# Most pro-choicers have it all wrong. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118 "2006-07-19T02:50:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/181 "2006-07-20T17:22:15Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > So you think someone who intentially kills a wanted fetus without harming the mother should not be charged with a crime? It’s already a crime. It’s called assault. I imagine wrongful death could also be added. > [@kanicbird](#): > > A ‘pro-choice’ stance - I said I’m reluctantly pro-abortion - I accept that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn but fully ‘human’ offspring - but I call it what it is, killing or murdering her offspring. This is for the good of society, to prevent false accusations of rape, and colapse of modern day society. The moral implications of such a action (killing) is on the woman and the doctor - not society. You don’t think modern day society would collapse if we forced pregnancy on women? Again with the “saving the poor, poor men” argument. Where are you (and several other people) getting the idea that rape would even be considered an exception if abortion were banned? I believe the SD law doesn’t include it. If, as you say, abortion is murder, then it’s murder no matter how the woman got pregnant. As I so often hear people say, “it’s not the baby’s fault”. I’m quite sure that if the anti-choice side got RvW overturned, rape exceptions would go out the window with it. > [@kanicbird](#): > > True, but consentual sex in not one of them. Pregnancy is. > [@kanicbird](#): > > Where did you get this one from? A woman who is pregnant is fully entitled to medical services to assist in the prenancy, the fetus can also recieve medical services. The hell? You’ve completely avoided my question. If a woman is no longer entitled to control of her body because pregnancy is a risk of sex, then she isn’t entitled to it when disease is a risk either. You’re saying that act of participating in a chance opportunity removes any ability to deal with its outcome. > [@kanicbird](#): > > If you accept that full human life begins at conception there is really no difference. So you’re saying there is no difference betwen a baby and a blastocyte? Because next you say… > [@kanicbird](#): > > I’ve heard and though about this before. The obvious answer is the baby, since we see him visually as fully human, and able to feel pain, suffer, and has emotional attachments to the parents and his extended family. We don’t see these factors with blastocytes. A blastocyte will not suffer, as tempatures rise it will die pretty quickly - so even if it can feel pain, it will be over very quickly. There doesn’t sound like anyone is particularly attached to these mirco-people and it also doesn’t sound like these ‘mirco-people’ have a chance to get past that stage of deveolpement. …which would seem to imply that there clearly _is_ a difference. Otherwise you would have to read my question as “would you save one baby or ten thousand babies?”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/182 "2006-07-20T17:22:50Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Not to hijack the thread, but you & your husband sound like perfect candidates for a vasectomy. …well, maybe _just_ the husband, hey? ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/183 "2006-07-20T17:30:39Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Another varent back at you, you choice is one healthy baby, or 2 terminal (less then 6 months to live) ill babies? Um, the _healthy_ baby :rolleyes: ? Sucky choice, but if a baby’s terminal, you haven’t really saved it by taking it out of the building. You’ve just added one more baby death to your total. ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/184 "2006-07-20T17:33:34Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I did think of that when I switched from anit-abortion to pro-abortion, but I can’t justify that a fully human, full person rights fetus has the right to use the female for initial development with out her permission. As I pointed out **that permission is intrinsically given during consensual sex** , but this does not apply to rape of the female. So even though the fetus is a full human person, he has no place that has offered him a enviroment where he can develop. This is not to say that the mother can not offer him that permission if she wishes, but that choice is hers. _How_ is that permission given? You haven’t justified why one follows from the other. ---
**Author:** ![Blanche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Blanche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blanche)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/185 "2006-07-20T17:41:40Z")
> [@Salt Seller](#): > > Um, the _healthy_ baby :rolleyes: ? Sucky choice, but if a baby’s terminal, you haven’t really saved it by taking it out of the building. You’ve just added one more baby death to your total. OK, who do you take out of the building - the healthy adult, or their sickly brother who relies on weekly transfusions from the healthy one to live? ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/186 "2006-07-20T17:51:32Z")
