# Do you agree with this reasoning about pro-life? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296 "2004-02-15T04:00:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/101 "2004-02-18T08:40:37Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > Maybe I am? But punishment is not the right word in this instance I think. More of an ‘assuming responsibility’ of one’s actions after one has been irresponsible, and hence making up for one’s self? Why don’t you consider abortion a valid method of assuming responsibility? ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/102 "2004-02-18T08:56:14Z")
> [@Joe Random](#): > > Why don’t you consider abortion a valid method of assuming responsibility? I hadn’t considered the question from this angle of view… ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/103 "2004-02-18T13:00:47Z")
For that matter, there is ample evidence that having a baby is not always the acceptance of responsbility. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/104 "2004-02-18T14:37:12Z")
and saying that women should be forced to give birth because they got pregnant and should “assume responsibility” is more than a bit misogynistic. if men got pregnant (in today’s society), it wouldn’t be said about them. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/105 "2004-02-18T15:23:27Z")
> [@Urban Ranger](#): > > You can’t be more wrong. A foetus is a human, but not a human being. There is no being in there - no mind, no thoughts, no individuality, nothing. Yet killing this “non-human being” can be considered homicide in over half of the country. It’s an interesting conundrum, no? ---
**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:** [February 19, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/106 "2004-02-19T00:03:12Z")
> [@ferngully](#): > > Yet killing this “non-human being” can be considered homicide in over half of the country. It’s an interesting conundrum, no? No. It only shows that whether or not the fetus survives to birth is the mother’s choice by default. Early in the pregnancy + desire to abort + abortion = no crime. Later in the pregnancy + desire to not abort + assault by third party causing miscarriage = homicide. It’s a tricky area of law, I agree, but I don’t see how some kind of Lacey Petersen situation could be used to rationalize curtailing abortion rights. ---
**Author:** ![Gomez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d78d45/32.png) [@Gomez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gomez)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/107 "2004-02-19T02:43:57Z")
> [@Urban Ranger](#): > > You can’t be more wrong. A foetus is a human, but not a human being. There is no being in there - no mind, no thoughts, no individuality, nothing. I don’t get this. A fetus is human, it’s a being (as in a developing, organic spatiotemporal entity), thus it’s a human being. Why does a human have to be sentient to qualify as a human being? And if it’s not individual, why does it have a unique genetic code. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/108 "2004-02-19T03:27:21Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > No. It only shows that whether or not the fetus survives to birth is the mother’s choice by default. Early in the pregnancy + desire to abort + abortion = no crime. Later in the pregnancy + desire to not abort + assault by third party causing miscarriage = homicide. > > It’s a tricky area of law, I agree, but I don’t see how some kind of Lacey Petersen situation could be used to rationalize curtailing abortion rights. But we already have fetal homicide laws in over half the states. And in half of those, the laws apply at any stage of gestation. To me, this is an absolutely hideous example of just how fickle we are with regard to how we define “life.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/109 "2004-02-19T04:02:13Z")
Pro-choicers - where do you draw the line? When is ‘it’ too old to be aborted? (I say ‘it’ because if I said ‘fetus’ you might say “when it becomes a person”. But I am asking when does it become a person?) ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/110 "2004-02-19T04:15:12Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > Pro-choicers - where do you draw the line? When is ‘it’ too old to be aborted? When “it” begins to display coherent brain activity, around the 22[sup]nd[/sup] week, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/111 "2004-02-19T04:25:16Z")
> [@Joe Random](#): > > When “it” begins to display coherent brain activity, around the 22[sup]nd[/sup] week, IIRC. By that, do you mean when they start thinking? Or when they have developed a sense of self-awareness? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/112 "2004-02-19T04:49:31Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > By that, do you mean when they start thinking? Or when they have developed a sense of self-awareness? It really not clear whether or not such rudimentary brain activity equates to self awareness. That’s actually something that is harder to pin down. In fact, I believe that what we commonly refer to as “self awareness” is actually “awareness of the separateness of self from others”. Before a certain developmental stage, young children have no concept of the viewpoints of others, and I’d argue that it’s not really possible to be self aware when one does not realize that there is anything _other_ than ‘self’. But that is likely fodder for another debate altogether. As for the current discussion, the loss of brain activity is what clinically defines death, and so it makes sense that onset of brain activity should define the start of “life”. Not that a pre-brain-activity embryo is not alive in a sense. It’s just not alive as an _individual_. While I can’t say for certain that it is self-aware at a given point _after_ the onset of brain activity, I _can_ say for certain that it is not self-aware _prior_ to the onset of brain activity. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/113 "2004-02-19T04:59:58Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > Maybe I am? But punishment is not the right word in this instance I think. More of an ‘assuming responsibility’ of one’s actions after one has been irresponsible, and hence making up for one’s self? Hmmm, let’s see. Forcing someone to undergo exceedingly unpleasant, life-changing consequences despite the presence of other alternatives because you disagree with something they did previously…yeah, that sounds like punishment to me. What you seem to be saying is that no one should have to undergo an unwanted pregnancy, unless they missed the birth control wagon once, in which case they’re stupid, irresponsible sluts who need to suffer the consequences. If I’m doing something stupid and careless, and I break my arm, do I still get to go to the ER and have the bone set? Or do I have to take responsibility for my carelessness and let the bone heal as it may? ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/114 "2004-02-19T05:08:27Z")
