# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/401 "2015-08-12T15:48:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, but I didn’t choose it because of its lethality. I think I may have made one passing reference to the “defence of home” concept but other references were to accidental deaths from the use of police tasers. > > This is tiresome. I expressed the point I wanted. I maintain the analogy has admittedly limited validity. I’m confident I’ve never suggested anything along the lines of a party host abruptly deciding the party was over and opening fire on the now-unwelcome guests. I will not further indulge this line of discussion. You certainly don’t have to engage further. But as I said, you’re treating the “lethal methods” part as an insignificant part of the analogy. I really, really don’t think that’s appropriate. The analogy, to the extent that it has any validity at all, argues against abortion rights, not for them. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/402 "2015-08-12T17:26:46Z")
I don’t understand the recurrent tendency on the part of people (on both sides of this debate) to try to convince others by use of analogy or appeal to a general rule governing the abortion situation. Do prochoice people really expect prolife people to pause and then go “Oh, hmm, yeah it’s like a burglar climbed in through your window, you shouldn’t have to accept his presence there, I see what you mean” ? Do prolife people really expect prochoice folks to step back and say “Gee, I see what you mean, if it’s alive it is life and if it is human then it is human life and if it ends that human life it is killing and if it is killing human life it is murder, OK you win” ? Not very productive, is it? How about we see if each side understands what moral social issue is of importance to the other side, and then debate which of those moral priority systems should take precedence and why? I’ll freely admit that the prochoice side has done an absolutely miserable job of it since 1973, just trying to coast on the merits of “it’s legal and whatever is legal is automatically OK to do”. Prolife people (ignoring their leadership for the moment) mostly do seem to be all about “it is human and alive and so it is wrong to kill human life, that’s murder”. I used to think there was a lot of cynicism among prolife people. That’s one thing where the SDMB has changed my perspective over the years. (Your LEADERSHIP is still composed in part of people who really honest to god want to eliminate sexual freedom and sexual equality; they aren’t particularly subtle about it and I sitll have a hard time thinking many of them would so much as put on the brakes to avoid running over a fetus if one were in their way and there was no one to see them do it… but that’s not really relevant to the question of what most rank and file prolife people are concerned about) ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/403 "2015-08-12T17:36:12Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Not very productive, is it? > > How about we see if each side understands what moral social issue is of importance to the other side, and then debate which of those moral priority systems should take precedence and why? Well - over the course of this thread I have certainly given it my best shot. The proudest claim I can make so far is that pro-choicers and pro-lifers have alternated in attacking my position. If you can do better, then fire away. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/404 "2015-08-12T17:42:12Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Not very productive, is it? Analogy is really the only way to proceed, and you cannot measure the effectiveness by whether someone changes his or her mind instantly, or whether you imagine that you could. The debate is over a philosophical concept, not subject to scientific reasoning–namely, what value a fetus has at varying stages and how to weigh that value against a mother’s interests. The only way to debate those concepts with someone who disagrees is by trying to work from moral axioms they already hold. And the way to do that is by analogy. And it works. Or works at least as well as any other method involving reason, which is to say, rarely. But when it does work, it is usually a slow process. A seed planted in someone’s mind that grows over time. (If you don’t mind the analogy.) ---
**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 12, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/405 "2015-08-12T19:50:12Z")
If analogy is not acceptable, there’s the somewhat more hostile approach of suggesting your opponents need therapy. Or that they combine the two and seek an analrapist. More seriously, I’d suggest empathy: 1. Can you picture yourself as a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and if so, would you want a safe legal abortion with no unnecessary barriers to be an option? I know I would. 2. Can you picture yourself as a woman with a _wanted_ pregnancy who finds out late in the gestation that a major medical problem has been detected and if so, would you want a safe legal abortion with no unnecessary barriers to be an option? I know I would. And since I can picture myself in those situations (in the purely hypothetical) and wanting those options, I feel obliged to support to support keeping those options available for people who are indeed in those situations (in the purely not hypothetical). ---
