# 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:** 6
**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 19, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/101 "2006-07-19T21:54:32Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’ve never understood why this is irreconcilable with abortion. A woman action’s create a problem so she deals with it, resolving the problem. Sounds to me like the responsible thing to do. Not to sound like a stuck record, but again: what he said. Abortion _is_ “taking responsibility” by my understanding of the word. > [@bup](#): > > Just to clarify - no legal problem, or no moral problem? No _moral_ problem. If it’s a desert island, I hardly see how legality comes into it. ---
**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 19, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/102 "2006-07-19T21:58:19Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Just that having sex means assuming some responsibility. Indeed. In fact, ignore the food poisoning analogy above. STDs are a risk of having sex. You have a responsibility to yourself and your partner to play safe, but sometimes, no matter how careful you’ve been, that fails. You do _not_ then have the “responsibility” to suffer or die from a condition for which a cure exists. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/103 "2006-07-19T21:58:26Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > The desert island scenario makes both moot. If a woman gives her limited resources to the baby and _she_ dies, the death of the infant becomes inevitable anyway. As long as she’s alive, one assumes she can act in a manner likely to increase rescue. You added that twist after the fact. That’s a different scenario. > [@](#): > > As for more realistic settings, she can handle the moral quandary anyway she likes. If she can’t, that’s no reason to impose a _legal_ burden on others. Agreed. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s very casual of you, but all it means is you’re denying a safe, simple solution to a problem because you feel the more complex result is a more fitting punishment. That might be fine when you make your child scrub the steps with a toothbrush (though larger brushes are available) in order to teach him a lesson, but an adult woman would be within her rights, as I see it, to tell you to get lost. She has the right. I’m not talking about punishment, or legal rights - I’ve said several times I’m pro-choice. I don’t think it’s responsible, though, to pretend that because the fetus is not yet human, it’s not deserving of any concern. The woman’s convenience being paramount in solving _her_ problem is, frankly, chilling in my book. ---
**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 19, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/104 "2006-07-19T22:01:14Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I’m going to get a dog. If it seems too much of a hassle, I can always kill it humanely rather than taking care of it half-assed. > > I don’t think that’s responsible. It’s legal, and dogs don’t have human rights, but it’s the actions of a person who don’t care about the consequences of their actions. What if your dog has, say, a painful hip condition, that you cannot afford to have fixed. Obviously a dog can’t speak, but is it unreasonable to suggest it might prefer death to a life of pain? After all, there are many people every year who wish for death over life, hence the whole euthanasia debate. It’s clear that in some cases, there are people who _would_ prefer death to life. ---
**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 19, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/105 "2006-07-19T22:04:13Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I consider myself enthusiastically pro choice - in that a woman should have the right to chose to engage in activities that could lead to creating offspring, with full knowledge that such an activity might result in such life creation. _1984_ much? ---
**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 19, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/106 "2006-07-19T22:04:32Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Maybe we have different definitions of responsibility then. > > I don’t want to get hyperbolic or dramatic, but I’m trying to think of analogies. Just taking _any_ action that resolves a problem is not responsible. Not _any_ action. But abortion (assuming it’s medical rather than DIY) is a grown-up approach to the problem, if you phrase the problem as “How do I get rid of this unwanted thing inside me ASAP” > [@bup](#): > > I’m going to get a dog. If it seems too much of a hassle, I can always kill it humanely rather than taking care of it half-assed. I don’t think that’s responsible. It’s legal, and dogs don’t have human rights, but it’s the actions of a person who don’t care about the consequences of their actions. I disagree - euthenasia for animals is not irresponsible. The consequences? One less mistreated pet. Dogs and cats are things we created for our convenience. I don’t think they should be mistreated while alive, but have no problem with them being put down _for any reason_. I’ve put down animals for reasons of convenience before. Granted, those were fish, but I don’t see the difference at all. Maybe a different analogy? I think my moral compass points to a different North. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/107 "2006-07-19T22:27:49Z")
**I think you’re the one who has it all wrong** > [@](#): > > if a fetus is a person, you don’t kill it. You do if you’re pregnant and you do not wish to be, and choose to avail yourself of the procedure known as abortion. It’s alive, it’s human, hell, call it a person, whatever. Some individual abortions may be murder, but many of them are just pruning actions. The big moral issues relevant to the individual situation are in good hands when they are left in the hands of the individual pregnant people. As for the big moral issues relevant to the situation in general, it is a massively evil thing, an abomination in the eyes of God, to impose upon the species what gets imposed when you forcibly prevent women from ending pregnancies that they would choose to end. > [@](#): > > the pro-life side does not necessarily (though may occasionally) intend to gratuitously limit women’s freedoms Oh, I think a great many of their leaders do. Many of them make no secret of it. > [@](#): > > . Though I am pro-choice, I am so only because I believe that a fetus is not sentient enough to be accorded the rights of a human I, on the other hand, am because I believe that a fetus doesn’t have anything invested in that life yet (although other people certainly may), making the death of a fetus a not particularly tragic thing in and of itself. (When expectant parents are devastated by miscarriage or etc, then it becomes a tragedy). Death itself is not a tragedy. If it were, every life would be tragic. Mind you, no offense taken that you should share your views, I’m only firing back because of the “have it all wrong” thingie: perhaps you should consider "have it all wrong _in my opinion_, instead? ---
**Author:** ![Blanche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Blanche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blanche)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/108 "2006-07-19T22:28:10Z")
I’m pro-choice, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the personhood of the fetus. I don’t believe that fetuses are sentient or self-aware, I don’t think infants are either (my second-youngest couldn’t pass the red-dot/mirror self awareness test that any chimp can pass until he was almost 2), but I still think it’s not a good thing to kill them, if for no other reason than the destruction of potential. But it doesn’t matter. Fetuses could be self-aware and able to communicate with those outside the womb by sign language and I’d still be pro-choice, because the alternative is too terrible. If abortion is treated as murder, the only right thing to do is to investigate practically every miscarriage to make sure it was in fact accidental and not somehow induced or due to negligence. I also don’t think any person should be forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth if they don’t want to, just as I don’t believe a person should be forced to donate a kidney even if they are the only person in the world who can save the potential recipent’s life. It IS about personal choice and respecting a person’s right to control their own body for me. If medical technology ever reaches a point where an embryo or fetus can be removed from the womb in a procedure as simple and safe as an abortion and raised somewhere else (implanted in a volunteer or in a synthetic womb), I MIGHT re-consider my stance on abortion, because then it has nothing to do with your rights to control what’s in your body and more with your rights to choose whether or not to produce progeny, and that’s a lot more complicated. But as things are now, abortion is the only way to end a pregnancy, and thus must be legal. ---
**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 19, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/109 "2006-07-19T22:30:09Z")
> [@bup](#): > > You added that twist after the fact. That’s a different scenario. I thought MrDibble’s “if no other options exist” (which you accepted without correction in your reply at post #90, asking instead to clarify a different point) implied that the situation was dire. Obviously if the island has fifty tons of freeze-dried provisions, including 5,000 servings of baby formula, options _do_ exist. In _that_ case, if the child is her legal responsibility and she can serve that responsibility without putting herself at grave risk, she definitely _does_ have a positive duty to its care. That’s not a twist I added. Without a threat to survival forcing hard choices, there’s no point to the whole “desert island” scenario in the first place. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s responsible, though, to pretend that because the fetus is not yet human, it’s not deserving of any concern. The woman’s convenience being paramount in solving _her_ problem is, frankly, chilling in my book. Well, put on a sweater, because I’m not pretending. I’m completely indifferent to whether or not the fetus qualifies as human, or what definitions of “human” anyone wants to apply that either includes or excludes it. There are rare circumstances where killing another human is justified and this is one of them, even if you grant humanity to the fetus. If the fetus _isn’t_ human, the issue is moot, and if it is… so what? If you want to know what _I_ find chilling, it’s the denial of the rights of others to individual freedom in the name of some vague moral point. You say you’re pro-choice; fine, I believe you. You say this makes you uneasy? Fine, I’m not going to criticize you for the set of moral guidelines you’ve established for yourself, especially since they’re not particularly extreme. I’m rather less fine, however, with attempting to muddle the issue by playing definition games with the word “responsibility” or trying to come with hair-splitting justifications that, in fact, give ammunition to those who would be _thrilled_ to remove the rights of others. To me it’s fairly simple: Premise: A woman is pregnant. Problem: She doesn’t want to _stay_ pregnant. Solution: A safe medical procedure exists that can arrange this. Why the OP of this thread feels this is wrong and why it’s better to find a more complex route to the same end escapes me. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/110 "2006-07-19T22:53:29Z")
