# I think I may be changing to an anti abortion (pro life) stance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 8, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326 "2015-08-08T17:32:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**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:** [August 11, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/341 "2015-08-11T00:21:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Why must he follow legal procedures for the removal? If the legal procedures require tolerating the person in his house for a few hours or days, is that all right with you? Sure, if the legal procedures have some demonstrable value behind them (i.e. don’t touch the possibly injured person - wait for the police or ambulance to arrive, though it may take some time). On point, mandatory waiting periods for abortion procedures have no merit that I’ve ever seen satisfactorily explained (they hinge on something about how making a woman undergo an ultrasound and then have to wait 24 hours or more allow her time to fully understand the nature of her decision, or some such crap, as if she were a child with limited intelligence). More distantly related, it’s my vague understanding that mandatory waiting periods before purchasing firearms are (or were) in place based on the assumption that someone who wants a gun _now_ might be planning to use it to cause harm to himself or others. Debatable, certainly. > [@](#): > > I do think there’s an important difference even here: having a critter living inside of your body and feeding off your blood is orders of magnitude more invasive than having a dude in the cabin of your ship or crashing on your couch. And I think there’s a reasonable argument that no person should be required to share their circulatory system to anyone else, even if they might be required to share their sailboat with someone else. > > But I don’t think the “guy on the couch” analogy is persuasive at all, since I’d pretty much never support you if you intentionally killed a person in the process of getting them out of your house–and, failing a life-threatening burglar as the intruder, I think most folks would agree that that’s not okay. Thing is, people _do_ kill other people who are trespassing; just wander into any gun thread and there will be passionate defenders of the right to defend one’s home with lethal force. Hence I find debates on whether or not a fetus is a person to be a waste of time. You _can_ kill/remove a person who is in your home against your will, the stakes are certainly higher if they’re in your _body_ against your will, so even if we decide that the fetus is a person… so what? Call a fetus a person, call it not a person… I don’t care. Some _do_ care and base their arguments on such definitions. That’s up to them. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/342 "2015-08-11T00:22:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If I drug you and drop you off in **Terr’s** living room, he cannot legally kill you as long as he’s aware that you are incapacitated. You’re on the wrong side of that particular argument. There’s no point in trying to come up with something comparable. There is nothing comparable. Change “living room” to “your abdomen.” The comparison changes. Add “cannot be removed without killing.” The issue becomes stark. If you drug a guy and drop him off in my abdomen, and he can’t be removed except by killing him – I am going to kill him, because he will be removed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/343 "2015-08-11T00:24:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There’s no point in trying to come up with something comparable. There is nothing comparable. > > Change “living room” to “your abdomen.” The comparison changes. Add “cannot be removed without killing.” The issue becomes stark. > > If you drug a guy and drop him off in my abdomen, and he can’t be removed except by killing him – I am going to kill him, because he will be removed. Yep. Houses aren’t bodies. I get to decide, always and without exceprion, who gets to enter and who gets to stay in my body. Women should have the same right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/344 "2015-08-11T00:30:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t have a choice - there aren’t any situations that are exactly analogous to pregnancy, or at least none that are plausible (the “violinist” premise is physically similar in a very limited way but also far-fetched), so naturally whatever analogy I can present is going to have some variance from pregnancy. In this case, the homeowner wants the unwelcome guest removed. The homeowner does not wish this unwelcome guest to remain. If they’re at sea, fine, the homeowner (boat-owner?) will have to wait. If you can’t find an analogy that has an essential characteristic of the original issue being discussed, you don’t get to just make one up and say it’s useful. Sometimes there are no analogies. An essential part of an abortion is that the fetus dies as part of the process, not as an accident that might or might not happen. That’s the whole issue-- if the fetus didn’t die, then things would be completely different. > [@](#): > > So? She wants to end her pregnancy. I don’t see a reason to block her, or deny her access to whatever procedures are safest for her. If she’s eight+ months along and demands an end to her otherwise unremarkable pregnancy (I have no doubt that many women suffering the physical and mental stresses of pregnancy have made such demands , whether they meant them or not), I expect her doctor will react accordingly. I’m playing devil’s advocate, taking the pro-life position to its logical conclusion. Do not confuse that with my own stance which is about as pro-choice as you can get. