# 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:** 24
**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 27, 2006, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/461 "2006-07-27T06:42:30Z")
Well, it’s nice to see they’re making the effort, though your first NRLC cite is little more than a screed against pro-choicers. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/462 "2006-07-27T11:36:08Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Okay, another Biological fact: Explain the difference between what happens when an unfertilised egg enters the uterus, and what happens when a fertilised one enters. Explain what processes a foetus goes through that an unfertilised egg does not. Explain why, if you can, a foetus is nevertheless the same as an egg cell. > > This is irrevelent to the discussion,a fertilized egg may have the potential of becoming a human being after being in the womb for as long as the mother allows. A chicken egg if fertilized will need to be exposed to a hens sitting on it for 28 days or in an incubator. Neither are yet a human being it still lacks personhood > > Quite. And if you don’t want to beat your wife/husband/significant other, no-one is forcing you to do so. Don’t interfere with my right to beat mine. > > That is a very poor anology, there is no comparison to beating one’s spouse or the choice of a woman not to impoverish her already born children.or take in the fact that the stress of pregnancy is too much for her to take,physically,emotionally, or financialy. > > Actually there are major differences between calling abortion murder, and calling war murder, and calling self-defence murder. I encourage you to spend some time thinking why these things are not all the same. > > We know when we enter a war that innocent people will be killed or at least maimed. A woman can use an abortion as an act of self defense. In a sense her body is being evaded, only she knows if she has the strength to go through the 9 months, and can afford to live in poverty and like in Africa see many of her children that is already born being slowly starved to death. > > Well, the how and why of an abortion done to save the woman’s life can usually be established by requiring the opinion of one or more medically-qualified personnel to verify that the woman’s life is indeed in peril. In other words, it tends to be an objective judgment backed up by observable facts. The woman also has the Right to Life,Liberty and the Persuit of happiness. Her right to have a child can be determined by her own rights which since she is already born would take presidence over a potential being that depends on her.If she chooses to use her body until it is born then she no longer has say over it’s well being,The fact that she brought it to term it becomes an individual part of scoiety. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/463 "2006-07-27T12:01:24Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > In which case, your comment that “the cells are not human ‘beings’” is simply irrelevant. > > Moreover, you’re describing a _miscarriage_, not a normal pregnancy. It should come as no surprise that the miscarried unborn might not closely resemble a human infant. In addition, if the miscarriage occured very early on, the fetus might simply not have been visible yet. Making judgments on its appearance using the naked eye would be absolutely reckless–especially when it’s mixed in with the messy detritus of a miscarriage. > > In addition, the unborn is already visibly human [even at early stages of development](http://www.caringpregnancycenter.net/baby.html). Personally, I think that carefully take laboratory photos tell the story much better than merely looking at the aftermath of a miscarriage. > > Furthermore, even if we grant that the unborn does not look human at all, its mere _physical appearance_ of the unborn is a poor standard by which to deny its humanity. You mentioned tadpoles earlier. Tadpoles bear no resemblance to frogs, and yet that’s exactly what they are. They don’t look like adult frogs, but that’s simply because they’re at an earlier stage of development. By the same token, we should not expect unborn human beings to look just like adults, or even little children. They’re at an earlier stage of development, after all. > > And finally, even if we were to grant _every single one of your claims_, this would not justify abortion in general. Rather, it would only justify abortion in the absolute earliest stages of pregnancy–not abortion on demand. > > Your argument assumes that they are NOT human beings. In other words, it is circular reasoning. > > Moreover, your argument is tantamount to saying, “You should take care of all the wars and starving African children before you complain about the way I treat my own kids.” It’s a false dilemma, and a rather childish one at that. My argument is that an unformed bunch of cells is not yet a human person. Yes, it has the potential to become one. A tad pole is not a frog yet either, that is why it is called a tadpole,it will become a frog if the circumstances allow it to bcome one. Your kids that are already born are a part of Society now that the mother has given them the right to life at Birth. So you should and are obligated to care for them since your wife allowed