# Is it possible to be Pro-Choice AND think that fetus=baby? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013 "2011-05-06T21:23:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/201 "2011-05-09T13:59:43Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > It seems to be that the Violinist argument really truly parallels the anti-abortion in the case of rape. Since the society of music lovers essentially forced themselves upon the subject. > > Isn’t the argument different if the subject had volunteered participate in the aid of the violinist? > > Or am I understanding the thought experiment wrong. If you are thinking the mother has a legal contract to carry the fetus to term, please be advised that: Minors ccannot have legal contracts. Nobody can force anyone to perform a service as a part of a legal contract. Even if I agree to sign for you and sign a contract, you cannot force me to do so. The best you can do is sue for breech of contract, which is not relative with a minor child. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/202 "2011-05-09T14:03:09Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Minors ccannot have legal contracts. Sure they can; they’re _voidable_ (at the election of the minor), not _void_. Minors cannot be bound to contracts (until they reach the age of majority), but they can bind adults to contracts. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/203 "2011-05-09T14:04:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure they can; they’re _voidable_ (at the election of the minor), not _void_. Minors cannot be bound to contracts (until they reach the age of majority), but they can bind adults to contracts. Huh, did not know that. Interesting tidbit unrelated to this whole issue- thanks! ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/204 "2011-05-09T14:21:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s easy, since I already have done so repeatedly. Organ donation. We can disassemble a mindless human for parts. I’d be careful in going down that road. At what point does a newly born baby become a person then? There’s not a lot of difference, sentience-wise between a fetus and a newborn baby, you know. Or what about severely mentally handicapped people? Or formerly sentient ones who have suffered brain damage? Should we “disassemble” them for parts? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/205 "2011-05-09T15:05:50Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Huh, did not know that. Interesting tidbit unrelated to this whole issue- thanks! No problem. Surprised me too. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/206 "2011-05-09T15:29:17Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’d be careful in going down that road. > > At what point does a newly born baby become a person then? There’s not a lot of difference, sentience-wise between a fetus and a newborn baby, you know. We don’t know, but it doesn’t matter much. Once born the baby is no longer totally biologically dependent on the mother alone, so the moral context changes. > [@bump](#): > > Or what about severely mentally handicapped people? Or formerly sentient ones who have suffered brain damage? > > Should we “disassemble” them for parts? We DO dissemble the latter for parts; in fact, those are the only humans we disassemble that way. Again; that’s what “brain death” means. As for the former, the question isn’t likely to come up since a baby born that badly handicapped probably won’t survive long enough for their organs to be useful. We aren’t talking about someone who is just severely disabled; we are talking about what is in essence a breathing corpse. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/207 "2011-05-09T15:33:09Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > What’s been known to be true? It’s been known for well over 40 years that the unborn at all stages are human beings. It’s not a big secret. > [@](#): > > The question is, as always, the interplay between the moral right of the fetus to life and the moral right of the mother to not have her bodily fluids and cavities invaded without her consent. No it’s not. That’s just something pro-choicers throw out to make the issue unnecessarily complex. Anyway, “invaded without her consent”, you say? What a load of crap. A woman has to, barring rape, **actively choose** to engage in sex before a pregnancy occurs (and, no, for those smart guys among you, we ain’t talking about IVF). Yet, for some reason, you negate the existence of this choice, instead choosing to seemingly believe that a woman magically awakens in the morning to find herself pregnant (“Pro-choice”, indeed!). It makes little sense when you get down to it. You’re trying to somehow assume that the woman has some negative right to not be acted against by the unborn, which would be true _if_ the unborn began to act upon the woman of its own volition outside of any actions by the women. Of course, we all know how untrue this is. Pregnancy isn’t a situation in which one simple actively acts upon the other against the other’s will; rather, it’s a situation in which one is dependent on the other because of the actions of the latter individual (sex). To ignore this point is dishonest. In essence, your entire argument is that the woman has a right to act greater than the right of another individual to not be acted against. What sense does that make? There is no situation or circumstance outside of abortion in which you can **actively choose** to partake, and then kill a third party because you didn’t like the consequence of your choice. That should tell you something. > [@](#): > > Don’t tell me “having sex means consenting to pregnancy”, either, because that’d make pregnancy the one thing we can’t revoke consent on after the fact. Okay, fine. Consenting to sex means consenting to being held responsible for that which results from sex. Better? > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > It’s also false in the United States, but you seem to have conveniently ignored my post. Except it’s not false, no matter how many times you say this. