# 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:** 15
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/281 "2011-05-09T21:49:37Z")
> [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](#): > > Anyway, I still think the hi-jacking argument is a bit off: Surely women have abortions because they don’t want to end up with a baby, not because they object to being hi-jacked. Is there something wrong with wanting to avoid both? The pregnancy is just the more immediate problem, and considering the physical discomfort involved, I daresay it goes somewhat beyond mere “inconvenience”, as you rather flippantly described it. “Inconvenience” is having to cancel all your credit cards after your wallet gets stolen. Pregnancy, I’m given to understand, is rather more extreme. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/282 "2011-05-09T21:51:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > OK; how about “gloatingly sadistic” instead? Quite a few are. “Indifferent” is the _nicest_ that the anti-abortion scum get towards the women they are trying to victimize; it goes downhill from there. > > Which simply shows how low a creature they consider her to be. All that may well be true of a lot of anti-abortionist out there, but the ones posting in this thread haven’t generally displayed that kind of misogynistic attitudes, and you can’t blame them for what those other people say or do. I’m not defending the pro-life people because I agree with them, but because I thought the balance in this discussion was a bit off-centre, and didn’t favour mutual understanding at all. The point of having a discussion like this is not to forcibly convert anyone else to ones own ideals, nor is it to just sit around respecting each others opinion, but to defend and explain one’s own opinions in such a way that other people, even if they still do not agree with it, understand it better than they did before. The most successful argument is the one that convinces your opponent that you’re right, which isn’t likely to be the one which claims that he, or she, is gloatingly sadistic or scum. As someone else has already pointed out, convincing others that one is right is absolutely essential if you happen to live in a democracy and hope to see your own opinions influence legislation. So please, as a fellow pro-choicer, do me the favour of not offending the pro-lifers needlessly. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/283 "2011-05-09T21:59:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not really, no. Possibly you’re making the assumption that getting an abortion is a bad decision _in and of itself_, but I don’t agree and have never stated otherwise. > > If you’re _not_ making this assumption, then I don’t understand why you’re trying to changing the sequence from: > > 1. Woman is prone to making bad decisions > 2. Bad decisions lead to unwanted pregnancies > 3. Unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions > > …to… > > 1. Woman chooses to get abortion. > 2. Choosing an abortion mean the woman makes bad decisions. > > It’s as though “A suggests B suggests C” is being converted to “C suggests A”, which doesn’t follow, much like “beagle suggests dog suggests mammal” fails to lead to “mammal suggests beagle.” Sure, a given mammal _might_ be a beagle, and a given abortion patient _might_ be prone to bad decisions, but I wouldn’t start making generalizations based on either premise. I’m interested in knowing where you saw me make the second argument. > [@](#): > > I’m only questioning the methodology of the study you cited and explaining why I find it unconvincing. The study doesn’t address, or even try to address, “who obtains the majority of abortions” and if you want to expand the discussion in this direction, I suggest you find a cite that you respect detailing the demographics of abortion across the entire, let’s say, U.S. population, rather than the very limited scope of the study you’ve already cited, which was exclusively of 237 women who lived in mid-eighties Baltimore and who were already receiving attention from social workers and were overwhelmingly poor, under-educated and under-employed. We’re not talking about who obtains the majority of abortions, but rather that the majority of abortions are done on unintended pregnancies (see: data by [Guttmacher](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:RE6bfJYXDyAJ:www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.pdf+unintended+pregnancy+rate+guttmacher&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESihagdWzK2N0n1rKHgs7nktUvBOm_K_8c3Ww31d7w-zeq9TreWIsTdykY_bn-Ju7D9ZikLAYHffDwQYGDCe1187VvAKrI6PVqf9bvWaXcXd8WTrSL01-He7TW-Mc0KoETQl7GPX&sig=AHIEtbRBRi55p4cv43blh_PIWyfxxJU3ng)). And if, as you say, women who impulsive, short-sighted decisions would suffer more unintended pregnancies then their opposite, then it stands to reason that they’ll obtain the majority of abortion. > [@](#): > > I’m just gonna let this one go. Why? It’s true. I’ve never seen anyone who was aborted come out and defend the practice, but I have seen individuals who were aborted come out and speak against the practice. > [@](#): > > Even among poor women? Even, dare I say, among the 237 women profiled in your cited study, which is specifically what I was addressing? The fact is, we