Perhaps self-aware was a bad choice of phrase. I mean aware. At what point does the baby/embro (whatever it’s called at the relevant stage) observe it’s surroundings? At what point does it have the ‘knowledge’ that it is ‘there’? Logically I should be pro-choice myself (Afterall, I am pro-euthenasia in certain situations) The logic of pro-choice makes sense. But I have got the feeling that it is somehow wrong to end the life of a living thing, even if it is not a ‘thinking’ thing. Also, to me it seems cruel to remove all possibility of what _could have been_ a happy life for the child, mother and/or family by aborting it. An un-aborted child has a chance of a fulfilling life. An aborted one doesnt. Another question - Before (close to) that point you define as the point of no return (coherent brain activity in **Joe Random**'s opinion) how likely is the child to survive if abortion were not an option? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/115 "2004-02-19T06:03:02Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > Perhaps self-aware was a bad choice of phrase. I mean aware. At what point does the baby/embro (whatever it’s called at the relevant stage) observe it’s surroundings? At what point does it have the ‘knowledge’ that it is ‘there’? I’m not really sure. I’d be interested to know if there’s a definite answer to that myself. The main reason that I picked the onset of brain activity as a dividing line is that I _do_ know that there can be no observation or knowledge before the brain starts functioning. If medical knowledge can provide a more definite answer to this, I’d gladly shift my dividing line accordingly. > [@](#): > > But I have got the feeling that it is somehow wrong to end the life of a living thing, even if it is not a ‘thinking’ thing. Oh, I agree. However, the “level” of a living thing has an impact on how wrong I view the action of killing it to be. [ul][li]Bacteria? I say kill as many as you want. [/li][li]Plants? Kill them for food, for pulp, for oils, for pretty much any reason as long as it’s not completely excessive (such as razing an entire forest just because you feel like it).[/li][li]Animals? Killing for a good reason (such as food or medical research) is okay, but at this level I begin to wish to limit the infliction of pain to a minimum.[/li][li]Humans? Killing should only be done out of necessity, and pain should always be kept to a bare minimum.[/ul]I imagine that most people would follow a similar hierarchy. Now the question is, what separates one “level” from another? Why is killing a plant better (or “less wrong”) than killing an animal? I propose that it has to do with how far from sentience the creature is. That seems to be a deciding factor in determining the “levels”. The further away from human something is, the less upset we tend to feel about killing it.[/li] So if sentience is important, then a fetus before the onset of brain activity (which is no more sentient than a bacterium) would fall pretty low on that scale. > [@](#): > > Also, to me it seems cruel to remove all possibility of what _could have been_ a happy life for the child, mother and/or family by aborting it. An un-aborted child has a chance of a fulfilling life. An aborted one doesnt. An aborted child has the chance of a terrible life (or of being a serial killer and making _others’_ lives terrible), while an aborted one doesn’t. In short, you can never know what _might_ happen. The further into the future you predict, the less likely your predictions are to be correct, and thus the less relevant they become to making decisions. Women who have abortions have their own reasons for doing so, and have already weighed the possible pros and cons to the best of their ability. It really isn’t anyone else’s place to say “But maybe having a child will end up being a _good_ thing, even though you can’t afford to raise it in the foreseeable future.” > [@](#): > > Another question - Before (close to) that point you define as the point of no return (coherent brain activity in **Joe Random**'s opinion) how likely is the child to survive if abortion were not an option? Fairly likely, if you go by my definition. However, I don’t view the likelihood of survival as being a deciding factor (or even very important at all). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/116 "2004-02-19T06:07:05Z")
> [@Joe Random](#): > > As for the current discussion, the loss of brain activity is what clinically defines death, and so it makes sense that onset of brain activity should define the start of “life”. Not that a pre-brain-activity embryo is not alive in a sense. It’s just not alive as an _individual_. I am _impressed_, sir. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/117 "2004-02-19T06:40:49Z")