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/208 "2011-05-09T15:41:33Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Okay, fine. Consenting to sex means consenting to being held responsible for that which results from sex. Better? If she has responsibility for a situation, doesn’t (or shouldn’t) she also have authority over the situation as well? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/209 "2011-05-09T15:59:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I said _poverty_ was correlated with child abuse (and your cited study agrees), and lack of abortion access reinforces poverty, so the relationship is transitive. Besides, your cited study has a few problems, including a fairly small sample size, chosen from a population that is already overwhelmingly poor, unemployed and already receiving the attention of social workers. Looking at the data, I gather: > > 237 mothers, all receiving social aid, the vast majority (97.5%) single parents, the vast majority (96.2%) unemployed, a significant majority (72%) having less than a high-school education. > > Of these, 160 had never had an abortion, 49 had had one abortion, 28 had had two or more abortions. The study is comparing a population of 77 to one of 160. This is a pretty small sample size, some of the data was “self-selected”, (i.e. respondents could choose whether or not to respond to some questions), a number of criteria were vague/subjective at best (i.e. trying to control for "“Not having felt loved by one’s parents during childhood”)… It’s the largest study ever conducted on the subject, though there are smaller ones which also point out that women who abort tend to be more abusive than the ones who don’t. > [@](#): > > It’s not a study I’d give a whole lot of weight to, myself. I can think of at least one alternate interpretation - women who make bad impulsive short-sighted decisions are more likely to (a) get pregnant when they don’t want to, and (b) abuse their kids. (a) could prompt getting an abortion, and though it correlates with (b) in the sense that a person who makes bad decisions is vulnerable to (a) _and_ (b), an abortion-resolution to (a) doesn’t cause (b), by any mechanism I can see. > > Conversely, women who make calmer, rational decisions are more likely to (a) be more careful with birth control and avoid unwanted pregnancies and (b) resist the impulse to abuse their children. Abortion is made irrelevant. So you’re saying that women who get abortions are more prone to make impulsive, short-sighted decisions and abuse their children than are women who don’t? Didn’t you earlier insinuate that women are more likely to abuse children they didn’t want but weren’t allowed to abort? Accepting that as true, it would mean that women who abort-- who by your own words are more likely to make impulsive, short-sighted decisions-- have a predisposition to being abusive, which could be evidenced by the way they treat any pre-existing (or even future children). Not accepting this as true, then one could theorize that women who abort have no predisposition to being abusive, but rather that having an abortion _reduces_ the mother-child bond, which will also spill over to affect the bond between the mother and any pre-existing children she does have, resulting in more abusive tendencies between the mother and her child. I’d be willing to bet it’s a combination of the two, myself. > [@](#): > > Further, the study defines (but does not explore the significance of) “maltreatment” as “the mothers were either the perpetrators of the maltreatment or they allowed someone else to mistreat their children.” So if a woman has one or more children, and somewhere along the way gets an abortion, and somewhere also along the way gets a boyfriend or husband who abuses her (and possibly his) children, the study is trying to find if the _abortion_ is a relevant factor? I’d suggest that of the 160 women in the study who have never had abortions, we get some data about how many are not sexually active at all, hence no boyfriends or husbands. These women won’t be getting abortions, because they won’t be getting pregnant, _and_ their children are not at risk of abuse from her (nonexistent) boyfriend(s). No. While it says that in the abstract, it actually measures how abusive mothers are to their children based on past abortion history, not how abusive some third party is to her children based on past abortion experience (see: [here](http://www.ispub.com/ispub/ijpn/volume_6_number_2_15/induced_abortion_and_child_directed_aggression_among_mothers_of_maltreated_children/abortion-tbl3.jpg) and [here](http://www.ispub.com/ispub/ijpn/volume_6_number_2_15/induced_abortion_and_child_directed_aggression_among_mothers_of_maltreated_children/abortion-tbl2.jpg)). > [@](#): > > In any case, I see you’re arguing with Der Trihs over the “person / not person” labelling issue. Good luck with that. No, I stopped. And I’d still like to see this study about how restricting abortion leads to higher instances of child abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/210 "2011-05-09T16:00:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Okay, fine. Consenting