> [@Blanche](#): > > OK, who do you take out of the building - the healthy adult, or their sickly brother who relies on weekly transfusions from the healthy one to live? The healthy adult. If the sickly brother relies on him to stay alive, saving the sick brother and leaving the healthy brother to die results in the sick brother’s death just as much as leaving him in the building. I don’t see the point of these. Besides the fact that the answers seem obvious, you’re comparing two actual people, not a person and a pile of cells. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/187 "2006-07-20T18:02:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Can’t you comprehend the difference between “potential” and “actual”. If it’s not born, it’s not offspring, in the true meaning of the word. I can comprehend it, that does not mean that I accept it - can you accept that?. FWIM’s I am torn between life at conception and life at the start of brain activity, I am planing the life at conception side here, but could accept the latter. > [@](#): > > A crime, yes. Murder, no. Probably some sort of property crime. And probably assault, too, as I can’t see any other way to abort a foetus against the mother’s will. > [@Salt Seller](#): > > I imagine wrongful death could also be added. Wrongful death of who? We don’t count fetuse ‘unpersons’ remember/ Mother walks into the Dr’s office, Says hey doc, after 7 years of trying I’m finally pregnant, and we did it all naturally. The reason I’m here is to see if you can do anything about this morning sickenss. Doc says sure, I can give you a shot of -------, it will take your morning sickenss away in about 2 days. She agrees, the ----- induces a spontainious abortion, which cures the mother of morning sickness. Crime? There was no one hurt (we don’t count fetus unpersons), the doc did as she requested, she consented, she is still able to make a person. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Look, could the anti-choicers at least be honest - there’s a religious element to your objection, and you want to impose that religious view on everyone. It’s that simple. Show of hands: > > Who here is a pro-lifer and doesn’t believe the foetus has a soul or some such thing. First I know of very few anti-choice people, except for those who oppose abortion for rape - as a choice was never granted. As a former pro-lifer, and a current pro abortionist, it is not based on religion, but the belief that: there is more to this life then our time here, Mankind is superior to animals, and there is a ultimate authority - God. It has nothing to do with a particular religion, unless you want to define those 3 things as kanicbirdism. > [@Salt Seller](#): > > where are you (and several other people) getting the idea that rape would even be considered an exception if abortion were banned? I’m not saying that there is a movement for no abortions except for rape, I’m saying I can’t justify allowing a fetus the enviroment he needs to develop w/o the woman granting permission (normally done through consentual sex). Just like if you woke up and fond a person was stuck to you and he needed to be there to live for the next 9 months, you didn’t chose this, you should not be allowed to kill this person, but you can remove the life support you are providing if you wish. Now if you agreeded to this deal ahead of time I would not support life support removal - it is something you agreed to. > [@](#): > > Pregnancy is. Yes, no one can chose to get pregnant, they can only chose to engage in acts that might cause pregnacy, sex, IVF, ect - again if she choses to engage in such a act she takes on the responsibility of the possibility of life creation. > [@](#): > > The hell? You’ve completely avoided my question. If a woman is no longer entitled to control of her body because pregnancy is a risk of sex, then she isn’t entitled to it when disease is a risk either. You’re saying that act of participating in a chance opportunity removes any ability to deal with its outcome. No actually I am stating the opposite, she is the one who is responsible for her actions. If she has sex, she could get a STD, she is responsible to her medical care of such a issue. If she creates a life, she is responsible for that life’s care along with her own. Once pregnant she should control her body MORE, not less to ensure the health of the fetus/baby. > [@](#): > > …which would seem to imply that there clearly is a difference. Otherwise you would have to read my question as “would you save one baby or ten thousand babies?”. I didn’t answer your question, I just said that was the obvious choice (meaning on the surface this seems to be the answer). So how about you, your choices are: 1 - Healthy baby or 2 - 2 babies each with no more then 6 months to live? Which would you save? If you pick #1 I can pick the baby and still stay consistant. ---
