ve mostly said what I have to say. No, I don’t think pro-lifers are liars. Nor do I think they’re “vicious sadists, lunatics and psychopaths” (your post, #44). Your basis for making those accusations is exceedingly thin and I doubt you’ve spent much time (if any) actually speaking with them. I have. Are you aware, for example, of how many pro-lifers are women and mothers? It doesn’t seem so. Do you have any exposure to how pro-life advocacy works on the ground? (Counseling pregnant teens, for example.) It doesn’t seem so. As for tactics, I will mention that what you advocate here would violate the SDMB rules. (Not junior modding, btw, nor have I reported any of your posts.) Insulting people and calling them liars aren’t permitted here for good reason. It poisons the well. It makes productive conversation impossible. What’s true on the Dope is true in the world at large. Apparently you don’t think the battle is worth fighting and, so, don’t care that you’re fighting it poorly. Whereas I think the battle is worth fighting and, so, believe tactics matter. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/128 "2012-05-17T04:04:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Same issues others have had. Get outside of your paradigm. > To them, they are _not_ saying that they can “control a woman’s body”, but that they can _prevent murder_. It really isn’t hard to understand where they’re coming from, so the lack of comprehension seems willful. I understand very well what they think. I also understand very well that they cannot prove or scientifically demonstrate their belief that a fetus with no brain waves is a person. They are free to believe this as far as it concerns what they do with their bodies, of course. But they don’t want to share the choice. They are extremist fanatics, and they are dangerous throughout history. Remember, some religions are fine with this. And these religious beliefs are equally valid as theirs. [quote] “You can’t murder that guy.” “Ah hah! You want to control my body!” “Well… no. Just, ya know, don’t murder that guy.” “Ah hah! Looking to control my body again, are ya?!?” Well, that was a really stupid response. That guy can think and speak, unlike a fetus. That guy is not inside the other guy. Try harder, will you? > [@](#): > > This really isn’t that hard to understand. Imagine that you went and put a shotgun to someone’s head, and then pulled the trigger. Someone says they object to that, and you respond “You’re trying to control my trigger finger, it’s my body, hands off!” One would, most likely, note that you weren’t addressing their actual argument. Not any better. When a fetus chimes in, get back to us. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/129 "2012-05-17T04:08:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Well, just like you can’t separate controlling someone’s trigger finger and stopping them from shooting someone. But as far as I’ve seen from most anti-abortion arguments the drive and the point is not to control a woman’s body, but to protect what they see as a human life. If, for instance, a fetus could be teleported to some sort of surrogate cyberwomb, I’m sure they’d be fine with it. If you were really pro-life you’d be in favor of a law requiring everyone to wear mittens when outside, just to be sure that there are no fingers to pull the trigger. Might cut down on our liberty just a tad, but you can’t be too careful, and you? And I’, sorry that I can’t think of anything as nasty as invasive vaginal probes. I’ll try. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/130 "2012-05-17T04:17:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, that was a really stupid response. No and it should be fairly easy to understand as the issue is not control, but a desire to prevent murder. Whether or not the ‘guy can speak’ is, shall we say, a really stupid response. But that’s okay, you believe that anti-abortion activists are ‘extremist fanatics’ because they adopt the extreme position that murder is wrong. Truly, barbarians at the gates. I suppose y’all can resume the echo chamber and talking about how they’re all woman-hating crazy fanatics on a power trip just out to control people’s bodies. Le shrug. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/131 "2012-05-17T04:21:02Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Do you have any exposure to how pro-life advocacy works on the ground? (Counseling pregnant teens, for example.) “Counseling” is an anti-choice euphemism for lying and emotional manipulation. When antis say it, they mean that they’re going to tell women about things like “post-abortion syndrome” and breast cancer. What it doesn’t mean is that they’re going to honestly tell the woman about the consequences of each course of action available to her, because it’s _not pro-life advocacy_ at that point. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/132 "2012-05-17T05:00:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Regardless, I gather we can agree that the Democrats making abortion an issue for 2012 won’t help them. I don’t think the Pubs making it an issue would help them much, either. It’s just not the year. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/133 "2012-05-17T05:18:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I don’t think the Pubs making it an issue would help them much, either. It’s just not the year. Maybe if the babies were gay, then they can debate which is the greater evil: aborting gay babies, or allowing them to live ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/134 "2012-05-17T05:21:49Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Maybe if the babies were gay, then they can debate which is the greater evil: aborting gay babies, or allowing them to live **All** babies are gay. Watch 'em suck! ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/135 "2012-05-17T05:22:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You have a gun to your family’s head and you must either kill a newborn baby or destroy a refrigerator with fertilized eggs. How many eggs would have to be in that refrigerator for me to choose to kill the newborn child? A conceptually identical but perhaps aesthetically preferable example involves a medical care center on fire, a toddler in a crib and a tray of Blastocysts. Say 3. You can’t hold both. Which do you pick up to carry out of the building? > [@Voyager](#): > > Say someone feels that obscene material is just awful and harms society. Do they get a right to come into your house and delete your porn? # Nitpick: I think Rehnquist pointed out that obscene material isn’t actually protected under the first amendment. I suspect a fair amount of material on the internet could arguably fail the Miller test. So constitutionally speaking, that might be possible. Finally, here’s some 2003 polling from Wikipedia: ```auto Generally Available/ Available, with stricter limits / Not permitted Overall 39% 38% 22% Women 37% 37% 24% Men 40% 40% 20% ``` The opinions of men and women on the issue don’t differ all that much. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml) Here’s how “Not permitted” breaks down by party: ```auto Not permitted Democrats: 21% Republicans: 28% Independents: 18% ``` Different. But not that different. Of course what swings people’s voting behavior is a separate question. ---
**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:** [May 17, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/136 "2012-05-17T06:03:21Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Are you aware, for example, of how many pro-lifers are women and mothers? It doesn’t seem so. Of course I am. Women have always been some of the worst enemies of other women, especially when raised in a culture and religion that tells them to hate and abuse women. And they typically only want to forbid other women abortions; if _they_ want an abortion, that’s different. > [@PBear42](#): > > Do you have any exposure to how pro-life advocacy works on the ground? (Counseling pregnant teens, for example.) It doesn’t seem so. No, it seems like you don’t. It can be summed up as “lies, terror and abuse, with occasional death threats and violence”. > [@PBear42](#): > > As for tactics, I will mention that what you advocate here would violate the SDMB rules. (Not junior modding, btw, nor have I reported any of your posts.) Insulting people and calling them liars aren’t permitted here for good reason. It poisons the well. It makes productive conversation impossible. What’s true on the Dope is true in the world at large. Nonsense. These rules have allowed open liars and bigots to run rampant on the SDMB. It’s difficult to argue with someone who constantly and blatantly lies and you have to spend time and effort dancing around that obvious fact. It also makes the people who oppose that liar open to accusations that they think everyone who disagrees with them is stupid or delusional, since they can’t even respond to such accusations with “No, I just don’t believe him”. And it’s hard to argue against bigots when you can’t even say what they and their beliefs are, and what holds for the SDMB holds for the larger world here. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/137 "2012-05-17T06:09:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **All** babies are gay. Watch 'em suck! And baby **girls** are even **worse!** (Think about it!) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/138 "2012-05-17T11:29:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Abortion specifically? No. But they’re going to spend the next six months hammering the Republicans on issues related to birth control and other “women’s issues” because of the way the party tacked sharply to the right on those issues during the primary campaign. That’s a loser issue for Republicans. Noted and I amend my earlier statement: it’s not in the Dems’ interests to court pro-lifers as the OP suggests. They _might_ gain some traction by highlighting themselves as the defenders of women’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/139 "2012-05-17T12:01:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This is a horribly unconvincing argument to anyone other than folks who already believe exactly as you believe. > > Reasonable people can come to the conclusion that abortion is bad without being driven by religious