# How do Partial Abortions Fit into the Pro-life View Point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2001, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416 "2001-10-30T01:48:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nefarious\_Chipmunk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nefarious_chipmunk/32/1045_2.png) [@Nefarious\_Chipmunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nefarious_Chipmunk)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/1 "2001-10-30T01:48:23Z")
How do pro-lifers feel about partial abortion. Let me set up a hypothetical situation. A mother finds out that she is pregnant with septuplets. To keep all of the children would get increase the chance of death in the mother, and almost insure serious health problems, or death, for the babies. Cutting the number of babies down to two or three would allow for increased safety. It would also allow a smaller risk of health defects/death to the babies. Do pro-lifers believe that, in this situation, abortion would be okay? Or is it still wrong? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/2 "2001-10-30T03:14:15Z")
Well, the Catholic Church is apparently against such “selective reduction” practices. Funny, though, that they’re not opposed to the use of fertility drugs, which vastly increase the chances of a woman being pregnant with more than 3 babies. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/3 "2001-10-30T03:27:46Z")
In the case of the McCaughey multi-tuplets, the parents thought it was wrong to selectively abort some of them. I don’t know if they are pro-lifers, but IIRC, their justification was that “God sent them to us,” or some such. (a year’s supply of Turtle Wax to whoever can identify the flaw in _that_ argument.) ---
**Author:** ![Super\_Gnat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Super\_Gnat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Super_Gnat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/4 "2001-10-30T03:33:16Z")
Personally, assuming that they were early enough, I’d probably freeze a couple and have them later. If not… as a pro-lifer, I’m honestly not sure. I would think that it would be better to try and have all of them… I mean, how can you choose between your kids? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/5 "2001-10-30T03:52:53Z")
Super Gnat wrote: > [@](#): > > Personally, assuming that they were early enough, I’d probably freeze a couple and have them later. That’d be mighty difficult. By the time you’re aware of how many babies you’re pregnant with, they’re already a **whole** lot larger than a blastula and would probably die if you froze them. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/6 "2001-10-30T04:19:59Z")
> [@](#): > > By the time you’re aware of how many babies you’re pregnant with, they’re already a whole lot larger than a blastula and would probably die if you froze them. Kids do the _darndest_ things! ---
**Author:** ![Nefarious\_Chipmunk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nefarious_chipmunk/32/1045_2.png) [@Nefarious\_Chipmunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nefarious_Chipmunk)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/7 "2001-10-30T04:23:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Super Gnat \* > \*\*I’m honestly not sure. I would think that it would be better to try and have all of them… I mean, how can you choose between your kids? \*\* Even if the choice was between your life or theirs? Or their lives. I mean, with a group as large as seven, there is a big chance that they wouldn’t survive as it was. Would you risk the lives of all of them? ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/8 "2001-10-30T04:37:59Z")
Somebody correct me if I am wrong. I have heard that when you take these drugs, they do tests to see how many eggs have been released, and you can see the maximum number of babies you may end up with. If this is correct, then I think that it isn’t a very good idea to try for a pregnancy in a cycle which produces more than, say, 3 eggs. It would, I think, be unfair to the several children produced. I realize that this is a very difficult decision, since people have often spent thousands of dollars and months of pain just getting to that point. But I think it’s wrong to try for that many babies at once in the first place–which cancels out the question of selective abortion, which I don’t think is a real good idea. Once you’ve got them, you’ve got them–you’ve already made the decision, after all. (Note: I’m not a hard-core pro-lifer. I’m interested in bringing society to a point in which abortion is very very rare–but I’m not interested in outlawing the practice at this time, for several reasons.) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/9 "2001-10-30T16:42:43Z")
**Gnat** : > [@](#): > > I’m honestly not sure. I would think that it would be better to try and have all of them… I mean, how can you choose between your kids? Sorry to be another one to pick this statement out, but I find it very interesting. It sounds to me that thsi isn’t a matter of choosing between your children–it’s a matter of removing excess blastula or embryoes that were created by artificial means in order to improve the chances for the remaining ones and for the mother. Human or non-human is the core of abortion debate, and we can go around on that one forever, but I don’t think many people, even the vehemently anti-abortion, will claim that a blastula, or an embryo, or even a fetus is truly a _child_. ---
**Author:** ![Dragwyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dragwyr/32/2855_2.png) [@Dragwyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragwyr)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/10 "2001-10-30T16:53:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\*Human or non-human is the core of abortion debate, and we can go around on that one forever, but I don’t think many people, even the vehemently anti-abortion, will claim that a blastula, or an embryo, or even a fetus is truly a _child_. \*\* But that is what the pro-lifers claim: That life begins at conception and that the embryo is a viable human life. There are a whole lot of pro-lifers out there that will tell you that. In fact, there are plenty of pro-life organizations that will tell you that. I say this without intentionally trying to get this moved to GD. Just bringing up a fact. ---
**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:** [October 30, 2001, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/11 "2001-10-30T16:54:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\*…I don’t think many people, even the vehemently anti-abortion, will claim that a blastula, or an embryo, or even a fetus is truly a _child_. \*\* Whether it is a _child_ or not is beside the point to vehement anti-abortionists. To them it is a life. Period. End of story. Life, by their definition, begins at the moment of conception which is when the sperm meets the egg (although I’ve even herad it described as the point when a man ejaculates inside the woman since defining the moment at which fertilization occurs is too hard to pin down). Abortion is plain and simple murder in their view at _any_ time…blastula (or zygote or whatever) to full-blown almost ready to be born fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/12 "2001-10-30T17:03:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*Well, the Catholic Church is apparently against such “selective reduction” practices. > > Funny, though, that they’re not opposed to the use of fertility drugs, which vastly increase the chances of a woman being pregnant with more than 3 babies. \*\* What Catholic Church do you attend? The Catholic church IS against fertility treatments of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2001, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/13 "2001-10-30T17:07:06Z")
_I KNOW_. Believe me, I know. As I tried to make clear, human vs. nonhuman is not the issue in my mind at the moment. I am asking for clarification, from **Super Gnat** , about her “choosing among children” point. Since the hypothetical mother to be on fertility drugs is just beginning her multiple pregnancy, it still strikes me that we’re not talking about children. Human lives, maybe. But not children. ---
