# Esp. for pro-lifers: What would happen if abortion were outlawed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794 "2003-04-28T22:19:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**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 6, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/261 "2003-05-06T13:50:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*Ummm what does the 100 million figure have to do with anything? 100 million women are not getting tubal ligations. > > (FWIW…the ballpark figure I’ve seen for tubal ligations is about 0.1- 0.2% failure rate) \*\* As I understand the Western concept of justice, a law that could be passed to punish the guilty should not also punish the innocent. If some people are abusing activity _X_, then any thought to banning _X_ should also spare a moemnt to consider those who have a legitimate use for _X_. The 100 million figure is relevant because in a nation with so many people, almost any activity you can think of banning is probably necessary to someone, somewhere. A cost-benefit analysis has to be taken to ensure that the legitimate users of an activity are not extremely numerous and/or that some clearly-defined exceptions can be made for them. So far, many pro-lifers in this thread are willing to accept a rape exception to abortion. A legitimate problem with this exception is that it can be difficult to prove or disprove, and that any attempt to make the exception more stringent (i.e. the woman has to show evidence that she was raped) might easily trap some women who were raped but can’t easily prove it. If the million or so women who get abortions in the U.S. every year had tubal ligations instead, a 0.1% failure rate could mean about 1000 of them get pregnant anyway. Is 1000 significant enough to create another legal exception for women who claim “I had the surgery but got pregnant. Can I get a legal abortion?” So far, the protection of the fetusses does not strike me as enough of a benefit to justify all the social costs or the necessary legal hassles. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/262 "2003-05-06T14:41:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Consensual sex, by definition, means that the host is not unwilling. It’s a risk you assume by having sex. \*\* So, I really am willing to be pregnant, I just use birth control because I like it? :smack: Why didn’t I see that? Thank you so much for enlightening me. I guess I just didn’t understand that any sex meant I was willing, dare I say eager? to be pregnant. Oh, the things you learn on the internet. Julie ---
**Author:** ![Summertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Summertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Summertime)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/263 "2003-05-06T14:44:56Z")
I think what he means is: if you are going to have sex, its a definite possibility that you could become pregnant. So if you really don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. Its not that hard! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/264 "2003-05-06T14:46:51Z")
By the way, this means that eating a hamburger means you’re “willing” to have e. coli, right? Eating pork means a “willingness” to have trichinosis? After all, if you didn’t want trichinosis you wouldn’t have eaten that bratwurst. Right? > [@](#): > > Suppose your elderly mother contracts cancer. You simply do not have the emotional resources to support her during her treatment. Therefore, you have her killed. It would be extremely helpful if you’d actually read the rest of the thread before replying. How is this in any way analogous to a fetus inside my body, causing me physical pain and discomfort, draining my resources, for a net result of bringing another unloved and unwanted child into the world? Tell you what. If my mother is dying of cancer **and stuck inside my uterus** I’ll consider the situations similar. Julie ---
**Author:** ![Summertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Summertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Summertime)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/265 "2003-05-06T14:49:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > \*\*By the way, this means that eating a hamburger means you’re “willing” to have e. coli, right? Eating pork means a “willingness” to have trichinosis? After all, if you didn’t want trichinosis you wouldn’t have eaten that bratwurst. > > Right? > > Julie \*\* Well, this may be a bad analogy, as many vegetarians would agree. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/266 "2003-05-06T14:56:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by candida \* > \*\*No, I do not accept the premises of the argument and I do really believe that it ‘depends on what you mean by _human life_’. \*\* The premise is that a zygote has a complete, unique human genetic code. What is there not to accept? Why does it matter what you label it? Would a zygote by any other name be entitled to government protection? ---
**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 6, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/267 "2003-05-06T15:19:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*The premise is that a zygote has a complete, unique human genetic code. What is there not to accept? Why does it matter what you label it? Would a zygote by any other name be entitled to government protection? \*\* Sure, give it government protection. Just don’t give it equal or greater protection than the woman hosting it. She has a complete unique human genetic code, too. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/268 "2003-05-06T15:20:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Summertime \* > \*\*I think what he means is: > if you are going to have sex, its a definite possibility that you could become pregnant. > So if you really don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. > Its not that hard! \*\* So, I am supposed to ruin my relationship and my marriage for the sake of someone else’s morality? Just out of curiosity, is this considered “family values”? Julie ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/269 "2003-05-06T16:09:46Z")
zwaldd While, to you, the moral situation here consists of absolutes, to me it doesn’t and there is no point in going around in circles discussing it - especially in a thread supposedly about _outcomes_. ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/270 "2003-05-06T16:56:18Z")