**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 12, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/406 "2015-08-12T20:00:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Analogy is really the only way to proceed, and you cannot measure the effectiveness by whether someone changes his or her mind instantly, or whether you imagine that you could. > > The debate is over a philosophical concept, not subject to scientific reasoning–namely, what value a fetus has at varying stages and how to weigh that value against a mother’s interests. The only way to debate those concepts with someone who disagrees is by trying to work from moral axioms they already hold. And the way to do that is by analogy. > > And it works. Or works at least as well as any other method involving reason, which is to say, rarely. But when it does work, it is usually a slow process. A seed planted in someone’s mind that grows over time. (If you don’t mind the analogy.) But is the seed considered life? Can I remove it from my brain before it shows the first signs of growing roots? How about leaves? ---
**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 12, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/407 "2015-08-12T20:27:48Z")
Some minor clarifications on earlier issues, now that I’m at a computer and can more easily address them: > [@Hiker](#): > > You say that you do not want to ban late term abortions because of the medical emergency cases. Does that mean you would support a ban, if an exception for medical emergencies was made? To be precise, my position is to not ban abortion at all, since I see it as a medical issue and only a legal one in the sense of regulating medicine in general for malpractice and negligence. This is the situation that now exists in Canada and I am satisfied with it. Imposing laws would represent an unwarranted infringement of individual freedom. My _response_ to someone suggesting a later-term elective-abortion ban (since saying “it would represent an unwarranted infringement of individual freedom” is not likely to be very convincing) is to point out that late-term electives are rare to nonexistent, while late-term complications are tragically common. It is not rational in my view to pass a law that effectively punishes no-one while adding a burden to women who are already undergoing in a stressful situation. My earlier response to the question of do I “support a ban [on late-term electives], if an exception for medical emergencies was made?” was “no”, but I think this deserve some nuance. In Canada (currently with no abortion bans), adding this law is an unwarranted imposition, so I say “no”. In the United States, with a patchwork of state laws of varying complexity and severity, if I was offered the following deal: all existing abortion laws would be struck, in exchange for a solid ban on late-term electives (with “late-term” clearly defined); then I would probably say “yes” if it would represent a net improvement - no more mandatory waiting periods or ultrasounds and such. > [@Hiker](#): > > Let us look at the situation after birth for a moment: Once the mother has given birth and has taken the child to her home, I am sure we agree that she has the responsibility to care for it and that letting the child come to harm would be immoral. We can agree to that, because she has \*chosen \*to take the child into her care. > > I believe that the same applies when she \*chooses \*to continue a pregnancy after the first timester. She has now assumed a responsibility. I do not think that anyone may force that responibility upon her, but if she chooses it herself, that makes a big difference for me. I can’t get on board with this overly-broad use of the word “choose”. A child already born has options a fetus does not. A pregnant woman does not (generally I assume) sign a contract to stay pregnant or swear out an oath or solemnly affirm to stay pregnant, so I don’t see why she should not be allowed to change her mind. If you want to argue for a benchmark based strictly on time (i.e. no electives after 20 weeks or whatever), fine, but the notion of “you chose this, so suffer the consequences” while options still exist is uncompelling. > [@Hiker](#): > > For the purpose of the argument I was making by “child” I meant an unborn child during the later stages of pregnancy. A more accurate term would have been “fetus”. At the very least, it would be a _consistent_ use of terminology. I cheerfully admit to often not bothering to note the distinction between blastocyst, zygote, embryo and fetus, using the last term as a catch-all for “mammal (in context, typically a human) in the process of gestation.” If you’re going to use “child” for the same human before and after birth, then You’re going to need to add qualifiers like “pre-birth child” and “post-birth child” because it’s not cool to slide from one state to another within a post just because you want to use “child” to describe them both. > [@](#): > > Feel free to correct me then. If I misrepresent your stance, it is not intentional. In that particular instance, my relevant statement was, in part, “I want that authority over my property and body. The state will have to prove its case why I should not. I support others who want similar authority over their properties and bodies.” Your paraphrase omitted the qualifier in the middle sentence. I certainly recognize that one could try to argue a case for a compelling state interest, but it’s not something I personally find convincing, especially since the state has other options - more carrot, less stick. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/408 "2015-08-12T20:30:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . More seriously, I’d suggest empathy: > > 1. Can you picture yourself as a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and if so, would you want a safe legal abortion with no unnecessary barriers to be an option? I know I would. > > 2. Can you picture yourself as a woman with a _wanted_ pregnancy who finds out late in the gestation that a major medical problem has been detected and if so, would you want a safe legal abortion with no unnecessary barriers to be an option? I know I would. > > And since I can picture myself in those situations (in the purely hypothetical) and wanting those options, I feel obliged to support to support keeping those options available for people who are indeed in those situations (in the purely not hypothetical). This is a really good place to start. Toss in a “conservative values” argument: do you want a government that has the power to compel obedience to an anti-abortion law? The loss of privacy alone is hugely daunting. The mandatory vaginal ultrasound approach that several states have utilized ought to be a big signal to us how intrusive and invasive – not conservative values at all! – an anti-abortion law would have to be. ---
**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 12, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/409 "2015-08-12T20:56:09Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This is a really good place to start. > > Toss in a “conservative values” argument: do you want a government that has the power to compel obedience to an anti-abortion law? The loss of privacy alone is hugely daunting. The mandatory vaginal ultrasound approach that several states have utilized ought to be a big signal to us how intrusive and invasive – not conservative values at all! – an anti-abortion law would have to be. Tricky. I don’t get the sense that conservatism and empathy are especially strongly linked, and while conservatives claim they love individual freedom, there’s often a big unspoken assumption that it only applies to certain acceptable expressions of freedom, i.e. not if you’re gay, like to use recreational drugs, engage in recreational sex… or if you do, you have to be sufficiently ashamed of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/410 "2015-08-12T21:08:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This is a really good place to start. > > Toss in a “conservative values” argument: do you want a government that has the power to compel obedience to an anti-abortion law? The loss of privacy alone is hugely daunting. The mandatory vaginal ultrasound approach that several states have utilized ought to be a big signal to us how intrusive and invasive – not conservative values at all! – an anti-abortion law would have to be. It’s like you guys have some kind of blinders on when you expound on “conservative values” etc. It is perfectly simple. Yes, if it didn’t involve killing a human, abortion would be perfectly acceptable to anyone with “conservative values”, the loss of privacy would be appalling, etc. etc. But if you consider it killing a human being, then “conservative values” (and, in fact, anyone’s values) should say that the right of that human being to live trumps privacy or inconvenience. And “conservative values” (and “liberal values”, and anyone else’s) definitely include the government preserving and defending human life. So, unless you somehow convince the pro-lifers that abortion is not killing a human being, all these appeals to “conservative values”, privacy, government involvement etc. are utterly meaningless. And if you do convince them that abortion is not killing a human being, then you don’t need those appeals, because it’s just a medical procedure and who cares. Do you not understand that? ---
**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 12, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/411 "2015-08-12T21:16:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s like you guys have some kind of blinders on when you expound on “conservative values” etc. > > It is perfectly simple. Yes, if it didn’t involve killing a human, abortion would be perfectly acceptable to anyone with “conservative values”, the loss of privacy would be appalling, etc. etc. Well, now, wait a sec. Isn’t support for the death penalty and support for military interventions more heavily pronounced among American conservatives? When did “killing a human” become anathema to “conservative values” ? I recognize that generalizations are useless, but if you’re going to drop a nugget like that, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say something. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/412 "2015-08-12T21:21:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, now, wait a sec. Isn’t support for the death penalty and support for military interventions more heavily pronounced among American conservatives? When did “killing a human” become anathema to “conservative values” ? > > I recognize that generalizations are useless, but if you’re going to drop a nugget like that, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say something. It’s like you didn’t read this thread at all. Post #228. In fact, it was in response to you. Did you miss it? ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/413 "2015-08-12T21:26:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I can’t get on board with this overly-broad use of the word “choose”. A child already born has options a fetus does not. A pregnant woman does not (generally I assume) sign a contract to stay pregnant or swear out an oath or solemnly affirm to stay pregnant, so I don’t see why she should not be allowed to change her mind. If you want to argue for a benchmark based strictly on time (i.e. no electives after 20 weeks or whatever), fine, but the notion of “you chose this, so suffer the consequences” while options still exist is uncompelling. Signing a contract or swearing an oath are just formal ways of making a commitment. If you agree to babysit your sister’s kids for the night, you do not sign a contract. But you are making a commitment thereby assuming a responsibility. That commitment limits your freedom to change your mind, which is ok, because you \*choose \*to make it. (Nothing overly-broad about my use of that word.) > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > At the very least, it would be a _consistent_ use of terminology. I cheerfully admit to often not bothering to note the distinction between blastocyst, zygote, embryo and fetus, using the last term as a catch-all for “mammal (in context, typically a human) in the process of gestation.” > If you’re going to use “child” for the same human before and after birth, then You’re going to need to add qualifiers like “pre-birth child” and “post-birth child” because it’s not cool to slide from one state to another within a post just because you want to use “child” to describe them both. I think we have to address the part that you prefer to cheerfully not bother about. You choose to refer to the unborn child as “no-one”, thus concluding that the only person who has a stake in the abortion decision is the woman. Once you decide that it is “someone” the equation changes. Now you have to balance the rights of two people, which makes the case a lot more complicated. If you want to better understand why I do not think thet it is appropriate to refer to a child as “no-one” up to the very moment of its birth, think of a twin birth. In the delivery of twins the average time that passes between the first and the second twin is 13,5 minutes. According to your logic during these 13,5 minutes the firstborn twin would be a person with all the rights that involves. The second born would be “no-one”. What are the qualities that make this an accurate distinction? The twins are only different in their location (inside the mother’s body vs. outside of it). Does location make personhood? I do not see it that way. Note: I am intentionally using the term “unborn child” here, because the similarity between a fetus in the late stage of pregnancy and a newborn child is relevant to my line of argument. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In that particular instance, my relevant statement was, in part, “I want that authority over my property and body. The state will have to prove its case why I should not. I support others who want similar authority over their properties and bodies.” Your paraphrase omitted the qualifier in the middle sentence. I certainly recognize that one could try to argue a case for a compelling state interest, but it’s not something I personally find convincing, especially since the state has other options - more carrot, less stick. As per my exlanation above the compelling state interest that I see here is the protection of the rights of the unborn child. I do not see a more “carrot” approach to protecting these rights. ---
**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 12, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/414 "2015-08-12T21:34:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s like you didn’t read this thread at all. Truth be told, this thread isn’t all that distinct from any number of earlier abortion threads I’ve participated in. > [@](#): > > Post #228. In fact, it was in response to you. Did you miss it? Either I did, or I decided at the time that it didn’t need a response from me. In any case, that’s a lot of exceptions to a “don’t kill a human” rule, enough that I think I’m okay with questioning its sincerity. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/415 "2015-08-12T21:38:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Truth be told, this thread isn’t all that distinct from any number of earlier abortion threads I’ve participated in. What?!? Of course it is different. Totally, fundamentally different, because **I am in it!** … Not? … \ ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/416 "2015-08-12T21:46:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In any case, that’s a lot of exceptions to a “don’t kill a human” rule, enough that I think I’m okay with questioning its sincerity. Deliberately obtuse. Where, in my post above, did I say that there is a “don’t kill a human” rule? I said (and I quote) “the right of that human being to live trumps privacy or inconvenience”. That’s not a “conservative value”. That’s a human value. ---
**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 12, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/417 "2015-08-12T22:05:22Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > Signing a contract or swearing an oath are just formal ways of making a commitment. If you agree to babysit your sister’s kids for the night, you do not sign a contract. But you are making a commitment thereby assuming a responsibility. That commitment limits your freedom to change your mind, which is ok, because you \*choose \*to make it. (Nothing