# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/281 "2006-07-21T17:47:44Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > For purposes of this discussion, they ARE slated to be implanted. And for purposes of this discussion, make the numbers easier to handle. Say there are 20 blastocysts that have been slated for implantation. Say there are two for each of ten women, which will raise the odds of both of them taking and going full term, with no waste product. What I said to **Salt Seller’s** post. > [@](#): > > By making that choice, you’ve basically made the elderly person’s life worthless. Not exactly a pro-life stance, in the pure sense of the term. If that’s what you got from my post, then I don’t think we have any more to say to each other. I was given an either-or proposition, and was trying to make some logical sense out of decision that God willing I will never have to make. OF COURSE I do not think that elderly peoples’ lives are worthless. BUT, I think we can all admit to ourselves that when a 95-year-old dies, we don’t consider it quite the tragedy that we do when a baby dies, even if it is not under natural circumstances. I try very hard, as I stated, to be intellectually honest in my opinions, and also not be hypocritical. This is a tall order when you are given wildly far-fetched hypotheticals to work with. ---
**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 21, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/282 "2006-07-21T17:50:37Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I think you’re slicing & dicing the meaning of the world “harm” a little bit too much. Anything that is alive can be made dead, even if it just one cell. I think that fits in the definition of “harm.” Then I’m causing unbelievable harm when I shave every morning. If that’s how you’re defining harm to a clump of cells, I still think it’s a (literally) microscopic amont of harm compared to the harm inflicted on a woman forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/283 "2006-07-21T17:51:47Z")
> [@Salt Seller](#): > > I’ve read your posts in a lot of different threads, and you always maintain a calm, civil demeanor, even though (bing in the minority) it’s easy to get into a pile-on. I appreciate being able to discuss these things with you (even though I think you’re completely wrong 😃 ) Thank you very much…I appreciate the complement. And it’s totally find that you think I am wrong. If we didn’t disagree, what on EARTH would we have to talk about? 🙂 > [@](#): > > My question, then, is, is this even a matter of “life”? Can a pile of cells with no personality, no self-awareness, no consciousness, no sensation really be equated with a baby? (I’ll ignore the question of later trimesters for now). Well, that’s the thing. It doesn’t seem like it, does it? But, as I said, working backwards, I can’t find the appropriate spot where it goes from being that pile of cells and magically turns into a baby. Since I can’t find that spot, then I can’t justify a dividing line for when an abortion is OK, and when it isn’t. ---
**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 21, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/284 "2006-07-21T17:52:11Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I think you’re slicing & dicing the meaning of the world “harm” a little bit too much. Anything that is alive can be made dead, even if it just one cell. I think that fits in the definition of “harm.” Unfortunately, that also extends the definition of “harm” beyond all value. Eating formerly-alive animals or vegetables is also harmful, but we do it anyway. If we drink clean water, it’s after it’s been sterilized and all the one-celled bacteria in it have been killed. A woman who allows an unfertilized ovum to be expelled without doing her damnedest to try to fertilize it has created harm (even if this means living in a state of perpetual pregnancy through her fertile years). Any male masturbation or use of contraceptives or oral/anal sex means hundreds of millions of alive sperm cells are sent to their deaths. Is that harmful? So let’s **not** “slice and dice” the concept of “harm”. Doesn’t that mean everything we do is harmful? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/285 "2006-07-21T17:56:01Z")
> [@Salt Seller](#): > > Then I’m causing unbelievable harm when I shave every morning. Yes, you are, you SOB! 🙂 > [@](#): > > If that’s how you’re defining harm to a clump of cells, I still think it’s a (literally) microscopic amont of harm compared to the harm inflicted on a woman forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want. The thing is, I think the potential of the clump of cells has to be factored in. The cells you destroy shaving will never be anything but a skin cell or a hair cell. They are not destined to be sentient beings. I agree that the blastocyte is not a sentient being itself, but there is more to it than just a skin cell. ---