**Author:** ![panzermanpanzerman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9bcb4/32.png) [@panzermanpanzerman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panzermanpanzerman)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/14 "2001-10-31T05:03:18Z")
Here’s the pman^2 POV: I’m pro life. I do believe that the abortion of one or more members of a set of sextuplets may be defensible, however, if not doing so presents a clear and present danger to the life of the mother, or to the group. Life should be preserved. That doesn’t mean we have to duck incredibly difficult and painful choices. But the sanctity of life should illuminate the reasoning behind that decision. As for the term ‘clear and present danger,’ that’s frequently left to juries to decide in other kinds of cases. But we have enough data out there to come up with some ranges of likely outcomes and assign a numeric probability to the death of a woman from complications arising from these kinds of pregnancies. And the concept of ‘statistically significant’ is fairly well developed. So I would suggest that the ‘clear and present danger’ standard be defined by whether or not a given pregnancy condition creates a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of the death of the mother–over and above the margin of error-- as a direct cause of complications from the pregnancy, given commonly available treatments. This would mean that the threshold for statistically significant increases in mortality may vary with differences in the availability of advanced treatments. This is ok by me. Overall, treatments will continue to improve, and fewer and fewer ‘self defense abortions’ will be required. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/15 "2001-10-31T06:15:10Z")
Guinastasia wrote: > [@](#): > > The Catholic church IS against fertility treatments of any kind. Really? Well, according to the April 1999 article on [The Happy Heretic](http://www.thehappyheretic.com/4-99.htm) website (admittedly not the most level-headed or unbiased site with regard to religious issues, to be sure), a Catholic couple had used fertility drugs, and the woman had attempted to give birth to all 8 babies. Three died, and the other five would never grow up to be healthy adults, because there just wasn’t enough room in their mother’s womb for eight fetuses to develop properly. My point, though, is that not only did the woman repeat that she was abiding by “God’s Will,” _Her priest was interviewed and he too complimented her on obeying “God’s will.”_ As Judith Hayes (the Happy Heretic herself) said, “It occurs to me that ‘God’s will’ was that she remain childless. Taking those fertility drugs is as ‘unnatural’ as is the process of reduction. Why was that first action deemed permissible under ‘God’s will,’ while the second was not?” So, either the Catholic Church does allow infertile Catholic married couples to use fertility drugs, or the priest who was interviewed was presenting a viewpoint at odds with the Catholic Church, or the Happy Heretic was misinformed. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/16 "2001-10-31T15:55:21Z")
My guess is that the priest was at odds with the Church’s teachings. No birth control, fertility treatments, etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/17 "2001-10-31T16:42:59Z")
Perhaps the priest was just referring to the decision not to abort some embryos as “God’s Will,” and making no comment on the fertility treatment. He may have disapproved of the fertility treatments, but once they were conceived, it was “God’s Will” that she not abort. Kind of like a couple having premarital sex and she gets pregnant; while the priest may consider the premarital sex wrong, he’ll likely consider not getting an abortion to be obeying “God’s Will.” ---
**Author:** ![booklover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@booklover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/booklover)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/18 "2001-10-31T17:25:52Z")
I know that there was a firly recent case of septuplets (I think) being born to an Islamic couple in DC who refused to opt for reduction of one or more fetuses because of their religious objection to abortion. My understanding of the pro-lifers is that they believe if a fetus exists it should be born. Not to hijack this thread, but I’ve always wondered how prolifers justify not going for abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. I’m talking severe medical illness here—to my view that seems like “Oh, we’d LOVE to have the mother die!!! Just don’t kill the child!” Any clue as to why they think that way??? ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/19 "2001-10-31T18:34:23Z")
Actually, the Church doesn’t condemn the use of fertility drugs – they do condemn pretty much every other kind of procedure, but fertility drugs are OK (since you still have to have sex to conceive). I quote from the catechism: > [@](#): > > 2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.”[165] > > 2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”[166] > > 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.”[167] “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union … Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”[168] Selective reduction, of course, is right out. (Personally, if I were in a situation where I wanted to have a baby but couldn’t, I’d probably try to adopt one…) ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416/20 "2001-10-31T19:57:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Katisha \* > \*\*Actually, the Church doesn’t condemn the use of fertility drugs – they do condemn pretty much every other kind of procedure, but fertility drugs are OK (since you still have to have sex to conceive). I quote from the catechism: > \*\* I might modify your description of church teaching about fertility drugs with a small caveat. From the [U.S. Catholic Bishops](http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.htm)… “… Fertility drugs may also be used, with the caution that large multiple pregnancies may put mother and infants at risk.” The site also discusses some of the ethical framework behind Donum Vitae, the church’s teaching about IVF etc…along with a look at some of the “newer” technologies like LTOT (Lower Tubal Ovum Transfer) and GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-partial-abortions-fit-into-the-pro-life-view-point/90416.md?page=2)