# How important are abortion rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2010, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017 "2010-11-09T10:52:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![nolonger\_lurking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/41988e/32.png) [@nolonger\_lurking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nolonger_lurking)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/221 "2010-11-10T21:33:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Clearly there is a human being there the day before the woman gives birth at full term (9 months). Wait, when did we agree on this? I know that they’re cute and all, and I accept that you may be awfully attached to your own child the day they are born, but I have yet to be convinced that a newborn is a human _person_ deserving of all the absolute rights and protections that entails. Of course, the arguments that make legal abortion a moral necessity become markedly less compelling a moment after birth. > [@](#): > > Should she be allowed to kill the fetus then? If yes why can’t she kill it 10 seconds later once it has been born? > > Presumably you are not ok with aborting a baby at 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days of gestation. > > What about at 8 months, 3 weeks and 5 days? No? > > We can keep doing this. Where do you draw a line? > > No doubt the line drawn is arbitrary but I am cool with abortion not being ok after viability is reached (which is about 6 months). Given that there is not a bright line on when the unborn gains personhood I think it wise to err on the side not killing something if it might have a consciousness to speak of. I’ll tell you what. I’m pretty sure that at least some 1 year olds are people, and that abortion should be illegal after the 7th trimester. I’m not sure where personhood attaches, so I’ll compromise and say abortion should be illegal after birth. Because the woman’s body is so much less involved, I don’t mind pushing the bright line back several months from where personhood may occur. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/222 "2010-11-10T21:34:33Z")
> [@nolonger\_lurking](#): > > Wait, when did we agree on this? I know that they’re cute and all, and I accept that you may be awfully attached to your own child the day they are born, but I have yet to be convinced that a newborn is a human _person_ deserving of all the absolute rights and protections that entails. Of course, the arguments that make legal abortion a moral necessity become markedly less compelling a moment after birth. Maybe we could use the health insurance standards. Don’t most plans not consider the baby a person until 3 days after birth? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/223 "2010-11-10T21:37:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What if I was? > > Anyway, you say a line must be drawn. I’m just asking what would happen if it wasn’t. What is your expected outcome if all abortion restrictions were eliminated? Something bad, I assume. Such as? Don’t you remember that cult of women who would get pregnant, wait until the 8th month, convince a doctor to perform an abortion (this was before the 3rd trimester restrictions were in place, of course) and then feast on the results? C’mon, it was in all the papers. No recollection at all? Me neither. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/224 "2010-11-10T21:52:48Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > To be fair, those are only ethically consistent positions if the only consideration is an anti-abortion one. It’s not necessarily ethically inconsistent if there are other concerns which end up overuling or at least interacting in some way with an anti-abortion position. If you held that sex should only happen as a means of conception, for example, then it would not necessarily be ethicially inconsistent to both be against abortion and against birth control or sex education other than abstinence-only. Maybe, but not even the Catholic Church believes this. They believe that there must be the possibility of conception, but not that sex is only for conception. ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/225 "2010-11-10T21:57:39Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Same reason I can shoot an intruder that intends to do me harm, but I can’t shoot him when he’s off my property and running away. This logic, in response to why not have an “abortion” after the baby is born, doesn’t hold water. After the baby is born, he still depends on someone to live, unlike the intruder who may be free and clear once he’s off your property. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/226 "2010-11-10T22:09:29Z")
> [@nolonger\_lurking](#): > > Wait, when did we agree on this? “We” didn’t. I gave you my opinion and rationale. Seeing no rationale from you. > [@](#): > > I’ll tell you what. I’m pretty sure that at least some 1 year olds are people, and that abortion should be illegal after the 7th trimester. I’m not sure where personhood attaches, so I’ll compromise and say abortion should be illegal after birth. Because the woman’s body is so much less involved, I don’t mind pushing the bright line back several months from where personhood may occur. After birth killing the baby is murder. > [@](#): > > A 14-year-old gave birth to a baby in a junior high school bathroom and tried to flush the newborn down the toilet, killing the infant, police told KPRC Local 2. > \ > > The case is being treated as a homicide, detectives said. > > SOURCE: [http://www.click2houston.com/news/15773665/detail.html](http://www.click2houston.com/news/15773665/detail.html) > [@](#): > > A 17-year-old girl stabbed her newborn baby 135 times and tossed the body in a rubbish bin outside her home. > > \ > > Beecroft was charged with first-degree, or premeditated, murder and was being held in a juvenile detention centre. > > SOURCE: [Girl knifes new baby 135 times | Glasgow Times](http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/girl-knifes-new-baby-135-times-1.946984) So, if you want to argue that this is NOT murder and this is a perfectly fine thing to do I eagerly await your reasoning. I would also like to hear why killing the unborn child moments before birth is ok by you as a morally acceptable thing to do. Or you can continue with the drive-by, idiotic snark as you like. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/227 "2010-11-10T22:18:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Maybe, but not even the Catholic Church believes this. They believe that there must be the possibility of conception, but not that sex is only for conception. That may be the Church’s official position, but it’s not necessarily the belief of all Catholics. But beyond that, surely the belief that there must be the possibility of conception is itself one of those other positions that would make the whole ethically consistent? ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/228 "2010-11-10T22:19:57Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Same reason I can shoot an intruder that intends to do me harm, but I can’t shoot him when he’s off my property and running away. Maybe in Texas. Most states aren’t cool with you shooting people unless harm to you is imminent. > [@](#): > > The answer to your question is easy though because a late term abortion is an exceptionally difficult and risky procedure. So the mother may be okay with the abortion, but she’ll need to find a doctor that is okay going along with. Here we have a natural safeguard, chances are the doctor is going to say that having the baby is actually less dangerous than a DnC. At this point there isn’t a need for an abortion. It is not about whether a doctor will do it. It is about the rationale used in determining how late it is ok for a woman to have an abortion. > [@](#): > > So now we’re at 4 months, and that’s just elective. Do you want to be the one to tell a woman that even though her blood pressure was fine last week, this week she’s showing signs of preeclampsia. But it’s too late for an abortion so she should start making arrangements for her death. 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. There are about 1.2 million abortions per year so something over a million women a year manage to make that decision in the first three months. Does not seem to be a problem. I also said abortion should be an option at any time for medical reasons (saving the life of the mother would certainly count). ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/229 "2010-11-10T22:39:10Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > You may be right. So might those who disagree with you. Lots of good arguments on both sides. Again, no there aren’t and saying that over and over doesn’t make it true. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > We ought to be very careful. How _convenient_ that your version of “being careful” for you amounts to “oppress women”. Apparently we only need to be “careful” about the rights of mindless tissue, not women. According to you, the freedom and health of women are apparently worthy only of disdain. They are just cows to you, just so many wombs on legs. And by your own logic we should also forbid cancer treatments and harvesting organs from the brain dead. After all, that brain dead corpse or tumor “might be a person!” That’s certainly just as likely as an equally brainless fetus being a person. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Is it right to kill those who are mindless? There’s no one there to kill, so of course. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > Who decides who is mindless? May I decide you are mindless and kill you? After all, many here seem to think it is a private decision. That’s a silly question. You aren’t me, nor are you a close relation, nor my SO, nor my doctor, so of course not. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So (arguably) killing people is a private decision? May I kill a fetus because it has Down’s Syndrome? Because it is a girl? Because tests shows it will develop CF? Because he is of unpure blood racially? Assuming you were pregnant you could kill the fetus because you want to play soccer with it for all I care. It’s just a thing. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Clearly there is a human being there the day before the woman gives birth at full term (9 months). Should she be allowed to kill the fetus then? If yes why can’t she kill it 10 seconds later once it has been born? Because once it has been born it isn’t inside and dependent on her any more. At the very least, once it is born the rights of the father to make decisions about his offspring suddenly become ethically equal to hers, because it isn’t a matter of “her body, her choice” anymore. > [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > This logic, in response to why not have an “abortion” after the baby is born, doesn’t hold water. After the baby is born, he still depends on someone to live, unlike the intruder who may be free and clear once he’s off your property. The baby is dependent on “someone”; but not the mother and only the mother anymore. A mother of a newborn who is tired of dealing with it can let someone else adopt it, or more likely just have Dad or someone else take care of the baby for a while while she rests. A pregnant woman can’t just hand the fetus off to someone else so she can rest for a while. That’s two quite different kinds of dependency. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would also like to hear why killing the unborn child moments before birth is ok by you as a morally acceptable thing to do. Because if that’s happening the baby is either already dead or probably going to kill the mother. Elective near-birth abortions are nothing but a strawman. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/230 "2010-11-10T22:39:24Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Don’t you remember that cult of women who would get pregnant, wait until the 8th month, convince a doctor to perform an abortion (this was before the 3rd trimester restrictions were in place, of course) and then feast on the results? > > C’mon, it was in all the papers. No recollection at all? > > Me neither. Ah more snark. If there is one thing GD needs more of it is snark. :rolleyes: When I worked at Planned Parenthood it was not unheard of for a woman to come in seeking a late term abortion. More often than not she got pregnant to keep her boyfriend and then he bailed at the 11th hour so the woman no longer wanted the baby. Not a common occurrence but not unusual either. (Of course she was not given an abortion but would be given counseling if she wanted it.) ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/231 "2010-11-10T22:47:46Z")
> [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > My stance is this: a fetus is \*\*not \*\*a person - it is, in the strictest sense, a parasite. Abortion is therefore not murder. It is a decision that is strictly, 100% up to the **person** who is involved (the pregnant woman) and no one else’s. I have no problem with people being pro-life (they have made that decision for themselves) but I have a giant honking problem with people who are anti-choice (they have made that decision on behalf of others). Okay, the above is how I react when strict logic and reasoning are used. Below is what happens when I allow myself to let emotions talk, too. There is a lot of vitriol churning in me right now, but a post (that I won’t link to, but it’s fairly recent) from another Doper was easily the saddest, most heartwrenching thing I’ve read here or anywhere in a very long time, and it’s the reason I keep circling back to this thread. Here goes: I think that anti-choice people - in particular, church leaders and legislators - have blood on their hands, more blood even than what they think abortion doctors should have on their hands. They are the worst kind of intrusive busybody, worse than any meddling aunt could dream of being, because they cause misery for countless lives and death for countless more. They are the reason the Bush administration choked off funding for international aid if there was any whiff of abortions being funded, depriving millions of truly needy women of all kinds of desperately needed help, to say nothing of the women who were forced to bear children they couldn’t even afford to feed. They act like this is all some cavalier joke to women. Like some old man sitting at a government desk can possibly know what it’s like for a young woman to be alone, scared, desperately weighing her options, trying to figure out what would ruin her life the least. She could be kicked out of her own home and out into the streets because her family’s mind has been poisoned by these wretched liars. They are the reason women are shamed into thinking a medical procedure that can save their lives is somehow wrong, sinful, bad. There is, at minimum, at least one Doper on this very board who lost his beloved wife because she chose to continue a pregnancy they had both been told by doctors needed to be terminated. He lost his wife AND the son whose existence killed her. If the stupid, meddling, less-than-worthless anti-choicers hadn’t interfered, if she hadn’t been told by countless religious authorities and shrill politicians that this was a Very Bad Thing, then she wouldn’t be dead. Who knows? They may have even gone on to have other children, made a happy little family for themselves. But no. The man is a widow, with nothing, _nothing_, to show for it, all because a bunch of old men want to tell a bunch of young women what to do with body parts they themselves don’t even possess. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/232 "2010-11-10T22:48:05Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Maybe we could use the health insurance standards. Don’t most plans not consider the baby a person until 3 days after birth? Lots of cultures don’t do naming ceremonies until some days after birth, to avoid wasting a name when there is a high chance the child will die. So our habit of considering a baby fully human right after delivery is not universal. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/233 "2010-11-10T22:55:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because if that’s happening the baby is either already dead or probably going to kill the mother. Elective near-birth abortions are nothing but a strawman. What position do you think I am arguing? I was working through the rationale of when people here deem it ok to abort the unborn. I started with the moment before birth and started walking it back. It is an exercise in logic to see people’s reasoning on this. Surprised you missed that. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/234 "2010-11-10T22:55:11Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > This logic, in response to why not have an “abortion” after the baby is born, doesn’t hold water. After the baby is born, he still depends on someone to live, unlike the intruder who may be free and clear once he’s off your property. Well, there isn’t actually any logic, since it’s no longer an abortion. Reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman’s mom tries to get a very VERY late term abortion. After birth it’s not the mother’s problem any more, she’s done. Someone else can provide for the kid. Unless you want a law that says she’s obligated to raise it to 18?! As it stands, we don’t have any laws obligating a parent to raise a child. If she doesn’t want it, she leaves in it a basket some where. But she also doesn’t have a right to kill it, harm it, or neglect it. Now it’s outside of her, and posing no risk. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/235 "2010-11-10T22:58:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would also like to hear why killing the unborn child moments before birth is ok by you as a **morally** acceptable thing to do. It doesn’t matter if it’s moral. You have your set of morals, I have mine. We don’t legislate based on that. Because if we did, I think it’s way more moral to have an abortion than bring an unwanted child into a life of poverty. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/236 "2010-11-10T23:00:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is an exercise in logic to see people’s reasoning on this. Surprised you missed that. Their goal is to hurt women; their “reasoning” is a collection of logically inconsistent rationalizations designed to excuse that desire. Nothing more. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/237 "2010-11-10T23:01:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because once it has been born it isn’t inside and dependent on her any more. At the very least, once it is born the rights of the father to make decisions about his offspring suddenly become ethically equal to hers, because it isn’t a matter of “her body, her choice” anymore. So are you saying a woman should be allowed to have an abortion one day before the baby is due? (Assume no medical condition is at issue) ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/238 "2010-11-10T23:02:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Maybe in Texas. Most states aren’t cool with you shooting people unless harm to you is imminent. Right, and pregnancy represents imminent harm, especially labour. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is not about whether a doctor will do it. It is about the rationale used in determining how late it is ok for a woman to have an abortion. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I also said abortion should be an option at any time for medical reasons (saving the life of the mother would certainly count). There you go, there is your rationale. It’s an issue between a woman and her doctor. Everyone else can butt the fuck out and worry about their own affairs. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/239 "2010-11-10T23:05:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > (Of course she was not given an abortion but would be given counseling if she wanted it.) Point proven. ---
**Author:** ![nolonger\_lurking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/41988e/32.png) [@nolonger\_lurking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nolonger_lurking)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017/240 "2010-11-10T23:06:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So, if you want to argue that this is NOT murder and this is a perfectly fine thing to do I eagerly await your reasoning. > > I would also like to hear why killing the unborn child moments before birth is ok by you as a morally acceptable thing to do. > > Or you can continue with the drive-by, idiotic snark as you like. I agree that it is murder, and also that it is not in any way OK to kill a newborn baby. I am just not willing to say that they meet any meaningful standard of personhood on the day they are born. I apologize for the flippant phrasing, but the intent was to respond to those who say that abortion should be restricted because there is no difference (other than location) between the 9-month fetus and the 1-day baby. I agree that there is no difference, but I am willing to accord the protection of legal personhood to a newborn because it doesn’t have drastic bodily impacts on the mother. People aren’t aborting 8-month fetuses on a whim, they are doing it overwhelmingly for life-shattering traumatic reasons. I guess what I am trying to say is that the bright line at birth is because of the mother’s reduced interest, not the fetus/child’s increased value or personhood. If humans were held in pouches likes joeys, and unable to live without their mother after birth, I would not protect a newborn’s rights until it ceased to directly and physically burden the mother. In an opposite case, if humans somehow became undeniably sentient but were tied to the mother in a similarly unbreakable fashion, I would have a lot more qualms and a very different discussion. I’m not sure where you are seeing either snark or sanctioned infanticide in my post. I explicitly said that I was just fine with the law protecting the life of newborn children. In fact, that line is drawn in exactly the right place as far as I am concerned. It is not arbitrary, but a recognition of the point at which the rights of the child exceed the rights of the mother. But I won’t let you take that compromise between fetus/child rights and mother’s rights as a starting point for personhood and just rhetorically march it down the pregnancy to the earliest point at which luck and six or seven figures of medical treatment can take viability. Some day, when a single fetus has been miraculously extracted and kept alive after the second month, will you ban abortion altogether? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-important-are-abortion-rights/560017.md?page=13)