**Author:** ![Aangelica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Aangelica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aangelica)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/188 "2006-07-20T18:11:10Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > So you think someone who intentially kills a wanted fetus without harming the mother should not be charged with a crime? Of course they should be charged with a crime. Assault. On the mother. As you specified an _wanted_ pregnancy, measures taken to end said pregnancy would be, by definition, an unwanted medical procedure performed on the mother. Hence, assault. We do not force legally competant persons to undergo unwanted medical procedures\* that would _benefit_ them, let alone ones that are merely performed without harming them. - This is, naturally, assuming that the person is not only competant but has made their decision based on informed knowledge of the medical procedure in question. It also does not cover emergency situations in the absence of clearly documented evidence of the person’s desires. Of course, terminating a pregnancy is not an emergency procedure, and therefore unlikely to fall within this category of medical treatment. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/189 "2006-07-20T18:12:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Look, could the anti-choicers at least be honest - there’s a religious element to your objection, and you want to impose that religious view on everyone. It’s that simple. Show of hands: > > Who here is a pro-lifer and \*doesn’t \*believe the foetus has a soul or some such thing. This is a really specious argument. One can be against murder without believing that the murder victim had a soul. ---
**Author:** ![Aangelica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Aangelica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aangelica)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/190 "2006-07-20T18:25:31Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Mother walks into the Dr’s office, Says hey doc, after 7 years of trying I’m finally pregnant, and we did it all naturally. The reason I’m here is to see if you can do anything about this morning sickenss. Doc says sure, I can give you a shot of -------, it will take your morning sickenss away in about 2 days. She agrees, the ----- induces a spontainious abortion, which cures the mother of morning sickness. > > Crime? Stupid pre-view anyway! Yes. Crime. Assault. On the mother. Functionally the same as a patient complaining of nausea from a treatment she was undergoing for cancer (or infertility, or ulcers, or the ailment of your choice), and the doctor saying “Ahh, okay. Let me adjust your prescription” and then giving the patient sugar pills. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/191 "2006-07-20T18:25:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > …well, maybe _just_ the husband, hey? Hey, if “we” can get pregnant then “we” can have a vasectomy. 😃 But seriously… > [@Mangetout](#): > > I have not actually jumped to any conclusion at all; I’m merely trying to understand your position; it just seems highly strange to me that you wouldn’t consider personhood and sentience as discriminating criteria between a fetus and a baby; if you don’t use those, what’s left? Location - as you said - but what’s the significant qualitative difference between a fetus latched onto the uterine wall and a baby latched onto a nipple? The most obvious is that it doesn’t have to be a _specific_ nipple on a _specific_ woman (it could be a nipple on another woman or it could be a rubber nipple on a bottle and not on _any_ woman), whereas uterine connections are not (with current medical technology) transferable. > [@](#): > > Unless there are some other discriminating factors you haven’t mentioned, I can’t see any reason why you couldn’t just give a simple answer to the hypothetical. Well, define the parameters of the hypothetical: [list=#][li]Desert island has limited resources, making survival difficult. The mother _can_ kill (or allow to die through simple neglect) her infant to preserve her own life. This self-preservation over-rides her positive duty to her child.[/li][li]Desert island has **un** limited resources, and survival is easy. There is no element over-riding her positive duty so she _cannot_ kill (or allow to die through simple neglect) her child.[/list][/li]I don’t know how simpler I can make it. If you just want me to keep restating my position, fine, but it’ll get pretty boring. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/192 "2006-07-20T18:30:49Z")
Salt Seller I didn’t see that you chose the healthy baby over the 2 sick/dieing ones on my above post, but anyway… > [@Salt Seller](#): > > How is that permission given? You haven’t justified why one follows from the other. By engaging in sex you run the risk of pregnancy, even with birth control. We all know thanks to our public school system that no form of birth control is 100% effective, even surgery has failed - the risk is NEVER zero (again thanks to public schools we all know that now - so there is no excuses. Pregnacy is the creating of human life (again assuming life at conception here). That person has been created by your actions. You are responsible for your own actions - that action created life, therefore you are responsible for that life. Again rape throws this out of whack, and I can’t justify denying the right to abortion for rape. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/193 "2006-07-20T18:48:02Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > She chose a action that created a life knowing full well that her action could result in the creation of life - that life has been given permission to develop by her actions IMHO. She was excercising her right to engage in sex, sex has conquenses including creation of offspring - life - human life. - rights require responsibility - responsibility does not mean punishment. Under your approach, I’m afraid it does. You’re seeking to deny a simple solution preferring to impose a much more arduous and complex one in the name of teaching responsibility, in the same way that ordering a child to take on some unnecessarily tedious chore in the name of teaching _them_ responsibility. In case of the child, the lesson may serve a purpose, and if it’s _your_ child, you have that authority. You are not, however, the parent of all women, and I see no reason they should yield to your authority on this or any other matter. > [@](#): > > Again I go back to running blindfolded through a room with a baby in it while having super glue on your leg. If the baby sticks you and you knew it was in there and sticking was possible, you can’t beat it to death crying ‘my body’. The flaw in this analogy (aside from it being pretty dumb) is that when the supposedly irresponsible act of sex occurred, the “baby” didn’t actually exist. By your own account, the life wasn’t created until _after_ the act. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/194 "2006-07-20T18:56:28Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > child to take on some unnecessarily tedious chore in the name of teaching them responsibility. In case of the child, the lesson may serve a purpose, and if it’s your child, you have that authority. You are not, however, the parent of all women, and I see no reason they should yield to your authority on this or any other matter. It has nothing to do with teaching responsibility, nor parenting all women - it has to do with protecting human life and the anology between a child and a woman old enough to engage in consentual sex does not hold. > [@](#): > > The flaw in this analogy (aside from it being pretty dumb) is that when the supposedly irresponsible act of sex occurred, the “baby” didn’t actually exist. By your own account, the life wasn’t created until after the act. So change it to applying super glue to your legs that will only harden the next day when it comes into contact with a baby, when you know the next day you plan to walk through the room. Also lets look at another example, you shoot a gun, someone is killed by the round you fired, but - here is the thing - the person didn’t get shot till after the trigher was pulled - NOT at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/195 "2006-07-20T19:05:19Z")
Being a male, I feel somewhat unqualified to fully understand the debate, but I’m in agreement with the OP and the poster (can’t recall whom) who said that each side in an honest debate should at least acknowledge that the other sides argument has at least some merit, or else there no sense in debating. I really dislike the “pro-lifers must be religious” or “all you’re doing is turning woman into slaves” arguments, because they don’t give credit (or the benefit of the doubt) to the other side’s willingness to honestly debate. To put it another way, I feel like the abortion issue could be turned into a mathmatical equation: On one side would be things like [the woman’s health], [the woman’s privacy], [the chance the woman will die], [the woman’s life expectancy], [the woman’s potential benefit to society] . . . on the other side would be [the fetus’ life], [the chance the fetus will survive pregnancy], [the fetus’ potential benefit to society]. (Just using those as examples). Some pro-choicers clearly feel that the value of [the woman’s privacy] is so great, that no values put in the other side will outweigh it. However, to simply dismiss the value of the [fetus’ life] as being 0 seems dishonest. Or to accuse the other side of inserting [god] or [keeping woman as slaves] into the equation is equally dishonest. I remain somewhat ambivalent on the issue, but I’m pro-choice. But I do agree that the [fetus’ life] has some value, and I feel like that value goes up later in the pregnancy. Once a fetus hits the third trimester (or whenever) and that side of the equation wins out, did I suddently become religious? I’m pro-choice and non-religious, so I’m not a perfect fit for **MrDibble’s** claim, but since I do believe that there are non-religious pro-life arguments that can honestly made, I felt a little offended. I think maybe **jsc1953** responded better and far more succinctly… If you don’t want to read all the above, just see his post and add a “me too”. 🙂 –KidScruffy ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/196 "2006-07-20T19:19:06Z")