them to be born. Just as the people in countries such as Africa are already born but long forgotten. The money for birth control was denied because there “May” be some abortions, so instead the children are born and then left to starve to death. The cells in a petri dish are not yet human person. You are free to believe this as I am free to disagree. In the last stages of a pregnancy if a womans life is truly in danger the law allows an abortion,so you are saying it is murder? Monavis ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/464 "2006-07-27T12:27:29Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > My argument is that an unformed bunch of cells is not yet a human person. Yes, it has the potential to become one. That’s not what medical science says, according to my earlier cites. > [@](#): > > A tad pole is not a frog yet either, that is why it is called a tadpole,it will become a frog if the circumstances allow it to bcome one. No, a tadpole IS a frog. It’s simply a frog at an earlier stage of development. It belongs to the same species, even though its physical appearance is different. > [@](#): > > Your kids that are already born are a part of Society now that the mother has given them the right to life at Birth. So you should and are obligated to care for them since your wife allowed them to be born. Are you familiar with the fetal alcohol laws? The law levies severe punishments for women who abuse their pre-born children through heavy drinking. > [@](#): > > The cells in a petri dish are not yet human person. You are free to believe this as I am free to disagree. The difference is that my belief is based on what the study of embryology teaches. Your belief is based on repeated and impassioned assertion. > [@](#): > > In the last stages of a pregnancy if a womans life is truly in danger the law allows an abortion,so you are saying it is murder? No, for the same reason that killing people in self-defense (when absolutely necessary) is not murder. These are exceptional circumstances that do not justify killing in general. Moreover, when these situations occur “in the last stages of pregnancy,” the prudent approach would be to deliver the child prematurely (by C-section, if necessary), then treat the woman. In other words, every effort must be made to save both mother and child. I think we can all agree that abortions are _sometimes_ needed to save the mother’s life. You seem to think that means we should justify _all_ abortions as a result. That’s just absurd. It’s like saying that we should abolish all speed limits, simply because people may sometimes need to drive at 90mph during medical emergencies. It simply does not follow. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/465 "2006-07-27T12:30:09Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The woman also has the Right to Life,Liberty and the Persuit of happiness. Not at all costs, though. Certainly not at the cost of another human being’s life. “But the unborn is not a human being,” you might say. That is incorrect, but for the sake of argument, let’s grant that claim. That assertion proves what the OP is saying – namely, that all this talk about bodily rights, personal hardships make for good rhetoric, but they are ultimately irrelevant to the subject at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/466 "2006-07-27T12:48:07Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The woman also has the Right to Life,Liberty and the Persuit of happiness. Her right to have a child can be determined by her own rights which since she is already born would take presidence over a potential being that depends on her. If she chooses to use her body until it is born then she no longer has say over it’s well being,The fact that she brought it to term it becomes an individual part of scoiety. > > Monavis I like the way your answer didn’t actually address a single thing I said. > [@monavis](#): > > Her right to have a child can be determined by her own rights which since she is already born would take presidence over a potential being that depends on her. Begging the question, **monavis**. The issue over whether her rights take precedence over the unborn creature inside her is the very topic under discussion; you can’t simply use it as a premise. > [@monavis](#): > > If she chooses to use her body until it is born then she no longer has say over it’s well being,The fact that she brought it to term it becomes an individual part of scoiety. > > Monavis I’d find this easier to argue against if I had a clue what you were saying. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/467 "2006-07-27T13:59:46Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Did you miss the part about “ **forced to stay preganat and deliver** ”? That’s a bit more than “not getting what you want”,as you’d like to reduce my argument to. > > Who’s erecting the Worzel Gummidges now, hotshot? That’d be you. You’re the one who equated “not getting something you wanted” with “misery”. “Misery” is not the inevitable result of carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Makes a difference, sure, I’ll grant you. A huge difference, not so much. Why not? > [@MrDibble](#): > > But I don’t expect someone whose counter-argument basically amounts to “force them to carry to term, they’ll grow to love it\*” to understand that. Do you even have any kids? > > - or at least become “reconciled to the fact”, like it’s a bad haircut we’re talking about. Well, talking about not being confident that one’s adversary will understand the argument (my, I am speechless before the force of your logic! :rolleyes: ), my counter-argument was against the implication that “misery” is the inevitable result of an unplanned pregnancy. The lives of both my eldest uncles (that is, the one on each side) and my eldest nephew are there to contradict you. It’s interesting that you should use the phrase “bad haircut” as you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that a foetus is basically the same as a fringe you don’t like - in either case, cut out what offends you with no more ado. Kids? As though it were (a) any of your damn business, or (b) remotely associated with the validity of an argument, I’ll indulge your silly question. Two sons aged seven and two. > [@catsix](#): > > I’ve already stated time and again that no fetuses are welcome in my uterus, ever. If your position is ‘don’t have sex or else accept that you’re going to have a kid’, then that’s nothing more than a dressed up ‘punish the slut’ position. Not at all. Have all the sex you like. Take whatever precautions you think proper, and are able to apply, in order to enjoy it. But accept that there is a possibility that you may create an innocent life in doing so. You are taking it as axiomatic that you have a right to pregnancy-free sex. Why? Your desire to enjoy sex doesn’t trump the resulting foetus’s right to life. Why would you think it did? (A clue: “Because I want it to” does not demonstrate the existence of a right. Nor does “Because I’m going to get an abortion whether the law allows me or not” - all that does is demonstrate your contempt for the law as soon as it does not accede to your demands.) This is not “punishment”. If you were being punished for sluttery then it would be irrelevant whether you were pregnant or not. If you were being punished for pregnancy then it would be irrelevant whether you were going to keep it or not. And if you view pregnancy itself as punishment – it isn’t, any more obesity is a “punishment” for overeating. (Likely biological consequence, sure enough.) > [@catsix](#): > > Doesn’t matter to me whether it ‘costs an enormous amount’. The only point with which I am concerned is whether a woman wants to be pregnant, or doesn’t. If she doesn’t, she should be able to get herself unpregnant at any time. Then don’t draw comparisons with an adult siphoning off your blood to live. Your argument is as likely to stand or fall without it. The rest of your statement? Sure, she can get herself unpregnant any time she likes. It’s just that she mustn’t kill anyone to do it. Kind of like Shylock and his pound of flesh. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, I suppose anyone who suffers a self-inflicted gunshot wound (either accidental or from a suicide attempt), or someone who develops lung tumors after forty years of smoking, or someone who develops tooth decay after a lifelong sugary diet is just going to have to live with it, then. Medical treatments exist, but they’re only for the deserving. Right, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Goodness me, if only I’d thought to state that, oh, say, you should have the right to have a bullet, a tumour or a bad tooth removed whenever you like, and drawn the distinction between each of them and abortion. How careless of me. But if only I’d been a little clearer, it might have looked as though I was saying that when you create a living foetus, you owe it a duty of care that not only is not applicable to a bullet, a tumour or a bad tooth, but would be considered applicable to these only by the insane. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Then you won’t object if the right to live we bestow on persons who are not living inside other persons is not extended to a fetus, given its unique status. No, the right to life is there by default. The foetus will live by default. You have to make the case for the right to end its life. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > This is mere cherry-picking, I know, but I couldn’t resist. Beats all hell out of addressing the substance of the argument though, doesn’t it? > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > This, however: > > > [@Malacandra](#): > > > > It’s not as though the foetus costs you an enormous amount - women can go through pregnancy and be largely unaware of it until the last few weeks (there was a case in the paper only today). > > …can stand on its own without comment. Of course it can, because merely quoting the other person’s words and assuming that the point is thereby made is a thoroughly reputable and approved debating technique. ---