beliefs. But sometimes all I hear is “keep your God out of my uterus” Its really no better than pretending that people want abortions to be available so that they can have Roman style orgies without consequences. > > For the record, I am very pro-choice through the first trimester and fairly pro-choice through the second trimester and fairly anti-abortion in the third trimester. > > This is my point. We do in fact legislate morality. We do in fact impose our beliefs on others. Our moral beliefs. > > There are people out there that think that having sex with consenting 14 year old boys is OK but the vast majority of society imposes its belief that says that they may not. > > There are people out there that think that its OK to purchase or sell sexual services, we have imposed our belief and told them that they may not. > > There are people that believe that polygamy is good and natural. Yet we will stand in their way. > > When both sides are so convinced they are right that neither side will listen to the other, soemtimes volume is all you have left tio determine the winner. > > To illustrated the concept of life as a sepctrum. > > You have a gun to your family’s head and you must either kill a newborn baby or destroy a refrigerator with fertilized eggs. How many eggs would have to be in that refrigerator for me to choose to kill the newborn child? > > You have a gun to your family’s head and you must either kill a newborn baby or inject an abrtifacient into women who are 1 month pregnant. How many women would I have to force you to inject before you would choose to kill the child? > > Rinse and repeat at the end of every month of pregnancy. > > Now replace the unborn children with a terminally ill person who just reached their 100th birthday that you must euthanize. > > So do I, this is a more accurate description. > > And what sort of costs justify murder? > > I do agree that there was an astounding amount of support for invading Iraq and causing the death of millions of innocent civilians by the same people who were condemning first trimester abortions, stem cell research and marching for Terry Schiavo due to the sanctity of life. There maybe times the woman has an abortion because of self defense, one doesn’t know her state of mind and the times another pregnancy would mean her own life. I knew a man who’s wife died giving birth to her 10th child, both mother and child died, leaving 9 children motherless.I believe one can stop most abortions by having a good, effective birth control( or the choice of having one’s tubes tied or a male a vasectomy). Murder is the killing of a person just to get things,like in a robbery, or a jealous act or just people wanting to kill some one,like in gangs. An adult such as Terry Schiavo has the right to determine if they can take the suffering or financial loss with out any chance of living and knowing they are living. I have a living will and I would not want to burden my family by being kept alive with tubes etc. when the quality of my life meant a huge burden on the people I love with no hope of getting better. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819/140 "2012-05-17T12:16:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I did not say that. What I have said that is it is not at all logically inconsistent to believe that there exists a continuum of humanity on which ‘old person dying of old age’ is at one end and ‘fertilized ovum’ is on the other. It’s no different from believing that the larval stage of an insect is still an exemplar of that species during a certain life phase, and that doesn’t at all imply that you’d look at a caterpillar and remark upon what a beautiful buttefly it is. Just like you wouldn’t look at a baby and refer to what a handsome older gentleman he was. > > I will note that the “it’s not a [del]human[/del] chicken because you wouldn’t accept an egg if you ordered chicken” is an absolutely awful argument. I also wouldn’t accept a baby chick if I ordered a chicken breast. That doesn’t mean that a chick isn’t, in fact, possessed of ‘chickenhood’. I also wouldn’t accept a toddler if I asked HR for a person to sub for my classes. That doesn’t mean that toddlers aren’t possessed of personhood. My point is that until the fertile egg can be recognized as the being it is, it will just become a chicken, a human, a horse or an apple, depending on the stage it is in. An old person can well be recognized as a person, a born child can be recognized as a person,not just that it will become a person. Until it is developed into a being that can be recognized as a child, then it cannot be called such.and I believe the law is that once it is recognized as a child it is against the law to abort, or if it would mean the woman would lose her life if carried to term.she has the Choice. If it would be a burden on the woman’s family and mean her other children would be made to live in dire poverty etc. then I believe the people Who call them selves Pro-Life, should be more than glad to support the child( in all ways) until it is an adult. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-need-to-accept-moderates-on-abortion-capture-the-house/621819.md?page=8)