After some further thought on what you posted **Bryan Ekers** about the child vs woman being taught responsibility, I see that you totally have it backwards. I assume that the woman IS repsonsible for her own actions - FULLY. No one is trying to teach her anything. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/197 "2006-07-20T19:50:19Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It has nothing to do with teaching responsibility, nor parenting all women - it has to do with protecting human life and the anology between a child and a woman old enough to engage in consentual sex does not hold. Fine. When uterine-transfer technology becomes available, I trust you’ll be happy to have unwanted fetuses moved to your body, in the name of protecting human life. > [@](#): > > After some further thought on what you posted Bryan Ekers about the child vs woman being taught responsibility, I see that you totally have it backwards. I assume that the woman IS repsonsible for her own actions - FULLY. Fine. If she’s FULLY responsible for a problem, why can’t she resolve it as she sees fit, i.e. an abortion? I know if **I** was given FULL responsibility over a situation, I’d resolve it in the quickest, simplest manner I could. Why should I respect someone else’s efforts to put barriers in my way? It’s **my** responsibility, not his. By way of using an analogy that doesn’t involve supergluing babies to things, I suggest the far more realistic image of a person walking through the aisles of a pottery shop. The person (who is fully aware of the effects of gravity and the fragility of baked clay) accidentally knocks over a vase, which falls and smashes. They are clearly and fully responsible for the damage. One solution, the simplest, is to pay the $29.95, offer an apology, and be done with it. Another solution is for the person to go to pottery classes and spend several months learning how to make a perfect copy of the broken vase, which can then be given to the store. Which of these shows FULL responsibility, or do both of them, or neither? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/198 "2006-07-20T20:02:27Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I can comprehend it, that does not mean that I accept it - can you accept that?. No. I’m not arguing about perception, I’m arguing about the literal meaning of the word “offspring” You don’t seem to grasp that. > [@kanicbird](#): > > Mother walks into the Dr’s office, Says hey doc, after 7 years of trying I’m finally pregnant, and we did it all naturally. The reason I’m here is to see if you can do anything about this morning sickenss. Doc says sure, I can give you a shot of -------, it will take your morning sickenss away in about 2 days. She agrees, the ----- induces a spontainious abortion, which cures the mother of morning sickness. > > Crime? > > There was no one hurt (we don’t count fetus unpersons), the doc did as she requested, she consented, she is still able to make a person. Yes, a crime. This assumes the doctor knew it would cause abortion and didn’t tell her. That’s malpractice in my book, not making a patient aware of the side effects. > [@kanicbird](#): > > … it is not based on religion, but the belief that: there is more to this life then our time here, Mankind is superior to animals, and **there is a ultimate authority - God**. It has nothing to do with a particular religion, unless you want to define those 3 things as kanicbirdism. My bolding. How the Holy Blue Hell is that not religion? Never said anything about “particular”. > [@jsc1953](#): > > This is a really specious argument. One can be against murder without believing that the murder victim had a soul. It wasn’t an argument, it was a question. And you haven’t given an answer to it, BTW. Nice dodge. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/199 "2006-07-20T20:06:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > How the Holy Blue Hell is that not religion? That’s damn funny. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/200 "2006-07-20T20:19:28Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I can comprehend it, that does not mean that I accept it - can you accept that?. No. I’m not arguing about perception, I’m arguing about the literal meaning of the word “offspring” You don’t seem to grasp that. > [@kanicbird](#): > > Mother walks into the Dr’s office, Says hey doc, after 7 years of trying I’m finally pregnant, and we did it all naturally. The reason I’m here is to see if you can do anything about this morning sickenss. Doc says sure, I can give you a shot of -------, it will take your morning sickenss away in about 2 days. She agrees, the ----- induces a spontainious abortion, which cures the mother of morning sickness. > > Crime? > > There was no one hurt (we don’t count fetus unpersons), the doc did as she requested, she consented, she is still able to make a person. Yes, a crime. This assumes the doctor knew it would cause abortion and didn’t tell her. That’s malpractice in my book, not making a patient aware of the side effects. > [@kanicbird](#): > > … it is not based on religion, but the belief that: there is more to this life then our time here, Mankind is superior to animals, and **there is a ultimate authority - God**. It has nothing to do with a particular religion, unless you want to define those 3 things as kanicbirdism. My bolding. How the Holy Blue Hell is that not religion? Never said anything about “particular”. > [@jsc1953](#): > > This is a really specious argument. One can be against murder without believing that the murder victim had a soul. It wasn’t an argument, it was a question. And you haven’t given an answer to it, BTW. Nice dodge. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=11)