**Author:** ![rainwalker78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rainwalker78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainwalker78)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/468 "2006-07-27T14:18:13Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > _You_ be fair. I’ve got ten times as many posts in this thread as you. > > _And_ I was accused of not being succinct. 😃 > > Well, that wasn’t the debate _I_ was having, but as you see fit. My apologies. Would you clarify what you were debating for me, please? ---
**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 27, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/469 "2006-07-27T15:07:31Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > That’d be you. You’re the one who equated “not getting something you wanted” with “misery”. “Misery” is not the inevitable result of carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. Do you think repeating this statement is going to make it any more true? I **did not _just_ equate** “not getting what you want” to “misery”. But keep ignoring that “forced to stay pregnant and deliver” qualifier all you want - you do it so well. > [@Malacandra](#): > > Why not? because that’s how things are in my worldview. You’re the one attaching the “hugeness” of the difference, I don’t see the difference as huge enough to matter. > [@Malacandra](#): > > Well, talking about not being confident that one’s adversary will understand the argument (my, I am speechless before the force of your logic! :rolleyes: ), my counter-argument was against the implication that **“misery” is the inevitable result of an unplanned pregnancy**. The lives of both my eldest uncles (that is, the one on each side) and my eldest nephew are there to contradict you. (My Bolding) Roll your eyes all you want, Captain Straw - but again, you’re attacking **something I never said** , in that bolded bit. Misery results from the _ **unwanted, forced** _ nature of the pregnancy, not the _unplanned_ nature. If your uncles and nephew were born after your grans and sibling(in law?) were locked up/tied down and forced to carry to term, you’d have a point. Otherwise, they are a complete _non sequitur_. > [@Malacandra](#): > > It’s interesting that you should use the phrase “bad haircut” as you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that a foetus is basically the same as a fringe you don’t like - in either case, cut out what offends you with no more ado. I’d think the person who thinks one can just “be reconciled” to being forced to bear a child is the one treating people like things. I never said it was easy or untraumatic for a woman to abort, just that it’s her perogative to decide. > [@Malacandra](#): > > Kids? As though it were (a) any of your damn business, or (b) remotely associated with the validity of an argument, I’ll indulge your silly question. Two sons aged seven and two. a) touchy, touchy, eh? b) Nothing to do with the validity of your non-existent argument, just wanted to know how you came by the idea that it’s that easy to “reconcile” oneself to an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly, you must be speaking from experience. I doubt it’s anything one could find a cite for, now is it? Convenient… ---
**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 27, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/470 "2006-07-27T15:35:41Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > No, the right to life is there by default. Now who’s begging the question? You’re going to run out of logical fallacies to use if you keep this up. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/471 "2006-07-27T15:48:02Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Now who’s begging the question? You’re going to run out of logical fallacies to use if you keep this up. It’s alive. You want to kill it. You need to demonstrate that you have the right to interfere with the default state of affairs. > [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Malacandra](#): > > > > It’s interesting that you should use the phrase “bad haircut” as you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that a foetus is basically the same as a fringe you don’t like - in either case, cut out what offends you with no more ado. > > I’d think the person who thinks one can just “be reconciled” to being forced to bear a child is the one treating people like things. Do you think that by alleging I am treating people like things, it somehow deflects criticism from you for doing so? There’s a term for that, too. > [@MrDibble](#): > > a) touchy, touchy, eh? > b) Nothing to do with the validity of your non-existent argument, just wanted to know how you came by the idea that it’s that easy to “reconcile” oneself to an unwanted pregnancy. Clearly, you must be speaking from experience. I doubt it’s anything one could find a cite for, now is it? Convenient… a) Not at all. “None of your damn business” means what it says - my personal life is none of your damn business. b) How I came by the idea? By observation of and cogitation upon the human condition, my friend. Some more none-of-your-damn-business information is that son #1 was born five years after Mrs M and I were married. And a cite? A cite for what? That I’m a father of two? Feel free to search. My marital status at the time they were conceived is probably not a matter of record on the Dope, and if it were, you could argue that I made it all up. As though that were relevant either. Talking of non-existent arguments, you’re doing a grand job of reminding me why I generally stay out of these trainwrecks. ---
**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 27, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/472 "2006-07-27T16:18:23Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > It’s alive. You want to kill it. You need to demonstrate that you have the right to interfere with the default state of affairs. No, you have to demonstrate that “right” has anything to do with it. That’s why it’s called “begging the question” - assuming something that’s central to your argument as axiomatic when it’s no such thing. > [@Malacandra](#): > > Do you think that by alleging I am treating people like things, it somehow deflects criticism from you for doing so? There’s a term for that, too. I fully acknowledge the emotional trauma and physical pain, both to the aborting mother and the foetus. How is that treating people like things? You’re the one who has demonstrated absolutely no empathy for the mother. > [@Malacandra](#): > > a) Not at all. “None of your damn business” means what it says - my personal life is none of your damn business. No, I think “I don’t think it’s any of your business” is non-touchy. “None of your damned business” is definitely touchy. > [@Malacandra](#): > > b) How I came by the idea? By observation of and cogitation upon the human condition, my friend. Aah, anecdotes, I see > [@Malacandra](#): > > And a cite? A cite for what? That I’m a father of two? No, that woman routinely “reconcile themselves” to their unwanted babies without feeling any misery. > [@Malacandra](#): > > Talking of non-existent arguments, you’re doing a grand job of reminding me why I generally stay out of these trainwrecks. Wait, wait - I know this one! Because your arguments are made of so much emotional and moralistic tissue papoer, and easily ripped to shreds? I’m close, aren’t I? Or - you like using the names of logical fallacies, but don’t like getting called on them yourself, because you somehow suspect you use them incorrectly? Is that it? This thread would only be a trainwreck through your doing - others, like **Sarahfeena** or\*\* JThunder\*\*, don’t seem to be catching the flack. Why is that, ya think? Maybe 'cos they don’t charge in slinging accusations of “Straaaawman!” where they don’t apply? ---
**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 27, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/473 "2006-07-27T17:04:24Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > And a cite? A cite for what? That I’m a father of two? Feel free to search. My marital status at the time they were conceived is probably not a matter of record on the Dope, and if it were, you could argue that I made it all up. As though that were relevant either. waitaminute - on re-reading this, I get the impression you think I was accusing you of fathering your first child out of wedlock. Is that why you went off all huffy? Well, let me assure you, that wasn’t my intention, because a)Your marital status matters not a damn to whether your kids were wanted or not, marriage not being necessary for having wanted kids, nor a bulwark against not wanting them. b) my point wasn’t about _your kids_, anyway, only whether\* you’d\* been through the process so as to speak with such authority on how you knew women could “reconcile” themselves to unwanted pregnancy. Not that I think you could, anyway, as you’re “a dude”, and never been in that position. ---
**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 27, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/474 "2006-07-27T21:02:49Z")
> [@rainwalker78](#): > > Would you clarify what you were debating for me, please? My end of this large, rather meandering debate is for an individual’s right to self-determination and to address (and hopefully refute) counterclaims. I’ve never entered the fray about trying to define when a fetus becomes a person. As with your original Group A/B/C, your attempts to define the people in the debate _almost_ cover it, but not quite. > [@Malacandra](#): > > “Misery” is not the inevitable result of carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. There’s something missing from this statement, though - acknowledging the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. Perhaps the pregnancy will force the mother to drop out of school, which undermines her plans for an education and escape from a life of dreary low-wage jobs in which she and the baby will have to live, for example. It’s easy enough to picture a woman in a committed relationship, likely a marriage, in which she can count on the father’s active participation and support. An unplanned third pregnancy, a so-called “accidental” pregnancy, is probably not a huge burden and she can weigh her options and decide. I’m rather more concerned with the woman who _doesn’t_ have the same options and who decided the pregnancy is not only unplanned, but actively unwanted. As a matter of accuracy, I’ll ask you to replace “unplanned” with “unwanted” in future statements. > [@](#): > > Goodness me, if only I’d thought to state that, oh, say, you should have the right to have a bullet, a tumour or a bad tooth removed whenever you like, and drawn the distinction between each of them and abortion. How careless of me. I’ll also ask that you not engage in sarcasm, because you’re not very good at it (as well as it not helping your argument). That’s merely a personal aesthetic suggestion. > [@](#): > > No, the right to life is there by