**jsgoddess** > [@](#): > > But the reasons why anti-abortion advocates say and believe what they do might be influenced by an underlying animosity. I don’t see why this is important. This supposed animosity wouldn’t make the reasons themselves any less true. The truth value of a statement doesn’t change depending on who’s making it or why they’re making it. **Candida** is impugning my motives as thought it gives her free license to ignore my arguments. I’m saying that my reasons stand apart from my motives, whatever they may be. If she wants to debate my reasoning then it doesn’t matter _why_ I’m making these arguments, only that I _am_ making them. I see her numerous attempts to bring the character of pro-lifers into disrepute as an obvious way of avoiding the issues at hand. > [@](#): > > Ben starts from the same position I do. Ben comes up with a totally different conclusion. We have the same “facts.” We have the same “evidence.” We simply put the emphasis on radically different things. But the central question is _how_ do my motives affect the actual _truth_ value of my conclusions? If you could see into my mind and knew for an absolute certainty that my motives for being pro-life were solely based on concern for the fetus and that there was not one single misogynistic bone in my body, would that make my actual conclusions _more true_ than if I was an unrepentant misogynist? ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/271 "2003-05-06T17:08:05Z")
My goodness, the board’s Dramatics Society is on form today! It doesn’t really matter, Ben, what your personal motivations actually _are_, what are important are the results of your actions - whether _intended_ or _unintended_. If the _inevitable_ result of your actions means that I loose the right of control over my body, then, whether that loss of control is your prime motivation or not, you _are_, objectively- speaking, campaigning for state control of my body. When the prime agents in this campaign have overt political motivations, then, whether you are a wholehearted supporter or not, you are, objectively-speaking, at least a fellow-traveler. So, Ben, no matter what kind of wonderful, wondrous, saintly person you make yourself out to be, objectively-speaking . . . ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/272 "2003-05-06T18:11:49Z")
> [@](#): > > If the inevitable result of your actions means that I loose the right of control over my body, then, whether that loss of control is your prime motivation or not, you are, objectively- speaking, campaigning for state control of my body. Don’t you think you might be overstating the case a trifle? By “a trifle”, I mean roughly from here to Des Moines. The state already controls your body. If you want to use your body to punch me in the nose, the state steps in and forbids it. If you want to use your body to drive after drinking, the state steps in and forbids it. Are you accusing Mothers Against Drunk Driving of being control freaks? > [@](#): > > When the prime agents in this campaign have overt political motivations, then, whether you are a wholehearted supporter or not, you are, objectively-speaking, at least a fellow-traveler. And from _ad hominem_, we move on to the next debate tactic, which is “guilt by association”. As in “that bad person agrees with you, therefore you must be a bad person just like he is!” So if I agree with a political or social movement, some of whose members are man-hating bitches, does that make me a fellow-traveler of MHBs? Does it necessarily imply that the movement is wrong, or that its positions have been discredited? Martin Luther King was a gifted social visionary. He was also a plagiarist, wife-beater, and adulterer. Does this mean the civil rights movement was a mistake? Charlie Manson was a vegetarian. Does this mean anyone who doesn’t eat meat is a fellow-traveler of multiple murder? Is there another logical fallacy on which you would like to ring the changes? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/273 "2003-05-06T18:39:20Z")
Shodan Do, I think I’m overstating the case about control over my body? Obviously, I don’t. Since you are a logical fallacy fan, I’d suggest that you look up the concept of ‘extended analogy’. I’d also suggest that you look at my piece on _ad hominem_ - the rush to proclaim ‘ad hominem’ always seems to me to be the last refuge of the argumentative scoundrel but that is by- the-by. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/274 "2003-05-06T19:12:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben Hicks \* > \*\ ***jsgoddess** > > I don’t see why this is important. This supposed animosity wouldn’t make the reasons themselves any less true. \*\* Opinions are neither true nor untrue. Your motives would affect your stated opinions. As I said, we start from the same point. The zygote/embryo/fetus is alive and human. After that agreement, however, there is no common ground. I do not care that it is alive and human so long as it is causing physical and emotional harm to a person who doesn’t want it inside her body. Now, if pregnancies could be completely without affect on the woman, without visible signs, physical discomfort, hormonal changes, or emotional distress–then I would probably have a different opinion than I currently have. If the embryo/fetus could be transferred to a willing woman or to a machine with the same, or less, suffering to the woman as an abortion, then I would probably have a different opinion than I currently have. These opinions are neither true nor untrue. They are, however, formed by my circumstances and my motives (which I spelled out in another post). Julie ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/275 "2003-05-06T19:37:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Summertime \* > \*\*Well, this may be a bad analogy, as many vegetarians would agree. \*\* So, how exactly do you propose that I have a healthy, happy marriage with no sexual contact at all (since you can get pregnant during non-intercourse, too)? Get sterilized? Can’t do that, nobody’ll sterilize me because I don’t have kids yet. Hell, it’s damn hard to find someone to put in an IUD because it might impair my fertility. What _is_ the proposed solution for married women who are completely, totally unwilling and unfit to be pregnant, can’t get sterilized, and aren’t allowed to get an abortion? A sexless marriage for the next 30 years? Get real. A lifetime of nothing but oral and anal? Sorry, buddy, in our house that’s exit-only territory, and oral only is just a tease. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/276 "2003-05-06T20:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > What is the proposed solution for married women who are completely, totally unwilling and unfit to be pregnant, can’t get sterilized, and aren’t allowed to get an abortion? A sexless marriage for the next 30 years? I agree this is a very difficult situation for you. But play a thought game with me for just a second. Imagine that you got pregnant and you believed (I know you don’t, but just imagine with me), really believed that that thing inside you was a baby. As much a baby as any live, cooing and giggling baby. Would 9 months of your discomfort be worth the life of this real child? **If** you believed this was a baby, you would probably be willing to withstand the temporary unpleasantness and then give the child to another loving family. Now, I know you probably don’t believe the thing inside you is actually a baby, so then the argument goes back to when does a fetus become a baby/alive/sentient etc. We’ve all been there. I guess my point is that unpleasant things happen, and sometimes it’s no one’s fault. When I drive my car I risk an accident. I can do a lot to lessen the chances of an accident (follow traffic laws etc.), but I could still get into a life threatening accident. I know it’s a risk, and yet I’ll willing to take that risk for the pleaure and convenience of driving a car. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/277 "2003-05-06T21:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by autz \* > \*\*Would 9 months of your discomfort be worth the life of this real child? **If** you believed this was a baby, you would probably be willing to withstand the temporary unpleasantness and then give the child to another loving family. > \*\* Nope. I believe it is a baby (or at least a proto-baby. And no, it wouldn’t be worth it to me. Heck, I couldn’t even afford it financially. Calling an unwanted pregnancy a “temporary unpleasantness” is a lot of why these discussions never go anywhere. “Temporary” is certainly a relative term, and “unpleasantness” is just plain euphemistic. Julie ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/278 "2003-05-06T21:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > **autz** said: > Imagine that you got pregnant and you believed (I know you don’t, but just imagine with me), really believed that that thing inside you was a baby. As much a baby as any live, cooing and giggling baby. > > Would 9 months of your discomfort be worth the life of this real child? I would without a second thought terminate the pregnancy. Having the rest of my life is worth that abortion, you bet, in a heartbeat. I love my career, my freedom, my life, my health, my sanity and my future more than I care about some “person” who doesn’t think, eat, breathe, poop or even know it exists. It’s not acceptable for someone to tell me to just wait until I’m 60 years old (if my family members are any indication) to have a sex life. That kind of intimacy is important, very important, to my being a mentally and emotionally healthy adult, and even if you could convince me that an accidental pregnancy was a ‘baby’, I’d just ask you to get out of the way so I could go get my mifepristone. ---
**Author:** ![Summertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Summertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Summertime)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/279 "2003-05-07T13:23:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrazyCatLady \* > \*\*So, how exactly do you propose that I have a healthy, happy marriage with no sexual contact at all (since you can get pregnant during non-intercourse, too)? Get sterilized? > > Can’t do that, nobody’ll sterilize me because I don’t have kids yet. Hell, it’s damn hard to find someone to put in an IUD because it might impair my fertility. > > What _is_ the proposed solution for married women who are completely, totally unwilling and unfit to be pregnant, can’t get sterilized, and aren’t allowed to get an abortion? A sexless marriage for the next 30 years? Get real. A lifetime of nothing but oral and anal? Sorry, buddy, in our house that’s exit-only territory, and oral only is just a tease. \*\* What about your husband gettting a vasectomy? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794/280 "2003-05-07T14:02:06Z")
Just remember: nobody (except you) gets hurt if you just do what the anti-choice folks say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/esp-for-pro-lifers-what-would-happen-if-abortion-were-outlawed/171794.md?page=15)