**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 21, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/286 "2006-07-21T17:56:07Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Any male masturbation or use of contraceptives or oral/anal sex means hundreds of millions of alive sperm cells are sent to their deaths. Is that harmful? Aye. 'Tis a great sacrifice, but at least they die knowing it was for the greater good. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/287 "2006-07-21T17:57:40Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > So let’s **not** “slice and dice” the concept of “harm”. Doesn’t that mean everything we do is harmful? No, it means that we need to evaluate whether or not it is harm that we are justified in causing. ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/288 "2006-07-21T18:00:10Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Yes, you are, you SOB! 🙂 Man, tell my face about it! > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > The thing is, I think the potential of the clump of cells has to be factored in. The cells you destroy shaving will never be anything but a skin cell or a hair cell. They are not destined to be sentient beings. I agree that the blastocyte is not a sentient being itself, but there is more to it than just a skin cell. I can’t equate “potential” with “already is”. My concern is with who actually _experiences_ the harm. ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/289 "2006-07-21T18:06:30Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I think you’re slicing & dicing the meaning of the world “harm” a little bit too much. Anything that is alive can be made dead, even if it just one cell. I think that fits in the definition of “harm.” Are you a Jain, then? Do you follow the path of [_ahimsa_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#Ahinsa_in_Jainism)? Do you sweep the ground when you walk so you won’t step on any bugs? Do you eat any meat or fish? Do you disapprove of killing plants for food? Do you avoid brushing your teeth so you won’t kill bacteria? If you don’t think these things are examples of “harm,” then you need to rethink your definition. It’s impossible to live without killing things every day. Many of the things we kill have far more sentience than a frigging blastocyst. Does it cause more “harm” to kill a conscious, full grown pig with a full capacity to suffer or to kill a non-sentient clump of cells with no consciousness or ability to suffer? ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/290 "2006-07-21T18:08:34Z")
“Potential” is another word for “imaginary.” ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/291 "2006-07-21T18:11:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, it means that we need to evaluate whether or not it is harm that we are justified in causing. Well, let’s evaluate it, then. A pregnant woman decides she doesn’t want a child. What is the _value_ of denying her an abortion? The birth of that child into a situation where it wasn’t wanted? How valuable is that? And it’s not enough to simply say “life is precious” or something similar. An evaluation requires a hard factual analysis. I tend to value her freedom more than the life of a potential person, in general terms. I’m perfectly happy to get far more specific and talk about crime rates and drug use in places where abortion is unavailable. ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/292 "2006-07-21T18:28:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I can answer. I am somewhat religious, and strongly pro-life. My pro-life stance does not stem from my religion, but stems from my inability to create in my own mind a logical reason for why a pre-born baby would not be considered a human life. Therefore, I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose any murder. Isn’t that just a little of an understatement? You’re Catholic - I don’t think that’s “somewhat religious” so much as “definitely religious”. I personally think it’s more than coincidence that you’re Catholic and pro-life, but I accept that _you_ believe the two are not linked. _Why_ then do you consider the foetus a human life? Do you believe it has a soul? Logical reasons for not considering a foetus to be a human life have been offered before. I think what you lack is an emotional reason. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/293 "2006-07-21T18:29:51Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > What I said to **Salt Seller’s** post. > > If that’s what you got from my post, then I don’t think we have any more to say to each other. I was given an either-or proposition, and was trying to make some logical sense out of decision that God willing I will never have to make. OF COURSE I do not think that elderly peoples’ lives are worthless. BUT, I think we can all admit to ourselves that when a 95-year-old dies, we don’t consider it quite the tragedy that we do when a baby dies, even if it is not under natural circumstances. > > I try very hard, as I stated, to be intellectually honest in my opinions, and also not be hypocritical. This is a tall order when you are given wildly far-fetched hypotheticals to work with. See, I see it the exact opposite. The baby doesn’t have anyone depending on it. The baby hasn’t built dozens of relationships that will be hurt by his passing. The baby may grow up to be a social parasite. The baby hasn’t contributed anything to society. Potential is meaningless when you’re talking about reality. I don’t think any of this is far-fetched. You’re putting more importance on a clump of cells than you are on those who already exist, who function, who contribute, who think, feel, love, work, etc. You don’t take into account that bringing the cells to the point of an individual, separate baby is no guarantee that that life is going to amount to anything. Embryos in many parts of the world are born into poverty and sickness. Many are orphaned from the moment they’re born. We \*know \* many children will be born into a horrible existence because that’s the way life is. You are looking at the issue through rose-colored glasses if you think that the right to be born into this world is automatically a good thing. It isn’t. ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/294 "2006-07-21T18:31:09Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > To construct a hypothetical response, in case a real world respondent didn’t happen to walk by. But I see Sarahfeena has made the same case as I did. OK, that’s a bit clearer, but I wasn’t looking for hypotheticals, I was looking for answers like Sarahfeena’s. I can accept that there are atheist pro-lifers. I just haven’t encountered any here. Reasoning always devolves down to the “humanity” of the foetus, but people are not often honest enough to back that up with their real, religiously-motivated reasons. ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/295 "2006-07-21T18:37:28Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > The cells you destroy shaving will never be anything but a skin cell or a hair cell. They are not **destined** to be sentient beings. (my bolding) An aborted foetus isn’t “destined” to be a sentient being either, clearly. It’s “destined” to be aborted. Why not let “destiny” take its course? BTW, **Sarafeena** , despite how I may have been sounding, I want you to know that I also think you’re a cool poster and appreciate your efforts, like **Salt Seller**. Don’t let anything I wwrite make you think different, y’hear? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/296 "2006-07-21T18:40:09Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > If you insist on interfering in our lives, then \*you’ve \* made a choice that forces \*you \* to take some responsibility. Are you suggesting that if pro-lifers object to your having an abortion, [then they need to personally take responsibility for these children who would have otherwise been aborted](http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life006.html)? And that if they don’t, then you should have free license to have an abortion? ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/297 "2006-07-21T18:40:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > “Potential” is another word for “imaginary.” I am _so_ stealing this! ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/298 "2006-07-21T18:44:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Is there _anyone_ here in this thread who’s pro-life but _not_ for religious reasons? I, for one. I was pro-life long before I developed my religious convictions. The same is true of [Dr. Bernard Nathanson](http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html), one of the founders of NARAL. He was an atheist when he turned away from the pro-choice cause. **Stratocaster** , **beagledave** and I have discussed the abortion issue on the SDMB many times before. To the best of my recollection, none of us have ever offered any religious arguments against abortion. In fact, we have steadfastly avoided doing so. ---
**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 21, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/299 "2006-07-21T18:59:14Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Are you suggesting that if pro-lifers object to your having an abortion, [then they need to personally take responsibility for these children who would have otherwise been aborted](http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life006.html)? And that if they don’t, then you should have free license to have an abortion? Isn’t it at least fair to suggest that pay a lot more in taxes to support the foster system, and the price of increased law enforcement, court time and prisons to pay for the lives they insist must not be aborted? So you don’t have to adopt. But would you pay twice as much in taxation to support all the unwanted babies that are now foisted on society? If you knew of a woman who unintentionally became pregnant and expressed some ideas about terminating her pregnancy, would you report her to authorities? How much personal effort are you willing to expend on this issue? That’s not an ad hominem attack; it’s a valid inquiry about how serious you are and how much responsibility you’re willing to assume. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/300 "2006-07-21T19:10:00Z")
**JThunder** , I assume that you believe that society has a certain responsibility toward children in general. In practice, society’s responsibility to unwanted children is \*already \* burdensome. So why is it out of line to ask someone who wants to prevent women from having abortions exactly what we’re to do with all these unwanted children? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=16)