default. The foetus will live by default. You have to make the case for the right to end its life. I do? I disagree. Rather, _you_ have to make the case that the mother doesn’t have full control over her body. She’ll also live, by default (in fact, life expectancy goes up the older you get, so if she’s a white female aged 20, she can expect to live to be 82.2, while a white female infant can only expect 80.5, and a white male even lower - source: [PDF table from the CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf), though I only mention this because I find it interesting and don’t plan to incorporate it into the debate). > [@](#): > > Beats all hell out of addressing the substance of the argument though, doesn’t it? I feel I’ve addressed whatever substance in your argument I can find. In this particular case, your statement about a fetus’ special status could easily have come from the pro-choice position. > [@](#): > > > [@Bryan](#): > > > > This, however: > > > > > [@Malacandra](#): > > > > > > It’s not as though the foetus costs you an enormous amount - women can go through pregnancy and be largely unaware of it until the last few weeks (there was a case in the paper only today). > > > > …can stand on its own without comment. > > Of course it can, because merely quoting the other person’s words and assuming that the point is thereby made is a thoroughly reputable and approved debating technique. Fine, I’ll expand on it. Your statement about pregnancy, based as it was on some oddball case you read about in “the paper”, struck me as comically ignorant and I was confident others would view it the same way without the need to explain it to them. Didn’t it occur to you that the fact that this pregnancy was written up in “the paper” suggests it was highly unusual? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/475 "2006-07-27T21:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > **Malacandra** said: > Not at all. Have all the sex you like. Take whatever precautions you think proper, and are able to apply, in order to enjoy it. But accept that there is a possibility that you may create an innocent life in doing so. What you are saying is that since I never want any children, I shouldn’t have sex, ever. That is a very cruel point of view. > [@](#): > > This is not “punishment”. If you were being punished for sluttery then it would be irrelevant whether you were pregnant or not. Where did sluttery enter into this? I don’t want children. Ever. Period. Why would you even bring that up? What, I would suddenly be willing to be pregnant if I weren’t a whore? > [@](#): > > Sure, she can get herself unpregnant any time she likes. It’s just that she mustn’t kill anyone to do it. Kind of like Shylock and his pound of flesh. Great, take the embryo out intact and stick it in a freezer somewhere. I don’t ever want one in me. > [@](#): > > **Mr. Dibble** said: > I’d think the person who thinks one can just “be reconciled” to being forced to bear a child is the one treating people like things. I never said it was easy or untraumatic for a woman to abort, just that it’s her perogative to decide. That’s not something that I could ever ‘be reconciled’ to. So much so that I’d be willing to risk death to prevent it. > [@](#): > > **Malacandra** said: > It’s alive. You want to kill it. You need to demonstrate that you have the right to interfere with the default state of affairs. I don’t want to kill it. I just don’t want it in my body. I suppose I could have it cryogenically frozen and sent to you so you can thaw it out and use it later. I have the default right to decide whether anything lives in my uterus or not. I choose not. No one will stop me. Not you, not the law, not anyone. If I would have to go to prison for deliberately causing a miscarriage, **I would go**. But I wouldn’t be pregnant when I got there. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/476 "2006-07-28T02:04:46Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’s not what medical science says, according to my earlier cites. > No, a tadpole IS a frog. It’s simply a frog at an earlier stage of development. It belongs to the same species, even though its physical appearance is different. > Are you familiar with the fetal alcohol laws? The law levies severe punishments for women who abuse their pre-born children through heavy drinking. > The difference is that my belief is based on what the study of embryology teaches. Your belief is based on repeated and impassioned assertion. > No, for the same reason that killing people in self-defense (when absolutely necessary) is not murder. These are exceptional circumstances that do not justify killing in general. Moreover, when these situations occur “in the last stages of pregnancy,” the prudent approach would be to deliver the child prematurely (by C-section, if necessary), then treat the woman. In other words, every effort must be made to save both mother and child. > > I think we can all agree that abortions are _sometimes_ needed to save the mother’s life. You seem to think that means we should justify _all_ abortions as a result. That’s just absurd. It’s like saying that we should abolish all speed limits, simply because people may sometimes need to drive at 90mph during medical emergencies. It simply does not follow. Abortion