to sex means consenting to being held responsible for that which results from sex. Better? Workable. Now get around the fact that a person can revoke consent for sex mid-act, and eject their partner. By analogy, a woman can revoke consent for the result as well, and eject the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/211 "2011-05-09T16:07:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > In essence, your entire argument is that the woman has a right to act greater than the right of another individual to not be acted against. What sense does that make? Perfect sense. Whether it made a conscious choice or not (and the fact that it CAN’T make a conscious choice argues against it being in possession of a full panoply of rights, IMO), the fetus is actively taking life from the mother during the course of pregnancy, and she has the right to end that at any time. Imagine a scenario where you were going to die unless you received constant transfusions by being hooked into a person’s circulatory system. You agree to pay me $1000 if I allow you to hook up to me for nine months–a contract, with consideration on both sides. Leaving aside the legality of contracting for that kind of service, your argument is equivalent to saying I can’t legally break that contract described above–which would be bullshit. > [@](#): > > There is no situation or circumstance outside of abortion in which you can **actively choose** to partake, and then kill a third party because you didn’t like the consequence of your choice. That should tell you something. Amazing. You’re telling me that abortion is unique, because only pregnancy potentially results in the creation of a new human being? And here I thought we reproduced by spores as well. The situation IS unique–it’s not a surprise that we have to treat it uniquely. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/212 "2011-05-09T16:09:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If she has responsibility for a situation, doesn’t (or shouldn’t) she also have authority over the situation as well? Relative to what’s in the best interest of that she is responsible for. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Workable. Now get around the fact that a person can revoke consent for sex mid-act, and eject their partner. > > By analogy, a woman can revoke consent for the result as well, and eject the fetus. You know, I’m perfectly willing to grant you this. Now what about the other 99.5%+ of other abortions 😉 ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/213 "2011-05-09T16:09:09Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You know, your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous. So now you equate the unborn to pieces of meat? Surely, you’re just being facetious, yes? Yes I agree 100%. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/214 "2011-05-09T16:21:47Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Perfect sense. Whether it made a conscious choice or not (and the fact that it CAN’T make a conscious choice argues against it being in possession of a full panoply of rights, IMO), the fetus is actively taking life from the mother during the course of pregnancy, and she has the right to end that at any time. No sense, actually. You do not get to negate the choice a woman makes _before_ pregnancy can occur, acting as if it doesn’t exist. Doing so is simply dishonest. Anyway, to quote myself: > [@Me](#): > > Pregnancy isn’t a situation in which one simpl **y** acts upon the other against the other’s will; rather, it’s a situation in which one is dependent on the other because of the actions of the latter individual (sex). Right now, you’re merely arguing that the mother’s right to act in any way she sees fit trumps the right of another individual to not be acted upon by the mother in any way she sees fit. How does that work? To take it to the extreme, your argument is one where a woman can purposefully become pregnant, only to abort. Surely, you wouldn’t agree with that? Also, what do you mean by “actively taking life”? The mother’s body diverts nutrients towards the unborn, and only if the mother becomes significantly malnourished will the unborn “steal” nutrients from her. The propensity of pro-choicers to turn pregnancy into a mother vs. unborn deal is astounding, really. > [@](#): > > Imagine a scenario where you were going to die unless you received constant transfusions by being hooked into a person’s circulatory system. You agree to pay me $1000 if I allow you to hook up to me for nine months–a contract, with consideration on both sides. Leaving aside the legality of contracting for that kind of service, your argument is equivalent to saying I can’t legally break that contract described above–which would be bullshit. Assuming such a contract was at all legal, legally you couldn’t as you’d be subject to all sorts of damages. > [@](#): > > Amazing. You’re telling me that abortion is unique, because only pregnancy potentially results in the creation of a new human being? And here I thought we reproduced by spores as well. > > The situation IS unique–it’s not a surprise that we have to treat it uniquely. Every situation is unique, but we don’t make up different rules for how individuals are treated in each one of them. We, at the very least, strive for some uniformity. Simply stating “oh, but that’s different!” is a complete intellectual cop-out. And, pregnancy doesn’t “potentially result in the creation of a new human being”. By the time a woman is pregnant, and even before then, a new human being already exists. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/215 "2011-05-09T16:27:43Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > There is no situation or circumstance outside of abortion in which you can **actively choose** to partake, and then kill a third party because you didn’t like the consequence of your choice. That should tell you something.. It tells me that this scenario is unique and should be treated differently to the other (some frankly ridiculous) scenarios as depicted as hypotheticals in this thread. The woman did not choose to get pregnant, she chose to have sex. Pregnancy was an unwanted consequence of her choice and, as she has complete control and rights over her body, she can then do what she wants with the baby\fetus\orgulfrum growing inside her. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/216 "2011-05-09T16:31:16Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Except it’s not false, no matter how many times you say this. So, you’ve got nothing? ---
**Author:** ![Quia\_Sic\_Dico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/bbce88/32.png) [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quia_Sic_Dico)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/217 "2011-05-09T16:58:50Z")
Excuse me, but I think most of the posts (including my own) have been slightly of topic. The OP is asking whether it is possible to equate a foetus with a baby and still be pro-choice, not whether, or under which circumstances abortion should be allowed, or why. I think most of us have missed an important aspect of this question: Anyone who truly considers a foetus morally equivalent of a newborn infant must either believe that it is immoral to kill either, or that there are circumstances in which the killing of both can be condoned. Thus, those of us who claim to agree that a foetus literally equals a baby, and to be pro-choice, are forced to accord mothers the right to commit infanticide. Anyone who finds infanticide immoral, but remain pro-choice can only defend this position by arguing that a foetus isn’t actually a baby yet. ---
**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:** [May 9, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/218 "2011-05-09T17:11:24Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > It’s the largest study ever conducted on the subject, though there are smaller ones which also point out that women who abort tend to be more abusive than the ones who don’t. Well, if this is the _largest_ study with only 237 observations, I’d have the same problems (only more so) with _smaller_ studies. All it takes is five or ten women in the “never had an abortion” group who won’t admit to abusing their kids to bias the results. Further, consider that _all_ these women were _already_ getting attention from social services, rather than being women selected randomly from the general population. There’s an excellent chance some would downplay abuse because they see the admission as something that’ll get them deeper in trouble, even with assurances that their responses would remain confidential. > [@](#): > > So you’re saying that women who get abortions are more prone to make impulsive, short-sighted decisions and abuse their children than are women who don’t? No, you have it backward, and I’m confident I was clear the first time. I’m suggesting women who make impulsive, short-sighted decisions are more likely to get unintentionally pregnant (with abortion being one resolution) _and, independently_ abuse their kids. It’s the poor decision skills that can lead to situations where abortion is considered, not a willingness to abort that leads to poor decision skills. And to clarify even further, getting an abortion is not inherently a bad decision. The bad decision was doing something that got you pregnant in the first place. And even further… among the group of women described, it seems plausible to me that the incidence of rape might be higher than among the general population (i.e. these women are poor and undereducated, suggesting they generally live in worse neighborhoods, etc.) A woman who has been raped could get an abortion, _and the trauma of that assault makes her more violent with her children_. I daresay this could be a significant factor, yet the word “rape” doesn’t appear anywhere in the study report. Was it even considered? > [@](#): > > Didn’t you earlier insinuate that women are more likely to abuse children they didn’t want but weren’t allowed to abort? I think I suggested it, rather than insinuated it, but no matter. An unwanted pregnancy that is not aborted leads to an unwanted child… that abuse could follow doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to me. Heck, it’s also completely possible that unwanted pregnancies result in fulled loved and wanted children. I just figure that if a woman is already poor (and the women in the study overwhelmingly are), having another child isn’t likely to help her get un-poor (and in fact likely to _keep_ her poor), and since poverty correlates with child abuse… The authors of the study are trying to dig out abortion as a factor, but by their own admission: > [@the study in question](#): > > The more robust predictors of child abuse and neglect include poverty, parental childhood history of maltreatment, social isolation, poor parenting skills and unrealistic parenting expectations, poor coping skills, low self-esteem and other psychological problems, as well as substance abuse Seems to me that the act of trying to control for all of the above introduces enough random noise that what remains is suspect at best. > [@OMG](#): > > Accepting that as true, it would mean that