It seems there are only so many logical positions to stake out: 1. Anything defined as “alive” or having “life” has rights, including the right not to have that life taken away. 2. Defining the point at which life begins is more emotional, philosophical and theological, than biological. Science isn’t much help. 3. So it follows: 3a: If you believe life begins at conception, then you’re 100% pro-life. 3b: If you believe life begins at birth, you’re 100% pro-choice, up to and including late term abortions. 3c: If you believe that the point at which life begins is somewhere in between, then: 3c(1) You pick a fairly arbitrary point, and allow abortion before that point, but not after; or 3c(2) You pick 2 fairly arbitrary points, and say that between those points a fetus may be alive, but does not have 100% human rights; and allow abortion during that time. 3c(2) gets you into some sticky moral dilemmas. None of the above, though, support an exception for rape/incest. Why do the circumstances of the conception affect the morality of whether or not the abortion should be performed? ---
**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 19, 2006, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/111 "2006-07-19T22:55:54Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > The desert island scenario makes both moot. If a woman gives her limited resources to the baby and _she_ dies, the death of the infant becomes inevitable anyway. As long as she’s alive, one assumes she can act in a manner likely to increase rescue. The scenario as posed was not one of limited resources; let there be abundant food, but nobody else to provide essential care for the helpless infant; she just decides that she doesn’t want to perform the role of parent any more. In the same way that a pregnant female may decide that she doesn’t want to be host to the fetus any more (except in that case, the inbability to hand it over to someone else is restricted by technology, rather than geography). ---
**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 19, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/112 "2006-07-19T22:57:44Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > It seems there are only so many logical positions to stake out: > > 1. Anything defined as “alive” or having “life” has rights, including the right not to have that life taken away… Nope; that’s a serious stumbling point right there; the ants in my garage are alive; the mould on the Camenbert in my fridge is alive. ---
**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 19, 2006, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/113 "2006-07-19T23:04:14Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I disagree. > > Ask a child of somebody who can’t take care of a baby if they’d rather be alive or dead. This question is pointless. When a woman chooses to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, no child ever comes into existence. You can’t victimize imaginary children. ---
**Author:** ![Lama\_Pacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Lama\_Pacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lama_Pacos)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/114 "2006-07-19T23:05:44Z")
**Diogenes** , I have a question about your position. If a woman gives birth to a baby, and then decides on the first day after birth that she doesn’t want it, can she destroy it? If not, what makes the moment of birth so decisive? If so, how long can you wait until destroyng the infant is unacceptable? My point is that no matter what your personal convictions may be on when one crosses the threshold into, shall we say, ‘nondestroyability’, the issue matters and surely where the threshold is set should be very relevant for anyone who regards the killing of actual human lives abbhorent. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/115 "2006-07-19T23:11:11Z")
**Lama Pacos** , why would anyone consider birth to be a \*less \* sensible dividing line than conception? I don’t have the right to kill anyone \*else \* who lives outside of my body, so _once born_, why is this person any different? ---
**Author:** ![Lama\_Pacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Lama\_Pacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lama_Pacos)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/116 "2006-07-19T23:15:03Z")
Exactly; so what actually changes in the entity during the second in which the fetus on the inside of the vagina becomes a baby on the outside? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/117 "2006-07-19T23:17:41Z")
Um… the **being outside**? I thought I was clear about that. ---
**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 19, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/118 "2006-07-19T23:19:56Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > Exactly; so what actually changes in the entity during the second in which the fetus on the inside of the vagina becomes a baby on the outside? Its location? ---
**Author:** ![Lama\_Pacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Lama\_Pacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lama_Pacos)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/119 "2006-07-19T23:20:08Z")
Right, but why is that a meaningful line to draw when deciding whether an entity is destroyable or not? Wouldn’t a more sensible line be drawn at the moment that advanced brain functions kick in? ---
**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 19, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/120 "2006-07-19T23:31:57Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > **Diogenes** , I have a question about your position. If a woman gives birth to a baby, and then decides on the first day after birth that she doesn’t want it, can she destroy it? If not, what makes the moment of birth so decisive? If so, how long can you wait until destroyng the infant is unacceptable? My point is that no matter what your personal convictions may be on when one crosses the threshold into, shall we say, ‘nondestroyability’, the issue matters and surely where the threshold is set should be very relevant for anyone who regards the killing of actual human lives abbhorent. Thw right of the woman is to have the thing removed from her body. The reason women get abortions is not to destroy something but to stop being pregnant. Her autonomy is over her own body, not the fetus, _per se_. Questions about the rights of fetal enties once removed from the body have no relevance to abortion rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=7)