# Liberals: Would You Support An Abortion Ban In Exchange For A UHC Bill and Immigration Reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276 "2010-03-21T22:45:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/221 "2010-03-31T14:49:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But by supporting the zygote etc, you get children; by supporting a tapeworm, you get sick. It’s the difference between investment and theft, basically. Sick _and thin_! ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/222 "2010-04-01T14:57:56Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Sick _and thin_! As opposed to sick and tired. I used to hear that sometimes… “I am so sick and tired of …” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/223 "2010-04-01T18:22:52Z")
Damned tapeworms – get off my lawn!!! ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/224 "2010-04-02T01:01:32Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > So you’re going to ban abortion but not provide any punishment for people performing one? What’s the point of the ban then? I may jail abortionists or provide counseling/rehabilitation. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But, if you’ll excuse me, that seems more like an emotional “seems like” argument rather than a reasoned one. To you, it seems as though a fertilised egg should be where the line is drawn, but you don’t seem to have any actual reason behind it besides it just looking right to you. I apologise if i’m wrong. > > Imagine that, tomorrow, for whatever reason, some horrible virus or otherwise widespread medical disaster occurs, which means that miscarriages skyrocket; a fertilised egg in this situation has a considerably lessened chance of surviving, even with the most excellent of care. How lessened a chance would you be willing to accept before you would reconsider whether a fertilised egg falls across this line? To go with an extreme example, if 99% of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage, would you no longer consider conception the point at which the being in question need be treated as a human? That’s a ridiculous hypothetical. I might as well ask “What if tomorrow God came down from Heaven and demanded abortion be banned or else destroy the Earth?” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/225 "2010-04-02T01:26:12Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Isn’t it a bit _unfair_ if the father of the fetus has no say in the abortion? :rolleyes: The father can say all he wants, but in the end it is not his body and it is not his decision to make. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/226 "2010-04-03T04:23:49Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > That’s a ridiculous hypothetical. I might as well ask “What if tomorrow God came down from Heaven and demanded abortion be banned or else destroy the Earth?” Well, here’s the problem; it’s _not_ a hypothetical. Certainly, overall, we can look at average abortion rates and see what they are. But individually speaking, there are people for whom conception and then pregnancy is biologically a much more difficult process. For some people, the chances of miscarriage _are_ just that high. And, conversely, for some chances are much better. We can sometimes even manipulate those chances, too, depending on how the woman in question takes care of herself. The question is, for those women who have such a high possible chance at miscarriage, should we (on the basis that laws and the like should be awarded based upon the idea that something “will be” with “reasonable chance” a human) declare that humanity is dependent on the biological ability of the mother? Do we delay the awarding of rights to a fertilised egg if the mother has a lessened chance of carrying it to term? If the woman is hyper-fertile, and has a higher chance of concieving in the first place, should we consider for them even an unfertilised egg to have a “reasonable” chance to become a human, and so grant it rights? These really aren’t ridiculous hypotheticals. They are situations which can and do happen. The only answer I can see that you might have to it is that we should take our measure of what is a “reasonable chance” from humanity in general, not specifically; but, I would say, for someone who is so considerably dedicated to life who believes the wrong move means a morally negative death, I would say that such a general, unspecific, vague rule is callous. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/227 "2010-04-03T04:27:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > No, a parasite is something that confers no advantage to the host, In other words, politicians! Sorry, I couldn’t pass that up 😃 ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/228 "2010-04-03T04:46:51Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I may jail abortionists or provide counseling/rehabilitation. Tell you what: I’ll agree to a permanent abortion ban in exchange for a number of “liberal” political concessions. You can set the punishments as severe as you want, but I get control over the procedures of how the law is enforced. If you accept my terms. I’ll be happy to elaborate. ---