don’t know because that data was either not collected or not cited. I’m pointing out to you data reported by AGI. As it stands, you’ve brought up an extraneous fact upon which you have yet to provide any reasoning as why one should accept it. > [@](#): > > Okay, feel free to doubt it, I won’t try and stop you. But if in this particular study, let’s say, three women who were impregnated by rape, aborted that fetus, and took it out on their other children, those three women alone would be enough to affect the results because the sample size is quite small. Except there is no reason to believe this is true other than you want it to be true. I still want you to produce for me some kind of evidence which gives credence to the claim that rape victims tend to abuse their children moreso than non-rape victims do. You see, if you produced something which said that rape victims are more likely to abuse their children than are non-rape victims, then your criticism would be valid. But you haven’t. > [@](#): > > Have they? I’d find that to be a tad surprising, to say the least. I know there are backlashes in various states, and vocal opponents, and federal-level pro-life politicians (though how much of this is mere lip service is anyone’s guess). Frankly, I’d be quite bemused if _Roe_ and similar decisions were discarded anytime in the next decade and the U.S. returned to pre-1973 standards. If anything, I’d expect a significant increase in Canadian gynecological clinics set up along our southern border and near our major airports, to tend to your medical refugees. Why would you find it surprising? > [@](#): > > Excess numbers of babies, though… You can continue claiming the two aren’t linked, if you like. I won’t stop you. And how does that reinforce poverty? You made a claim. I’m waiting for you to back it up. You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that having a child prevents someone from changing social class or the (usually liberal) notion that children are a detriment. Do women no longer try to better themselves for the sake of their children? > [@](#): > > Whether they are or not, I’m okay with their hypothetical wishes being overruled by another person in the specific circumstances of pregnancy. It’s unclear to me why the state is better suited to make that determination. I thought it was the job of the government to protect individuals over which is presides? > [@](#): > > In that case, the parents’ best interests are _not_ being served in any tangible way by denying the transfusion because their concern (that their child’s soul will be endangered) is not something that be evaluated in any meaningful way. It’s only analogous to pregnancy if a pregnant woman is considered “possessed” by an intangible “child-spirit” that she wants “exorcised”, when the blunt reality is she has a growing organism inside her that will over a period of several months increase her personal discomfort significantly and even afterward impose an emotional and financial burden that I’m not comfortable forcing on her when alternatives exist to remedy the situation. So, in other words, state intervention is okay when you think it’s okay, but not when you don’t think it’s okay? > [@](#): > > In any case, if a pro-choice stance can be likened to infanticide, I see no reason a pro-life stance can’t be likened to totalitarian government-mandated reproduction. Where did I mention infanticide? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/284 "2011-05-09T22:07:14Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Why? It’s true. I’ve never seen anyone who was aborted come out and defend the practice, but I have seen individuals who were aborted come out and speak against the practice. No, no you haven’t. If someone \*was \*aborted, they’re not speaking, because they don’t exist. Or they’re dead, if you prefer. If you’re talking about women who have \*had \*abortions speaking out and defending them, then there are thousands of them. There’s another thread right here on the Dope at the moment, in fact, that is women sharing their abortion experiences, and every single one has said they have no regrets and would do it again in identical circumstances. There are entire websites devoted to pro-choice women sharing their abortion stories, and they overwhelmingly support abortion still. I’m not going to say _you’ve_ never seen them, but I will say that if you looked just a little harder, you could. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/285 "2011-05-09T22:14:28Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > No, no you haven’t. If someone \*was \*aborted, they’re not speaking, because they don’t exist. Or they’re dead, if you prefer. > > If you’re talking about women who have \*had \*abortions speaking out and defending them, then there are thousands of them. There’s another thread right here on the Dope at the moment, in fact, that is women sharing their abortion experiences, and every single one has said they have no regrets and would do it again in identical circumstances. There are entire websites devoted to pro-choice women sharing their abortion stories, and they overwhelmingly support abortion still. > > I’m not going to say _you’ve_ never seen them, but I will say that if you looked just a little harder, you could. [Doesn’t exist](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ). [Definitely don’t exist](http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm). ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/286 "2011-05-09T22:14:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is there something wrong with wanting to avoid both? The pregnancy is just the more immediate problem, and considering the physical discomfort involved, I daresay it goes somewhat beyond mere “inconvenience”, as you rather flippantly described it. “Inconvenience” is having to cancel all your credit cards after your wallet gets stolen. Pregnancy, I’m given to understand, is rather more extreme. Yes, I agree; inconvenience is not the right word. However, it is not so terrible that people aren’t willing to endure it when they do want to have children. The fact that more mothers have given birth to their own children than have adopted them, and that most mothers, even those who could easily afford it, prefer not to let a surrogate deal with the pregnancy for them, unless their medical condition prescribes it, proves that it isn’t something to be avoided at all costs. I, for one, would rather be pregnant than dead, and the reason why I feel that I can defend abortion and foeticide as morally sound is either that I consider my interests (not wanting to be pregnant, giving birth, or wanting a child) more valid or weighty than the interest of the foetus (staying alive, avoiding pain), or because I believe the foetus incapable of having interests. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/287 "2011-05-09T22:16:50Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Hey, OMG, you mind responding to the thought experiment I posted upthread? I’ll repost it here for your convenience. > > A thought experiment, and I intend this especially for \*\*classyladyhp \*\*and **OMG** : > > We allow babies to be given up for adoption now–that is, legally, a mother can relinquish both parental rights to a child and the duty of care for that child. > > In the future, don’t fight the hypothetical, we develop a uterine replicator device. For the same amount of surgical effort as an abortion, the fetus can instead be removed from the mother and placed into one of these devices, gestated, and born. Babies born from the uterine replicator have the same or lower rates of birth defects, and develop equivalently to in-womb babies. > > In the case where this technology exists, does the mother have a moral right to remove the fetus from her uterus and give it up for adoption while it is still unborn? I would love it if they would invent a uterine replicator. Heck I’d even help fund it. I have no problem with the mother taking it out of her uterus and putting it in one of these replicators. I think of it as a revolutionary new form of adoption. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/288 "2011-05-09T22:21:52Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > [Doesn’t exist](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ). [Definitely don’t exist](http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortionsurvivors.cfm). That is a very prescriptivist attempt at redefining abortion, which colloquially refers to the process which ends in the death of a fetus. But sure, if you want to play that game, then I’m going to claim that anyone ever born prematurely was aborted, because the medical definition of abortion is premature exit from the womb, method unspecified. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/289 "2011-05-09T22:27:16Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > That is a very prescriptivist attempt at redefining abortion, which colloquially refers to the process which ends in the death of a fetus. > > But sure, if you want to play that game, then I’m going to claim that anyone ever born prematurely was aborted, because the medical definition of abortion is premature exit from the womb, method unspecified. :rolleyes: Do the eye roll smiley all you want. That’s not redefining an abortion. Just because one _survives_ an abortion (which happens yearly, though rarely), does not make it any less of an abortion. Edit: And you can add someone like Ana Rosa Rodriguez to the list. ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/290 "2011-05-09T22:32:12Z")
> [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](#): > > All that may well be true of a lot of anti-abortionist out there, but the ones posting in this thread haven’t generally displayed that kind of misogynistic attitudes, and you can’t blame them for what those other people say or do. Yes I can, since they support such people, and because the anti-abortion movement is _about_ misogyny. It is a hate movement, no better than the white supremacy movement. > [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](#): > > The most successful argument is the one that convinces your opponent that you’re right, which isn’t likely to be the one which claims that he, or she, is gloatingly sadistic or scum. Such people are not convinced, they are outlived. They will almost certainly continue hating women and trying to hurt them until the day they drop dead. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/291 "2011-05-09T22:36:04Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Hey, OMG, you mind responding to the thought experiment I posted upthread? I’ll repost it here for your convenience. > > A thought experiment, and I intend this especially for classyladyhp and OMG: > > We allow babies to be given up for adoption now–that is, legally, a mother can relinquish both parental rights to a child and the duty of care for that child. > > In the future, don’t fight the hypothetical, we develop a uterine replicator device. For the same amount of surgical effort as an abortion, the fetus can instead be removed from the mother and placed into one of these devices, gestated, and born. Babies born from the uterine replicator have the same or lower rates of birth defects, and develop equivalently to in-womb babies. > > In the case where this technology exists, does the mother have a moral right to remove the fetus from her uterus and give it up for adoption while it is still unborn? And I just now saw this. Assuming the unborn doesn’t die and can develop just the same as it could if it were left in its mother’s womb, then what’s the problem? ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/292 "2011-05-09T22:41:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yopu’re not relying on the relatively small number of post-viability abortions (1% or about 10-20K abortions/year) as a reason to ignore them are you?. Ignore them? No. My assumption (without data) is that a significant chunk of those falls within the _health of the mother_ exclusion or that there was a problem with the pregnancy or the abortion was otherwise medically necessary. I don’t imagine that many women opting for late term abortions on a whim. If my assumption is correct, I’d still rather have the decision made by the woman and her doctor than by a politician because any legislation is likely to unduly impact the medically necessary abortions. On the other hand, if my assumption is way off, I’d be happy to withdraw my objection. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/293 "2011-05-09T23:19:01Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > I don’t blame you for not knowing what it’s like to be pregnant, I’m just pointing out how silly it is, in that case, for you to make assertions about what it’s like to be pregnant. > > Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons. I don’t want babies, AND I object to the hijacking. Being pregnant sucked, even when it was with a baby I wanted, but I lived with it because I wanted that baby. I certainly would not live with that again for a baby that I don’t want, and I shouldn’t have to, because my organs are mine, and I don’t owe the use of them to anyone, not even my own children. I agree that you shouldn’t have to, and I’m sorry if it seemed like I didn’t appreciate the difficulties of pregnancy. I’m sure it can be perfectly horrible. However, none of this changes the fact that, unless being pregnant actually kills the mother, she will in some ways be better off than the foetus she aborts. In my opinion it is not enough to claim that the mother has a right to the use of her own organs if you want to defend this outcome: I think it is necesary to establish exactly what gives her this right. In the end, I think the reason why I keep arguing this point is because I find the term hijacking inappropriate in this context, because hijacking implies an activity, and the foetus obviously isn’t an active agent in this case. This is linguistic nitpicking of course, but I just wanted to explain why I don’t find argument entirely compelling. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not even female and this strikes me as blatantly, patently absurd. Even if someone is handed a newborn and responsibility for it (and for some reason cannot just refuse on the spot), an infant’s care can be temporarily and perfectly legally passed off to a nanny or babysitter. It’s somewhat harder to do so with an unwanted guest in your uterus. It’s obvious by now, even to me, that my hypothesis was more than a little absurd. Suppose I retract it and replace it with this one (just as implausible, if not more so, but not impossible): You’re making your way through a desert (alone) and one morning you come across an infant lying abandoned on a dune. If you leave it there it won’t survive for long once the sun is fully risen and the temperatures go up. You aren’t short on supplies so bringing the infant with you wouldn’t greatly diminish your own chances of surviving untill you reach the nearest town. However, that town is quite far away, and bringing the child with you will make the journey considerably more difficult: it’s a heavy burden to carry, it keeps crying, you have to stop to feed and change it, and so on. In this case, do you have a moral obligation to bring the child along or not? ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/294 "2011-05-09T23:22:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes I can, since they support such people, and because the anti-abortion movement is _about_ misogyny. It is a hate movement, no better than the white supremacy movement. > > Such people are not convinced, they are outlived. They will almost certainly continue hating women and trying to hurt them until the day they drop dead. Then why are you arguing at all? ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/295 "2011-05-09T23:27:14Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I would love it if they would invent a uterine replicator. Heck I’d even help fund it. I have no problem with the mother taking it out of her uterus and putting it in one of these replicators. I think of it as a revolutionary new form of adoption. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And I just now saw this. Assuming the unborn doesn’t die and can develop just the same as it could if it were left in its mother’s womb, then what’s the problem? Thanks for the answer. By the by, the purpose of the thought experiment is to separate out the “pro-lifers” who are working from misogynist or anti-sex motives from the pro-lifers who are genuinely and solely concerned with the life of the fetus. For the record: people from the former category will answer that they don’t believe a person should be able to duck the consequences of sexual activity so easily. I’ve heard it more than once, but not commonly–glad you’re not in that camp. I suppose I’m mostly doing it to make sure that people recognize that not every pro-choicer is like **Der Trihs** either. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/296 "2011-05-09T23:27:54Z")
> [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](#): > > Then why are you arguing at all? Because I enjoy arguing with people. Probably the same reason most people are here in GD in the first place. ---
**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, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/297 "2011-05-09T23:34:21Z")
**–\> Der Trihs** : Sorry, that was a flippant reply. But don’t you think that Omg a Black Conservative’s and classyladyhp’s responses to Zeriel’s thought experiment prove that they aren’t in it for the misogyny? They would both gladly allow women to terminate gestation if the continued survival and wellbeing of the foetus outside the uterus could be ensured. ---
**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, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/298 "2011-05-09T23:34:24Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Thanks for the answer. By the by, the purpose of the thought experiment is to separate out the “pro-lifers” who are working from misogynist or anti-sex motives from the pro-lifers who are genuinely and solely concerned with the life of the fetus. > > For the record: people from the former category will answer that they don’t believe a person should be able to duck the consequences of sexual activity so easily. I’ve heard it more than once, but not commonly–glad you’re not in that camp. I suppose I’m mostly doing it to make sure that people recognize that not every pro-choicer is like **Der Trihs** either. Thank you. All I care about is the life of that precious baby. As long as the baby can be allowed a chance to live I don’t care if it’s in it’s mother’s body or a machine. The last thing I am is a misogynist. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/299 "2011-05-09T23:38:47Z")
> [@Quia\_Sic\_Dico](#): > > I’m not defending the pro-life people because I agree with them, but because I thought the balance in this discussion was a bit off-centre, and didn’t favour mutual understanding at all. The point of having a discussion like this is not to forcibly convert anyone else to ones own ideals, nor is it to just sit around respecting each others opinion, but to defend and explain one’s own opinions in such a way that other people, even if they still do not agree with it, understand it better than they did before. I actually thought this discussion was fairly respectful and honest. It was closer to _nuanced_ than any previous discussion that I witnessed. The off-topic _It is a baby, I tell you. Tis not. Tis too_ side bar is more typical of this kind of discussion where the extreme positions suck all the air out of the conversation. I don’t imagine anyone’s mind was changed but maybe classyladyhp, at least, now understands that pro-choicers are not necessarily pro-abortion and the OP realizes that he is not alone in thinking that fetus=baby and pro-choice positions are compatible. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013/300 "2011-05-10T00:07:48Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Thank you. All I care about is the life of that precious baby. As long as the baby can be allowed a chance to live I don’t care if it’s in it’s mother’s body or a machine. The last thing I am is a misogynist. Given the circumstances of the thought experiment and your response–I hope that you in turn can see how someone can honestly believe that the mother has the right to “evict” the baby, even if under current circumstances there is no option for that beside abortion, without being anti-baby or necessarily a gleeful murderer. I think most of the pro-choice folks I know have said they would personally never have an abortion, but they understand that the moral dilemma doesn’t work out the same way for everyone and recognize that it’s not a cut and dried thing that can be put into law in good conscience. It’s possible to disagree on moral values (and the relative weight of those values) while remaining civil. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-be-pro-choice-and-think-that-fetus-baby/581013.md?page=16)