For me, the issue of abortion and capital punishment are closely related. They are a “Human Choice”, not a Woman’s Choice or a Man’s Choice. On Capital punishment: If a woman/man is found guilty of murders beyond any doubt (including her/his own willing confession to the crimes), then she/he should NOT be subjected to capital punishment (death). She should be subjected to a lifetime imprisonment with hard labor, with no possibility of parole. To make up for her upkeep dollars, put her to work in the mines/building roads/railroads, 18 hours a day, every day for the rest of her life. Now, if she/he asks to die rather than putting up with this fate, then put her/him to sleep with an injection. But he/she MUST want it. We, as a society will only kill her because she asks for it as a mercy. On abortion: It is not a woman’s choice only, it is a human choice. First of all, I believe abortion should be legal (on demand) for any woman under 18 - 21 years who wants it, no matter what the circumstances. If she wants it, she should have it legally. Beyond 18 -21, if she wants an abortion, then the other party that was involved in her pregnancy should be consulted. If he is gone away (e.g. a rapist), or he also agrees with her to have an abortion, then she has a legal right to abortion. But, if the man involved wants the child and can show that he can take responsibility for the child after birth for 20 years, then the woman has no right to abort. It may be unfortunate for her, but she will have to go through the 9 months of agony and pain, give birth, and hand over the child to the willing father, and then go away (and hopefully never again become unwillingly pregnant). It is only through the above scenario that I can reconcile abortion with capital punishment. IMHO, these are human choices, not just “a woman’s choice”. ---
**Author:** ![ferngully](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d07c76/32.png) [@ferngully](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ferngully)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/118 "2004-02-19T13:53:46Z")
> [@Wake up call](#): > > Beyond 18 -21, if she wants an abortion, then the other party that was involved in her pregnancy should be consulted. If he is gone away (e.g. a rapist), or he also agrees with her to have an abortion, then she has a legal right to abortion. But, if the man involved wants the child and can show that he can take responsibility for the child after birth for 20 years, then the woman has no right to abort. It may be unfortunate for her, but she will have to go through the 9 months of agony and pain, give birth, and hand over the child to the willing father, and then go away (and hopefully never again become unwillingly pregnant). > > It is only through the above scenario that I can reconcile abortion with capital punishment. IMHO, these are human choices, not just “a woman’s choice”. What if the circumstances were reversed, and the man wanted her to have an abortion, and she wanted to keep the baby? Should the man still have an obligation to support the child? (I’m feeling quite hijack-y today. apologies) ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/119 "2004-02-19T14:56:09Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > Pro-choicers - where do you draw the line? When is ‘it’ too old to be aborted? (I say ‘it’ because if I said ‘fetus’ you might say “when it becomes a person”. But I am asking when does it become a person?) i’m probably a lot more of a hard-line pro-choice advocate than most people here, it seems. so i’m going to go ahead and give you my hard-line answer. birth. i’m a big fan of people (don’t act shocked!). i think they’re really great. i think what makes someone or something a person, or more valuable to us, is what makes them like _us_. in terms of developmental psychology, a newborn baby is no smarter than a dog. the onset of brain activity is just the arrival of a few electrical impulses, there is nothing substantive about it. worms have brain activity. a baby does not become what i would consider a “person” or rather, something which society considers close enough to you or me to be considered one of us, until well after birth. you will note that i don’t advocate the right to infanticide, and i’ll get into that in a minute. first, though, it should just be pointed out that if someone does not want to give birth, she should not have to give birth. whatever the would-be mother wants without exception trumps what we might surmise the would-be child could want. this changes at birth. the child is no longer a part of the mother. the child, while still having no _intrinsic_ value (it does not value its own life), gains an _extrinsic_ value. with the child no longer a part of the mother’s body, if she values its life less than another member of society, she can give it to that other member (a la adoption, etc.). a baby may have (extrinsic) value because of its potential to become a thinking person, or any number of reasons, but the mother has already had the “parasite” removed, and thus the main goal of abortion is accomplished. this leaves a bit of a grey area around the viability question. why, you might ask, should abortion be considered an option if the fetus can survive outside the mother? for one, the line of viability is very blurry indeed. some survive a month of prematurity without any negative effects. some die much later in the term. we don’t know when it will be viable. and secondly, and more importantly, abortion is, in all cases, safer than birth. if a woman does not want to give birth, we should not be able to force her to give birth. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296/120 "2004-02-19T15:03:04Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > Also, to me it seems cruel to remove all possibility of what _could have been_ a happy life for the child, mother and/or family by aborting it. An un-aborted child has a chance of a fulfilling life. An aborted one doesnt. the same could be said (the way you stated it) about a child that wasn’t conceived at all. there’s nothing cruel about that, in my opinion. i understand that you believe the probability that a conceived (or perhaps implanted) zygote or fetus or whatever will become a full-fledged thinking person puts it near a person in value. there are several problems with that approach. for one, there is 0 probabilty that it will become a person without its host mother. second, the probability method is completely arbitrary. at what probability does it become worth saving? how do we determine the probability that it will become a thinking person? lastly, as pointed out, the same probability can be acheived through multiple “trials” of sex with contraception, and we don’t consider that morally equivalent to abortion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-agree-with-this-reasoning-about-pro-life/229296.md?page=7)