**Author:** ![Oerdin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Oerdin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oerdin)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/229 "2010-04-03T08:22:49Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > No. We’ll get it without the religious right. > > But if you support UHC–abortion issues aside–good on you for being genuinely pro-life. That’s my take, more or less. The country needs a sound and logical immigration policy so that will happen eventually and eventually we’ll join the rest of the civilized world in realizing we can medically cover everyone for half as much money if we just cut out the middle men. There is really no reason to trade away a woman’s rights to her own body for something we’re going to get anyway. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/230 "2010-04-03T13:34:55Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > That’s the Old Testament under Mosaic Law. I love it when atheists say “Christians why do you eat pork or wear mixed fabrics”. There is nothing in the New Testament contradicting or superseding that law whatsoever. The New Testament doesn’t speak to fetal death in any fashion. (And while there is New Testament teaching regarding the applicability of the laws of kashrut, there is none regarding shatnez, which isn’t “mixed fabrics” but specifically the blend of wool and linen. Have you even _read_ the first half of the Bible you carry?) And I’m not an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/231 "2010-04-03T14:32:47Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Isn’t it a bit _unfair_ if the father of the fetus has no say in the abortion? :rolleyes: He’s not a father of anything unless a baby is born. Until there is a actually a live birth, a pregnancy is just another person’s bodily process. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/232 "2010-04-03T15:58:20Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Well, here’s the problem; it’s _not_ a hypothetical. > > Certainly, overall, we can look at average abortion rates and see what they are. But individually speaking, there are people for whom conception and then pregnancy is biologically a much more difficult process. For some people, the chances of miscarriage _are_ just that high. And, conversely, for some chances are much better. We can sometimes even manipulate those chances, too, depending on how the woman in question takes care of herself. > > The question is, for those women who have such a high possible chance at miscarriage, should we (on the basis that laws and the like should be awarded based upon the idea that something “will be” with “reasonable chance” a human) declare that humanity is dependent on the biological ability of the mother? Do we delay the awarding of rights to a fertilised egg if the mother has a lessened chance of carrying it to term? If the woman is hyper-fertile, and has a higher chance of concieving in the first place, should we consider for them even an unfertilised egg to have a “reasonable” chance to become a human, and so grant it rights? > > These really aren’t ridiculous hypotheticals. They are situations which can and do happen. The only answer I can see that you might have to it is that we should take our measure of what is a “reasonable chance” from humanity in general, not specifically; but, I would say, for someone who is so considerably dedicated to life who believes the wrong move means a morally negative death, I would say that such a general, unspecific, vague rule is callous. Your hypothetical was “What if a disease struck that killed most fetuses?” > [@tumbleddown](#): > > There is nothing in the New Testament contradicting or superseding that law whatsoever. I suggest you see Galatians where Paul condemns the Galatian Church for practicing Mosaic Law. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/233 "2010-04-03T16:47:18Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I suggest you see Galatians where Paul condemns the Galatian Church for practicing Mosaic Law. Matthew 5: > [@](#): > > 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. > > 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. > > 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. > > 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/234 "2010-04-03T17:05:14Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I suggest you see Galatians where Paul condemns the Galatian Church for practicing Mosaic Law. Saul of Tarsus was a heretic, and his mother should have strangled him at birth. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/235 "2010-04-03T17:31:44Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I suggest you see Galatians where Paul condemns the Galatian Church for practicing Mosaic Law. That’s pretty funny. It really is. Wanna know why? Because every bible thumping fire’ n brimstone clown that comes along, quotes that Old Testament (out of context, and cherry picked to hell and back) as justification to attack and condemn whatever / whoever he personally has a problem with. Also, Jesus himself never said he came to do away with the law (which had been the O.T. up to that point). ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/236 "2010-04-03T19:09:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Is there some blanket term that covers zygote, embryo, and fetus? Pretend that **Curtis** had used that word instead. Unborn baby? 😃 ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/237 "2010-04-03T20:46:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unborn baby? 😃 Sure, why not. I support the right of a woman to abort her unborn baby as she sees fit, and that the unborn baby’s rights, assuming it has any, do not and cannot trump hers. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/238 "2010-04-03T20:53:03Z")
Unborn baby killer! ---
**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:** [April 3, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/239 "2010-04-03T21:05:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unborn baby killer! Well, yes, arguably (i.e. I’ve never participated in the procedure myself, but I support its legality). I’ve concluded, not wholly arbitrarily, that the individual rights issue is of greater importance. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276/240 "2010-04-03T23:32:51Z")
Uterus kittens? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-would-you-support-an-abortion-ban-in-exchange-for-a-uhc-bill-and-immigration-reform/533276.md?page=13)