was called murder as has been stated in earlier posts, My intention is to show that there are exceptions some times it is self defense for the woman and should not be considered as murder. It is legal and the only true argument is one based on a religious belief. We are a country of many different beliefs. So far no one(in this country) has been forced to get an abortion. I still contend that a tadpole is not yet a frog, any more than bunch of cells is a child. How many frog legs could you get from a tadpole. If you ordered chicken and I gave you an egg would you be satisfied? It may become what it is intended but is not yet such. Speed laws and the rights of a woman to protect her civil rights, rights is not the same thing. Some people would love to see women dressed in Burkas and be at the mercy of a man. She is not property as some would like to think. A woman is more than a brood mare although some would like to see her as such. It would be a far better thing if we spent more time and money finding ways to avoid the apparent need for some woman to get an abortion and look to the needs of the ready born. One needs to look at cases such as the Andrea Yates case to see what the pressure of having a lot of children in a row can do to a woman;pregnancy changes the chemical imbalance in some women to the point of mental illiness or depression.mAlso there have been reported many cases on the news where women have commited suicide. I believe it is up to a woman to decide if she can bear the burden not for me to tell her what she can take. Because I never had an abortion or wanted one does not mean that I should push my feelings,beliefs etc. on her. I find it quite interesting that some men are so eager to do just that. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![rainwalker78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rainwalker78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainwalker78)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/477 "2006-07-28T14:12:42Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > My end of this large, rather meandering debate is for an individual’s right to self-determination and to address (and hopefully refute) counterclaims. I’ve never entered the fray about trying to define when a fetus becomes a person. As with your original Group A/B/C, your attempts to define the people in the debate _almost_ cover it, but not quite. I see where you are coming from. However, 🙂 What happens when someone right to self determination conflicts with anothers rights? For example, your right to free speech does not give you the right to slander someone, or yell “fire” in a crowded theatre just for kicks. Because that is infringing on other peoples rights. In the case of abortion, the woman has rights to control her body. I don’t think any dopers are going to argue that. A newborn baby also has the right to life, no? But when does this baby achieve personhood and gain these rights? Anti-abotion/pro-life side says this happens at some point during the pregnancy (at conception, when blood starts flow, whatever). If this is true, then you have a conflict between the womans right to self determination and the baby’s right to life. The pro-choice side contends that the fetus is infringing on the womans right. The pro-life side contends that the abortion infringes on the baby’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/478 "2006-07-28T15:27:14Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Abortion was called murder as has been stated in earlier posts, My intention is to show that there are exceptions some times it is self defense for the woman and should not be considered as murder. “Self-defense,” you say. Even pro-lifers agree that abortion is sometimes necessary when the woman’s life is threatened. Even then though, every effort should be made to save _both_ mother and child, if at all possible. Once again, you keep invoking this extreme case – grave danger to the pregnant woman – as a defense for abortion. It isn’t. This constitutes a rare and exceptional circumstance that represents less than 1% of all the abortions performed in the USA. ---
**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 28, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/479 "2006-07-28T16:49:06Z")
Abortion isn’t the same as murder, at least in my mind, because I doubt many woman do it with malicious intent towards the foetus (N.B. Lawyers, this has nothing to do with any legal definitions.) ---
**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:** [July 28, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/480 "2006-07-28T16:49:21Z")
I’ve never really understood the argument that a fetus/embryo should not be aborted because it’s human. Well, so what? We already judge humans in different conditions as having different rights; a person in a coma may have their right to decide what happens to them assigned to a guardian, the same for organ donation. I see no difference between abortion of an embryo and “pulling the plug” on a braindead person, or one between taking stem cells before a certain death and taking organs from said braindead person. (If anyone’s thinking of asking, yes, I’d support mandatory organ donation upon death). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=25)