women who abort-- who by your own words are more likely to make impulsive, short-sighted decisions-- have a predisposition to being abusive, which could be evidenced by the way they treat any pre-existing (or even future children). Again, you’re stating it backward. My premise is not that abortion makes women abusive. It’s that poor decision skills can lead to them getting pregnant and/or abusive. > [@](#): > > Not accepting this as true, then one could theorize that women who abort have no predisposition to being abusive, but rather that having an abortion _reduces_ the mother-child bond, which will also spill over to affect the bond between the mother and any pre-existing children she does have, resulting in more abusive tendencies between the mother and her child. I’d be willing to bet it’s a combination of the two, myself. It’s conceivable, but you keep trying to force abortion to the head of the line as a _causal_ factor and this study doesn’t convince me that it should be so. As an incidental note, the data for this study was drawn from a much earlier study conducted in 1984-5, and of the women in study who’d had on more more abortions, the average time elapsed since their first abortion was 7.6 years. I daresay abortions performed in the 1970s carried more stigma than they do now, so that’s another potential problem with using this study to speculate on current attitudes - it’s basically analyzing women who got abortions in the years just after _Roe v. Wade_. Is there a difference between how those women felt and how a woman getting an abortion in 2005 might feel? I suspect so. > [@](#): > > No. While it says that in the abstract, it actually measures how abusive mothers are to their children based on past abortion history, not how abusive some third party is to her children based on past abortion experience (see: [here](http://www.ispub.com/ispub/ijpn/volume_6_number_2_15/induced_abortion_and_child_directed_aggression_among_mothers_of_maltreated_children/abortion-tbl3.jpg) and [here](http://www.ispub.com/ispub/ijpn/volume_6_number_2_15/induced_abortion_and_child_directed_aggression_among_mothers_of_maltreated_children/abortion-tbl2.jpg)). It’s not just in the abstract. From the “Methods” section: > [@the study](#): > > All the study participants had been identified as having engaged in child maltreatment or as having allowed someone else to mistreat at least one of their children. And in “Data description and procedure / Physical abuse segment”: > [@the study](#): > > The following operational definition of physical abuse was employed: “Respondent had as of January 1984 at least one natural child who was the victim of excessive inappropriate physical force by the respondent herself and/or another caretaker…" … The principle [_sic_] investigator reported that information derived from CPS case records of 105 of the abusive respondents revealed that in 59% of the situations, the mother was the one who inflicted the injuries (in the remainder of cases the mother was aware of the abuse)…" And in “Conclusions” (indeed, the opening sentence): > [@the study](#): > > The purpose of this study was to explore maternal history of induced abortion as a possible variable linked with increased frequency of child physical abuse in a sample of mothers who have either personally mistreated their children or allowed someone else to do so. Somewhere along the way, the distinction between women who personally abuse their kids and women who let others abuse their kids (admittedly, I figure there could be a big overlap) gets buried. > [@OMG](#): > > And I’d still like to see this study about how restricting abortion leads to higher instances of child abuse. Oh, I’m confident that trying to prove a direct link will be difficult. Rather, I’d go for a transitive approach, in which I cite studies that show: 1. Lack of abortion access reinforces poverty, and 2. Poverty leads to increases in child abuse. That is, if my pro-choice stance was based on trying to prevent child abuse, which it is not. Rather, I’m for individual rights and self-determination, including the right to not have to continue an unwanted pregnancy. That the woman is poor or not, that she might already have children or not, that she might have future children or not… all irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/219 "2011-05-09T17:13:34Z")
> [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](#): > > Excuse me, but I think most of the posts (including my own) have been slightly of topic. The OP is asking whether it is possible to equate a foetus with a baby and still be pro-choice, not whether, or under which circumstances abortion should be allowed, or why. > > I think most of us have missed an important aspect of this question: > > Anyone who truly considers a foetus morally equivalent of a newborn infant must either believe that it is immoral to kill either, or that there are circumstances in which the killing of both can be condoned. Thus, those of us who claim to agree that a foetus literally equals a baby, and to be pro-choice, are forced to accord mothers the right to commit infanticide. Anyone who finds infanticide immoral, but remain pro-choice can only defend this position by arguing that a foetus isn’t actually a baby yet. Excellent post! This is pretty much the most intelligent reply I have read on this whole thread…aside from my replies that is…just kidding:D ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/220 "2011-05-09T17:14:29Z")
I thought that was kind of obvious. What _else_ would the issue be? 😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013.md?page=12)