# 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:** 11
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/201 "2006-07-20T20:19:36Z")
> [@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. Your lack of comprehension of what it means to consent is creepy. Clearly, in your example, the woman didn’t consent. This is where your argument fails over and over again. This woman has consented to treating morning sickness; she has not consented to an abortion. In the same way, a woman consents to have sex; she does not consent to pregnancy. Think of it this way–if a government has the power to prevent you from getting an abortion, it also has the power to _force_ you to get one. > [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. A particular religion? Your description sounds an awful lot like Christianity. Even if it’s not specific, it’s still religious in nature. > [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. You keep saying this as if it’s a logical conclusion. Agreeing to have sex is not the same as agreeing to be pregnant. It is definately not the same as agreeing to have a body surgically attached to you. > [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. Ever heard of intent? The “purpose” of sex is not to get pregnant, unless that is what you are intentionally trying to do. What a woman has responibility for is the care of her body. By outlawing abortion, you take that away. > [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. _Why?_ Why does a clump of cells deserve more consideration than a grown woman? Getting an abortion _is_ medical care. > [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. Well, as you saw, I picked the healthy baby. I don’t see how that equates to your being consistent when you say that there is no difference between a blastocyte and a baby. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/202 "2006-07-20T20:22:16Z")
I see MrDibble and I had the same thought. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/203 "2006-07-20T20:30:02Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > That’s damn funny. 😃 So funny it needed saying twice, apparently… …stupid Board hanging :mad: ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/204 "2006-07-20T20:48:21Z")
> [@Salt Seller](#): > > The “purpose” of sex is not to get pregnant… Well, from a strictly biological standpoint: yes it is. The purpose of sex \*is \* to get pregnant. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/205 "2006-07-20T21:10:57Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Well, from a strictly biological standpoint: yes it is. The purpose of sex \*is \* to get pregnant. That’s not its _sole_ purpose, though. There are releases of endorphins and whatnot that have some value in themselves, whether or not conception takes place. i.e. it’s fun. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/206 "2006-07-20T21:35:27Z")
Statistically speaking, a desired pregnancy is a very unlikely outcome of sex. Say a 40 year sex life, sex twice a week, give about 4,000 sex acts. (YMMV 🙂 ) The average couple has two kids, say 10 tries per kid, or 20 actual attempts to get pregnant. So, roughly 1/2 of 1% of sex involves trying to get pregnant. Now about responsibility. Every time you drive, there is a chance that you will be in a crash, and get hit. This is not an excuse for a doctor to refuse to treat you because you should have known better. Yeah, you didn’t intend to get hurt when you drove, but I’ve just shown that most people don’t intend to start a baby when they have sex. We can make similar arguments for similar riskly behavior. Having a low probability but negative outcome of a behavior doesn’t mean that the damage can’t be made whole. You might object to my calling an unwanted pregnancy damage, but that’s how it can be viewed, and with justification. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/207 "2006-07-20T21:41:55Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > That’s not its _sole_ purpose, though. There are releases of endorphins and whatnot that have some value in themselves, whether or not conception takes place. > > i.e. it’s fun. Correct-a-mundo. If it’s sole purpose was to get pregnant, you’d make a direct hit every time. ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/208 "2006-07-20T21:44:36Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Correct-a-mundo. If it’s sole purpose was to get pregnant, you’d make a direct hit every time. O for godsake. Did everyone miss the “strictly biological” part? Why did we evolve a function that involves tab A going into slot B? For reproduction, not for releasing endorphins. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/209 "2006-07-20T21:48:30Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Correct-a-mundo. If it’s sole purpose was to get pregnant, you’d make a direct hit every time. Hit send too soon. In fact, the chances of getting pregnant are EXTREMELY low. There are only a couple days out of the month that it’s even possible. ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/210 "2006-07-20T21:49:53Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Well, from a strictly biological standpoint: yes it is. The purpose of sex \*is \* to get pregnant. I’m pretty sure I wrote somehting about this earlier, and this was just a (too) short restatement. My original point was that, in this day and age, sex and procreation are not linked the way they used to be. We have sex for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with reproducing. Sex leads to pregnancy in a mechanical sense, but that’s not its overarching “purpose”. ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/211 "2006-07-20T21:50:49Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > O for godsake. Did everyone miss the “strictly biological” part? Why did we evolve a function that involves tab A going into slot B? For reproduction, not for releasing endorphins. Hey, there’s no strict biological purpose to posting on messageboards, either. Your point was narrowly focused to the point of complete irrelevance and contributed nothing to this thread except an opportunity for wisecracking responses. In other words… duh. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/212 "2006-07-20T22:01:26Z")
