# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/21 "2015-08-08T18:59:51Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > There is nothing wrong with lacking information. I am not an expert, but I have done a little reading. This is what I found: > > \*\*Fertilisation \*\*(a.k.a. conception) happens 12-24 hours after ovulation. Conservative pro-lifers (e.g. the Roman Catholic church) have this as the beginning of pregnancy. > > \*\*Implantation \*\*occurs five or six days later. In my country (Germany) the legal definition of pregnancy begins here. The morning after pill can prevent implantation. Hence the entire Hobby Lobby debate. > > A \*\*heartbeat \*\*can be measured after about six weeks of pregnancy. (It should be noted that the fetus at this time does not yet have a brain.) I would start calling it a life at the heartbeat. I might entertain debates for implantation but to be honest, that should be an “expert” opinion. How you find an PhD or a MD without a bias will be a little difficult. I am simply acknowledging the concept is very complex. ---
**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 8, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/22 "2015-08-08T19:04:08Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Really? On what other matters besides this one? Gun control, defense, SSM to name just a few. Let’s not hijack this thread into a discussion of my politics, though. > [@](#): > > I am granting the fetus the status of personhood. > > I’d say a “human life” begins when you have a heart beat, or when the advance parts of a human brain (frontal lobe) are present. Whichever come first. I assume it’s heartbeat. So, why are you anti-abortion before that point? Almost all of us “anti-abortion” at some point. Few of us would allow abortion at 8 months. You’re really only pro-life if you are against all abortion, except in the case of danger to the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/23 "2015-08-08T19:07:55Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > A conundrum for sure. Back in the day I was all for abortion anytime, anywhere. That is till I became a father and held my first child a minute or so after birth. That changed me, not right away, but for sure it started the process. _You_ held _your_ baby in _your_ arms, and based on what you felt as a result, you eventually drew conclusions about what my wife is obligated to do with a fetus in _her_ womb. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/24 "2015-08-08T19:09:29Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > rape or potential harm to the mother and an abortion is ok with me Please explain - why is it not ok to kill the baby otherwise, but if the baby is conceived during rape, kill away? Is the baby somehow guilty of something? ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/25 "2015-08-08T19:09:45Z")
IMO a man has no say in the anti abortion/pro choice debate. Really none of us dudes business. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/26 "2015-08-08T19:09:59Z")
You claim a woman should have to give up control of her body if needed to save the life of an infant. You’re cool with mandatory kidney donations, then, too? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/27 "2015-08-08T19:16:03Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > IMO a man has no say in the anti abortion/pro choice debate. Really none of us dudes business. If you consider the unborn child to be more than “just a clump of cells” then everyone’s opinion matters. > [@MandaJo](#): > > You claim a woman should have to give up control of her body if needed to save the life of an infant. You’re cool with mandatory kidney donations, then, too? I don’t think I said that, I said if the health of the mother is in danger she can have an abortion. But to your overall point, she choose to have sex, if she gets pregnant I am not ok with an abortion because it is going to “make her life difficult”. I am ok with the morning after pill but not an abortion. ---
**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 8, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/28 "2015-08-08T19:20:08Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > IMO a man has no say in the anti abortion/pro choice debate. Really none of us dudes business. What you are really saying is that it’s only the mother’s choice. Cleary, some other woman has as much or as little say in whether the mother can abort as some guy does. But you are also then claiming that there should be no limits at all on abortion. Any time up until the moment of birth. Is that your position? If not, then how do you reconcile that with your statement? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/29 "2015-08-08T19:20:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, why are you anti-abortion before that point? > > Almost all of us “anti-abortion” at some point. Few of us would allow abortion at 8 months. You’re really only pro-life if you are against all abortion, except in the case of danger to the mother. I think I have allways been at this position but it is mainly that a woman is no longer dependent upon a man that changed my mind. A woman can have and keep a job during and after a pregnancy to a much much greater degree than she could of in 1965. A good job I mean. Truly financially independent. ---
**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 8, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/30 "2015-08-08T19:24:11Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I think I have allways been at this position but it is mainly that a woman is no longer dependent upon a man that changed my mind. A woman can have and keep a job during and after a pregnancy to a much much greater degree than she could of in 1965. A good job I mean. Truly financially independent. That makes no sense. Before, you were willing to kill a human being because the woman might not be able to support it, but now you’re not OK since the woman might be able to support it? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/31 "2015-08-08T19:30:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That makes no sense. Before, you were willing to kill a human being because the woman might not be able to support it, but now you’re not OK since the woman might be able to support it? No, in 1965 and in 1900 and in 1925 and in 1823, women were not able to live independently. Having children kept them dependent upon men. There is no need to make the example so hyperbolic. It’s a very simple concept. In the past an unborn child kept the woman dependent, now, it does not. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/32 "2015-08-08T19:31:15Z")
I do consider myself now both prochoice and prolife. In that the unborn baby is a living human and soul and that life should be respected, however that unborn child is not yet in our world, but completely inside the world the mother has created for the child, I don’t see any moral authority in this world to be valid and thus is outside the jurisdiction of earthly authorities. So in effect, as I see it, God has made her god over that child inside her, us denying the woman her godhood rights is morally wrong. ---
**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 8, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/33 "2015-08-08T19:37:40Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > No, in 1965 and in 1900 and in 1925 and in 1823, women were not able to live independently. Having children kept them dependent upon men. There is no need to make the example so hyperbolic. It’s a very simple concept. In the past an unborn child kept the woman dependent, now, it does not. If abortion (up to some point) is NOT taking a human life, then why should it be illegal? If it IS taking a human life, then why would it be dependent on whether the woman could support herself or not. There were plenty of folks back in the day… married folks… who could not afford another child. Why was in NOT OK for them to be able to abort? That is, by the logic you are presenting today? Surely you’re not thinking that because some hypothetical person can support a child, then all actual people should be able to? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/34 "2015-08-08T19:42:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If abortion (up to some point) is NOT taking a human life, then why should it be illegal? > > If it IS taking a human life, then why would it be dependent on whether the woman could support herself or not. > > There were plenty of folks back in the day… married folks… who could not afford another child. Why was in NOT OK for them to be able to abort? That is, by the logic you are presenting today? Surely you’re not thinking that because some hypothetical person can support a child, then all actual people should be able to? Congratulations! You have just discovered that this is a complex issue. If it was as simple as “don’t take a human life” then I guess you would of won this debate, wouldn’t you? I don’t know why you don’t like or won’t acknowledge the fact that women are not dependent upon men the way they were 50 years ago but for any real world discussion it is going to be part of the conversation. Not the defining feature but a significant factor. ---
**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 8, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/35 "2015-08-08T19:43:43Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I would start calling it a life at the heartbeat. Why not earlier? After all, a bug is “life”. Bacteria is “life”. Plankton is “life”. > [@Robert163](#): > > I might entertain debates for implantation but to be honest, that should be an “expert” opinion. How you find an PhD or a MD without a bias will be a little difficult. I am simply acknowledging the concept is very complex. The complexity and the irresolvable controversy concerns only the precise point, if any, at which the unborn can be said to develop sentience and a sufficiently functioning brain that it becomes a “human being” and is entitled to legal protection as such. There is no complexity and therefore no controversy about the fact that at early stages of pregnancy – like those stages at which there is clearly no brain function at all and no brain in which to have such function – these attributes do not exist. Most legislative constructions draw an arbitrary line somewhere between the first and second trimester; others draw no line at all and leave the judgment to the medical profession on a case-by-case basis. My general comment on the OP is that it seems to contain an awful lot of rules and suggested regulations about matters that are no one’s business except the woman’s. The law has a duty to protect the rights of actual people, and even of the sentient higher animals. Extrapolating this duty to the abstraction of developing cell structures is, at best, misplaced extrapolation and emotional transference, like a toddler’s affection for his teddy bear, and at worst, it is religious claptrap that banishes critical thinking. It wouldn’t matter except that misguided abortion laws negatively affect real, living people in many different and extremely important ways. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/36 "2015-08-08T19:46:32Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > No, in 1965 and in 1900 and in 1925 and in 1823, women were not able to live independently. Having children kept them dependent upon men. There is no need to make the example so hyperbolic. It’s a very simple concept. In the past an unborn child kept the woman dependent, now, it does not. I do not think John’s question is hyperbolic. If I am getting you right, you are saying that you do not want to allow abortion of a fetus with a beating heart, because you believe that fetus to be a human being. You are also saying that you would allow it in 1965, because back then the pregnancy would rob the mother of her independence. But what does it do today? I believe that even today an unwanted pregnancy is more than a slight inconvenience. What to do with it is a tough decision to make for a mother and I see no convincing grounds for taking that decision entirely off her hand. Then again, as John Mace mentioned earlier, there are limits. Like most pro-choicers, I would not allow abortion of an 8 month fetus, because for all I know that is indeed a concious human being. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/37 "2015-08-08T19:49:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Why not earlier? After all, a bug is “life”. Bacteria is “life”. Plankton is “life”. > > The complexity and the irresolvable controversy concerns only the precise point, if any, at which the unborn can be said to develop sentience and a sufficiently functioning brain that it becomes a “human being” and is entitled to legal protection as such… Well, of course, there is the point of view that each stage in inextricably linked to the next so “taking a life” at stage 4 instead of stage 9 would be non distinction since 4 leads to 9. Of course, that would mean, logically, that life begins at inception. I’m not sure I agree with that. My personal opinion is once it can be designated as a human with the inspection of a microscope, it is a human. As I understand it, the very early fetus is indistinguishable from other mammals/animals, is it not? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/38 "2015-08-08T19:53:47Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > I do not think John’s question is hyperbolic. If I am getting you right, you are saying that you do not want to allow abortion of a fetus with a beating heart, because you believe that fetus to be a human being. You are also saying that you would allow it in 1965, because back then the pregnancy would rob the mother of her independence. That is exactly what I am saying > [@](#): > > But what does it do today? It creates a hardship for the woman but a hardship she can handle on her own, unlike, in 1965 > [@](#): > > I believe that even today an unwanted pregnancy is more than a slight inconvenience. What to do with it is a tough decision to make for a mother and I see no convincing grounds for taking that decision entirely off her hand. Then again, as John Mace mentioned earlier, there are limits. Like most pro-choicers, I would not allow abortion of an 8 month fetus, because for all I know that is indeed a conscious human being. What a simple easy life it would be if every time something got hard you could take the easy way out. That is the key point to this debate that bothers me but I am reluctant to express it because I know it is a very strong statement to make. But, it bears repeating. What a simple easy life it would be if every time something got hard you could take the easy way out. The fact that a pregnancy creates a hardship for the woman really does not change my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/39 "2015-08-08T19:56:50Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > As I understand it, the very early fetus is indistinguishable from other mammals/animals, is it not? No it is not. A DNA analysis would always reveal that it is human. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/40 "2015-08-08T20:04:24Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > It creates a hardship for the woman but a hardship she can handle on her own, unlike, in 1965 Not really on her own - just without a man. Instead of being dependent on a specific man she becomes dependent on the state. > [@Robert163](#): > > What a simple easy life it would be if every time something got hard you could take the easy way out. That is the key point to this debate that bothers me but I am reluctant to express it because I know it is a very strong statement to make. But, it bears repeating. What a simple easy life it would be if every time something got hard you could take the easy way out. The fact that a pregnancy creates a hardship for the woman really does not change my opinion. If I were a pro-lifer, I would now tell you that being dependent is just another kind of hardship and that even back then an abortion was the “easy way out” which you now scorn. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=3)