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/345 "2015-08-11T00:44:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you can’t find an analogy that has an essential characteristic of the original issue being discussed, you don’t get to just make one up and say it’s useful. Sure, I do. Others get to ignore the analogy or dismiss it or mock or respond in any other way as they see fit. That’s part of the whole freedom thing. > [@](#): > > Sometimes there are no analogies. An essential part of an abortion is that the fetus dies as part of the process, not as an accident that might or might not happen. That’s the whole issue-- if the fetus didn’t die, then things would be completely different. And I’ll happily revisit my views if I live long enough to see the advent of transporter technology or something comparable that can remove a fetus intact and transfer it another uterus (possibly in another person, a female mammal or a machine of some sort) while posing no more risk to the woman than current D&C procedures. Meantime, the woman doesn’t want a pregnancy _and_ doesn’t want a child, and can address both in one procedure. There’s no conflict in this, the pregnancy is simply the more immediate problem. If she doesn’t want a child but already has one, there are legal procedures for her to transfer off custody. They make some time, but the steps are in place. > [@](#): > > I’m playing devil’s advocate, taking the pro-life position to its logical conclusion. Do not confuse that with my own stance which is about as pro-choice as you can get. I’m arguing against the ideas you are describing. Whether you personally believe those ideas is not really my concern. Advocate away. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/346 "2015-08-11T00:48:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, I do. Others get to ignore the analogy or dismiss it or mock or respond in any other way as they see fit. That’s part of the whole freedom thing. Right now it’s just you and me. If others want to chime in, they are free to do so. I’m sticking with “you don’t get to…”. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/347 "2015-08-11T00:51:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Right now it’s just you and me. If others want to chime in, they are free to do so. I’m sticking with “you don’t get to…”. And you get to stick with that all you want, for what it’s worth. By the way, when I said “others”, that included you and basically everyone other than myself. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/348 "2015-08-11T00:59:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And you get to stick with that all you want, for what it’s worth. > > By the way, when I said “others”, that included you and basically everyone other than myself. I hope you understand that “you don’t get to…” means “it’s a fallacy to argue that…” Of _course_ you “get to” say anything you like. But I will call “bad analogy” on this one, and that is a fallacious argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/349 "2015-08-11T01:19:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I hope you understand that “you don’t get to…” means “it’s a fallacy to argue that…” > > Of _course_ you “get to” say anything you like. But I will call “bad analogy” on this one, and that is a fallacious argument. Well, you’re free to call my analogies whatever you like. I recognize the limitations of using something that isn’t pregnancy as an analogy for pregnancy, but at least I’m way ahead of pro-lifers who seem to have a profound blind spot when it comes to recognizing that there’s a woman in the situation at _all_. Even if they can’t bring themselves to sympathize with an unwillingly pregnant woman, describing an unwelcome visitor in one’s house is readily graspable and far more plausible than blood-tethered violinists. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/350 "2015-08-11T02:14:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not entirely true; the issue doesn’t exist in a tautological closed loop. It is possible to consider the real-world effects of abortion freedom and abortion restriction and come to the conclusion that the former is less negative. > > I’ll cheerfully proclaim that the fetus is a human life, but even if it wasn’t, the topic certainly DOES involve a human life - the human life of the pregnant woman. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I cannot or will not recognize the characteristics of the fetus and if only I could, my views would adjust accordingly. > > THAT’S a tautology. People who agree with me will recognize the validity of my comnents; true, but meaningless. > > Well, obviously. > > Well, my position is that the specific aspect has no relevance until such time as relevance is demonstrated, and I believe I have described why this is unlikely. In the meantime, I don’t feel compelled to adopt some kind of compromise position just to satisfy some vague requirement of “honesty.” > > Your acceptance or lack thereof was always your choice, as is the extent, if any, to which the issue informs your voting decisions. My decisions are similarly informed by what I decide is important to me. Ok, well, it seems we are at an impasse. That’s ok. I have moderated my position a bit and it was from talking to you and Dork and Hiker, and a few others, so it was an interesting discussion for me at least. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/351 "2015-08-11T03:59:50Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I appreciate your honest reply. However, my hypothetical scenario about infanticide isn’t really hypothetical at all. It is still practiced in parts of the 3rd world especially in China and India where parents don’t know if their new child will be a son or a daughter. Infant daughters are sometimes killed shortly after birth for being the wrong sex at the wrong place and time. I don’t believe that newborn infants are significantly more self-aware than fetuses a couple of months earlier. What is the difference between killing a newborn and a late-term fetus? > > Even in the U.S., people are sometimes convicted of murder for abandoning a newborn and it to die even though other people can schedule an appointment for at roughly the same stage of development for a medically induced death with no penalty. How does that work out philosophically. > > That is what I mean when I say that it is intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. It isn’t because I am against the result. It is that the most common arguments for it cannot stand up to any rudimentary scrutiny. My wish is that people would just admit that sometimes the lesser of two evils is the best option available. I would also love for them to abandon the ‘it’s my my body and I will do what I want to…do what I want to’ because it is frankly retarded and not true for anyone in any context, let alone this one. You are creating a strawman out of an extreme example – outright infanticide – that no one here has ever defended. The assertion that a newborn infant is not materially different from a fetus is yours, not mine. We’ve already discussed why birth is a necessary demarcation point in law. Gestation itself is a continuum of constant development, beginning with something that is clearly not human by any sane definition, and ending with something that clearly is. At any instant in time you can point to its stage of development and say that it’s not materially different from what it was several days prior. This is a rather pointless truism, belying the fact that over a larger time interval it **is** materially different, in the same way that a chicken is materially different from an egg. A related argument against abortion has sometimes been raised in terms of the fact that these same cultures have also at times used access to abortion to terminate fetuses simply because they were determined to be female. Yes, well, this is the same culture that engages in “honor killings” where a man will kill his own daughter because her skirt was too short. Don’t get me started on these demented savages. But this variation on the abortion argument seems to be an attempt to raise a kind of syllogism fallacy – “because a savage culture does ‘x’, therefore ‘x’ is savagery”, and this does not logically follow. The basic thinking of anti-abortionists seems to be that just because something is sad, unfortunate, or even perhaps morally objectionable, it should be illegal. History is littered with the catastrophes and the unintended consequences of attempts to legislate subjective morality. I would venture the opinion that any woman who considers an abortion to be an unreservedly happy occasion has something wrong with her, but that’s not a matter for the police or the courts. But let me respond specifically to this statement of yours: “My wish is that people would just admit that sometimes the lesser of two evils is the best option available.” OK. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the best option available. Actually I’ve said it before, probaby more than once, and it’s very much on point. An abortion is a difficult, emotionally wrenching and intensely personal tradeoff that seeks to balance a very complex mix of many different factors that occur in a wide variety of different personal situations. None of which are anyone’s business, because fundamentally the purpose of any law is to protect a compelling public interest, and there is manifestly no public interest here to protect, other than the basic civil rights of the woman. How do I know this? Because one can observe that progressive societies which allow abortion at some or all stages of gestation seem to be surviving quite well and maintaining a high degree of social compassion and social order, not degenerating into some latter-day Gomorrah of moral turpitude. Indeed by and large they tend to be more compassionate societies than stridently religious or sanctimoniously moralistic ones. Anti-abortionists are left having to either assert the nonsensical fiction that an embryo is a sentient human being from the instant of conception, or else base their argument on the banal emotional projection that it will eventually become one. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/352 "2015-08-11T05:17:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I reach a different conclusion because I believe the right to determine who and what gets to remain inside your body should be inviolate. I would only partly follow you on that. A woman, without doubt, should have the right to self-determination. That includes the right to decide whether she wants to carry a child to term or not. In an accidental pregnancy she did not have the option to exercise that right by deciding whether she wanted to get pregnant in the first place (hence “accidental”.) So I advocate giving her that right during pregnancy by allowing her to have an abortion - but not without limits. Once the woman has learned of her pregnancy and has been given the opportunity to make an informed decision, if she decides to carry the child to term, she assumes a responsibility. And once you \*willingly \*assume the responsibility for a child, I believe you cannot abandon it, regardless of whether the child still lives inside your body. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/353 "2015-08-11T05:36:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course inconvenience can trump death. If there’s a trespasser in your home and you call the police to remove him, and he dies after being tased, you are not a murderer and you still had the right to get him off your property. I have never liked the trespasser analogy. To my mind it has two major flaws: [LIST=2] [li]It works from the assumption that an unborn is a person from day one of pregnancy.[/li][li]It asserts that the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant.[/li][/LIST] Allow me to modify your analogy to illustrate my point: While you are out a delivery man drops a statue in your living room. You are informed that if you keep the statue there for three months, it will magically turn into a living human being. If you allow that to happen, you must keep the human being in your living room for another six months or it will invariably die. I believe that if you decide to throw out the statue, you cannot be blamed. You did not ask to have it put there in the first place. But if you decide to let the statue become human and then kill the human, you are doing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/354 "2015-08-11T06:42:19Z")
I’ve always thought the pro choice argument in favor of allowing abortions was garbage on its on. It makes presumptions about ones conception of the world that are left unsaid and unresolved that make a huge difference on whether choice is a viable option or not. I am in favor of women being able to choose, but that is due in large part to my understanding of the nature of a fetus. I don’t consider a zygote or later fetus a human being of the same standing as say, a 5 year old. Same goes for a woman like Terri Schiavo who’s a vegetable and is no longer “there.” It takes a certain threshold of self awareness to be considered a human being imo, one that a fetus has yet to reach. This is not limited to human beings, if an alien landed on earth and was a sentient being I don’t think it would be OK to just kill it on a whim. IF I did consider a fetus to have the same sentience and moral weight as a 5 year old, then I would NOT be in favor of a womans right to choose, because she would be terminating not merely a fetus, but a sentient human being, and there would be more than just her life in the balance that warranted some ethical restraints on her choices. But I don’t view a fetus that way, and frankly, I don’t think the OP and most of the pro life movement does either. Here is a question to ask such people. A doctor performs an abortion of a fetus of 4 months. Do you consider his actions murder? Is killing a 4 month old fetus morally indistinguishable to killing a random person on the street? If yes, then it seems to me your only sensible position is to be against abortion. If you do NOT consider that the same act, then you do NOT consider a fetus the same as a sentient human being. It is worse to kill a fetus than an ant, because even though the fetus is not yet sentient, it has the potential to develop that quality, and snuffing it out before it can blossom into that kind of human being is a sort of tragic thing. But it’s still not worse than killing the same life 10 years later, because that would be snuffing out not just potential, but an ACTUAL sentient creature. I think the proper position for pro lifers ought to be to minimize abortions as much as possible by persuading people to choose other paths. But still allow people to get them. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/355 "2015-08-11T06:55:29Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Not completely. A fertilised egg is comprised of a mixture of the parent’s DNA, after all. > > So would a natural feritlised egg carried by the biological mother be worth less than a fertilised egg implanted into a surrogate? The surrogate is carrying an egg with even more unique (though I don’t actually think that works with “unique”. Even more different.) DNA than the egg in its biological mother’s womb. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my point. 🙂 A sperm cell’s DNA is a subset of the father’s DNA; therefore, the sperm cell is part of the father’s body. An _un_fertilized egg’s DNA is a subset of the mother’s DNA; therefore, the unfertilized egg is part of the mother’s body. A fertilized egg’s DNA is neither a subset of the father’s DNA nor a subset of the mother’s DNA; therefore, the fertilized egg is part of (or rather, all of) someone else’s body. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/356 "2015-08-11T07:20:59Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my point. 🙂 > A sperm cell’s DNA is a subset of the father’s DNA; therefore, the sperm cell is part of the father’s body. An _un_fertilized egg’s DNA is a subset of the mother’s DNA; therefore, the unfertilized egg is part of the mother’s body. A fertilized egg’s DNA is neither a subset of the father’s DNA nor a subset of the mother’s DNA; therefore, the fertilized egg is part of (or rather, all of) someone else’s body. It would be more accurate to say that a fertilized egg’s DNA is \*both \*a subset of the father’s DNA \*and \*a subset of the mother’s DNA. If it were neither, the biological mechanism of heredity would not work. The resulting DNA is not really a new body. You could call it a construction scheme for a new body, since it carries genetic instructions that are necessary for the creation of that body. But it should be noted that the vast majority of these genetic instructions are already in the DNA of the sperm and the egg. ---
**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:** [August 11, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/357 "2015-08-11T13:46:45Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > I have never liked the trespasser analogy. To my mind it has two major flaws: > [LIST=2] > [li]It works from the assumption that an unborn is a person from day one of pregnancy.[/li][li]It asserts that the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant.[/li][/LIST] I don’t see this as an accurate assessment, but I’ll write more about this later when I am at a computer. > [@](#): > > Allow me to modify your analogy to illustrate my point: It doesn’t work. Given two banal and commonplace situations that are lightly comparable (a woman with an unwanted pregnancy; a homeowner with an unwanted intrusion) that are happening in thousands of places just in the US. just _today_, you introduce magical statues that come to life, which has never happened, anywhere. What it illustrates to me is how you feel about abortion, not any kind of rational argument pro or con. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/358 "2015-08-11T13:56:11Z")
For those who refuse to believe that pro-lifers are sincere, do you believe that YEC-ers are sincere? I find the pro-life position\* much more defensible than the YEC position. It seems to me that if you accept people as sincerely believing in a YEC world-view (and I see no reason not to), then it’s hard to deny that at least a good number of pro-lifers are sincere in their belief. \*subject to the things we are discussing in the other thread, that is that the person holds the position constantly w/o the “rape or incest” escape clauses. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/359 "2015-08-11T14:37:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t see this as an accurate assessment, but I’ll write more about this later when I am at a computer. Please do so. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It doesn’t work. Given two banal and commonplace situations that are lightly comparable (a woman with an unwanted pregnancy; a homeowner with an unwanted intrusion) that are happening in thousands of places just in the US. just _today_, you introduce magical statues that come to life, which has never happened, anywhere. Hmm - what a dilemma. My scenario does not work for you, because there are no magical statues. And yours does not work for me, because it involves what I consider to be a false analogy. (An intruder into your home is a person - an embryo, when entering a woman’s body is not.) > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What it illustrates to me is how you feel about abortion, not any kind of rational argument pro or con. If it illustrates my feelings about abortion, that is something. As to why you feel that I am not being rational I would like an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/360 "2015-08-11T14:39:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > For those who refuse to believe that pro-lifers are sincere, do you believe that YEC-ers are sincere? I find the pro-life position\* much more defensible than the YEC position. It seems to me that if you accept people as sincerely believing in a YEC world-view (and I see no reason not to), then it’s hard to deny that at least a good number of pro-lifers are sincere in their belief. > > \*subject to the things we are discussing in the other thread, that is that the person holds the position constantly w/o the “rape or incest” escape clauses. Could you briefly explain YEC for us foreigners? I am not familiar with that position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=19)