> [@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 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. When abortion was prohibited before Roe vs. Wade, in many jurisdictions rape was an exception, and I’m sure if the abortion ban was to be brought back a rape exception would be made as well. There are a lot of anti-choice people whose motivation is not so much preservation of the unborn as punishment for casual sex, and anti-choice people who have enough logic left in them to think about it when someone says “But what about if your daughter was raped?”. I saw an article written by an abortion provider recently, I wish I could remember where, that talked about anti-choice women who come in for abortions. They frequently demand special treatment, or to be kept away from those other women, and always have some excuse as to why their abortion is different. I honestly don’t believe those women think they are murdering a child, and when they are talking about other women’s abortions that’s not what’s on their mind, no matter how they state their beliefs. They just think it’s wrong for women to avoid the consequences for what they see as a dirty or sinful act. I understand the mindset, when I was anti-choice that was indeed part of my reasoning - “You don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have a baby!”. It was the same teenage mindset that causes statements like “Smoking is unhealthy, so you should just quit smoking”. Everything is in absolutes for them, some people outgrow that mindset but some never get a chance to. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/213 "2006-07-20T22:02:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Statistically speaking, a desired pregnancy is a very unlikely outcome of sex. Say a 40 year sex life, sex twice a week, give about 4,000 sex acts. (YMMV 🙂 ) The average couple has two kids, say 10 tries per kid, or 20 actual attempts to get pregnant. So, roughly 1/2 of 1% of sex involves trying to get pregnant. > > Now about responsibility. Every time you drive, there is a chance that you will be in a crash, and get hit. This is not an excuse for a doctor to refuse to treat you because you should have known better. Yeah, you didn’t intend to get hurt when you drove, but I’ve just shown that most people don’t intend to start a baby when they have sex. We can make similar arguments for similar riskly behavior. Having a low probability but negative outcome of a behavior doesn’t mean that the damage can’t be made whole. You might object to my calling an unwanted pregnancy damage, but that’s how it can be viewed, and with justification. A quick poll around here would show lots of people who have lots of sex with no intention whatsoever of getting pregnant ever. Whatever sex may have been invented for back when human time began, it has evolved into something of a pasttime. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/214 "2006-07-20T22:03:12Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > 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. No; as I’ve said, there is no other means of sustenance available for the infant; if the mother decides she does not wish to continue being a parent, it will die from neglect, exactly the same as if the pregnant woman decides she does not wish to continue the pregnancy, the fetus will die because it is technically impossible to sustain it. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m not asking you to restate anything, just state it once, but you keep answering questionsthat are not quite the one I’m asking. The resources are not limited, but the question is this: why do you say she has a positive duty to her child, whereas the pregnant woman has no similar duty? Remember, I’m not asking about what the law currently _is_, I’m asking _what it should be_. If a pregnant woman can decide not to continue the pregnancy, resulting in the death of the fetus, cannot a mother of a newborn infant decide not to continue being a parent, even if this decision results in the death of the child? if not, why not? ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/215 "2006-07-20T22:14:05Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Your point was narrowly focused to the point of complete irrelevance and contributed nothing to this thread except an opportunity for wisecracking responses. There is apparently never a post so irrelevant that it can’t draw a response. Let’s move on. ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/216 "2006-07-20T22:50:41Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > No; as I’ve said, there is no other means of sustenance available for the infant; if the mother decides she does not wish to continue being a parent, it will die from neglect, exactly the same as if the pregnant woman decides she does not wish to continue the pregnancy, the fetus will die because it is technically impossible to sustain it. If she’s not on a desert island, this is not the case for an infant, so are we still only discussing desert-island scenarios? > [@](#): > > the question is this: why do you say she has a positive duty to her child, whereas the pregnant woman has no similar duty? Remember, I’m not asking about what the law currently _is_, I’m asking _what it should be_. Well, the way the law currently _is_, is that positive-duty relationships exist and that once born, an infant is invested with various civil rights and whatnot. Are you asking why I feel an infant gets these rights while a fetus does not? It’s because I think birth is a useful and obvious benchmark, with not a lot of grey area to confuse the issue. Prior to birth, I feel, the over-riding concern is the mother’s rights. Afterward, when the mother and child are two physically distinct entities, the child can get some rights of its own. As for _what it should be_… I dunno, I’m pretty good with it the way it _is_. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/217 "2006-07-20T22:50:58Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Well, from a strictly biological standpoint: yes it is. The purpose of sex \*is \* to get pregnant. To be really pedantic about it, nothing in biology has a “purpose.” Biology doesn’t _intend_ anything and there’s no designed “purpose” to any of it. There are only incidental results. Reproduction is an incidental result of sex and if a particular species finds sex pleasurable or desireable it will incidentally result in more offspring but that doesn’t mean that sex has a “purpose.” In evolutionary terms certain organs and characteristics can change entirely in how they benefit a species…i.e. they change their “purpose.” The same goes for any kind of specific behavior. The “purpose” of behavior is whatever the desired goal is. If the goal of sex is to bust a nut then that’s it’s purpose. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/218 "2006-07-20T22:53:27Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > O for godsake. Did everyone miss the “strictly biological” part? Why did we evolve a function that involves tab A going into slot B? For reproduction, not for releasing endorphins. Incorrect, or we’d be like cows; in heat for a little while, with near-certain pregnancy. In humans, sex in _primarily_ social, not reproductive. We like it all the time, and have a _low_ fertility. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/219 "2006-07-20T22:56:55Z")
In the book Freakanomics the author gathers statistics and applies them to places unexpected. He noticed a corelation between tha availability of abortion and saw that crime rates in the future dropped markedly. He further noticed that states that fought the abortion availability the most had less or no crime decline. The conclusion is that people forced to have children that dont want them or are not ready for them ,do a poor job of raising them. Society faces these children when they grow up. The people that got abortions generally had children later. These kids were not statistically more likely to be criminals. Anti abortionites must be willing to raise the children they want brought into the world over the objection of their parents. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/220 "2006-07-20T23:00:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If the goal of sex is to bust a nut then that’s it’s purpose. (heh-heh…he said “bust a nut.” Heh-heh) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=12)