overly-broad about my use of that word.) Who is the analogous stand-in for the sister, in the case of a pregnant woman? > [@](#): > > I think we have to address the part that you prefer to cheerfully not bother about. You choose to refer to the unborn child as “no-one”, thus concluding that the only person who has a stake in the abortion decision is the woman. Once you decide that it is “someone” the equation changes. Now you have to balance the rights of two people, which makes the case a lot more complicated. I choose to refer…? This is perhaps the fifth of sixth time you’ve said something like “You claim that…” or “You say that…” or “So we agree that…” and what follows is inaccurate. When did I ever refer to the unborn child (I still prefer “fetus”) as “no-one”? (Disclosure, in post 318 I repeatedly referred to a fetus as “it”, but that was for sentence flow, not an assertion that a fetus was definitely not a person). The only recent time I used “no-one” was in this context: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > It is not rational in my view to pass a law that effectively punishes no-one while adding a burden to women who are already undergoing in a stressful situation. If if this what you are referring to (and if it is not and you can find an actual instance, please quote it), then the “no-one” is that sentence is not referring to a fetus. Rather, “no-one” is the number of pregnant women who would be punished under a late-term elective abortion ban, because effectively “no-one” gets a late-term elective abortion. I admit I can’t say it’s _never_ happened of course; if you know of one or more cases, please share. I’m reminded of Kermit Gosnell again - there may be an on-point instance in that bloody mess. Anyway, unless this is clarified, I’m not addressing anything based on the “no-one” accusation. As it stands, it looks to me like you just plucked that word completely out of context, wrote your own narrative around it, put my name on it, and then demanded I justify it. It’s not my work; I will not. Again, if there is another occurrence of “no-one” that you had in mind, please quote it and I will be happy to withdraw or modify the above comments as appropriate. > [@](#): > > As per my exlanation above the compelling state interest that I see here is the protection of the rights of the unborn child. I do not see a more “carrot” approach to protecting these rights. Really? Carrots are easy - extended maternity leaves, enhanced social benefits for single mothers, student grants and bursaries that help a girl or woman who has become pregnant to continue her education (thus reducing some of the financial strain that might prompt her to see abortion as the least worst option). Add to that improved sex education (ditch the abstinence-only crap) and easier access to birth control to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Try to get any of those past American conservatives, though… yikes. ---
**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 12, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/418 "2015-08-12T22:12:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Deliberately obtuse. Where, in my post above, did I say that there is a “don’t kill a human” rule? I said (and I quote) I quote: > [@Terr](#): > > It is perfectly simple. Yes, if it didn’t involve killing a human, abortion would be perfectly acceptable to anyone with “conservative values”, the loss of privacy would be appalling, etc. etc. Conservatives are okay with lots of things that involve killing a human. Sure, they make an exception for abortion, but it’s definitely not “perfectly simple”, as you describe. Imperfectly simplistic, maybe. > [@](#): > > That’s not a “conservative value”. That’s a human value. Well, it’s a value to _some_ humans, to be sure, which is not shared by all conservatives nor is it exclusive to conservatives. I gather it’s fairly common among American conservatives, though, more so than among American non-conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/419 "2015-08-12T22:14:14Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s like you guys have some kind of blinders on when you expound on “conservative values” etc. . . . You’re just fine with big, intrusive government, when it fits your ideological needs? That isn’t “conservative.” That’s just hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/420 "2015-08-12T22:18:19Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > . . . You choose to refer to the unborn child as “no-one”, thus concluding that the only person who has a stake in the abortion decision is the woman. Once you decide that it is “someone” the equation changes. Now you have to balance the rights of two people, which makes the case a lot more complicated. . . . But that’s the core of the disagreement. Some of us do not see it as “two people.” The other side is attempting to compel us, by force of law, to act the way they see it, trampling on the rights of those of us who see it differently. The only possible solution that respects individual liberty is to allow everyone to hold their own view and act on it. No one is going to compel anyone to have an abortion against their will. Show the same consideration and don’t compel anyone to have a baby against their will. Once you understand that there are two completely valid points of view here, the pro-choice position with respect to the compulsion of the law is the only valid approach. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=22)