# 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:** 7
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/121 "2006-07-19T23:32:37Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > 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? Not if you consider its brain function irrelevant to the issue, as I do. It’s a simple topology problem - “Is it Inside, or Outside?” ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/122 "2006-07-19T23:33:17Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > 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? No, the more sensible line is when it’s no longer inside another person. ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/123 "2006-07-19T23:38:07Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. My bad; I should have specified that we were discussing humans, or potential humans. ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/124 "2006-07-19T23:38:33Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > 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? Is there even such a moment? I would imagine they kick in somewhat gradually. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/125 "2006-07-19T23:40:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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). Well, the legal concept of “positive duty” does exist. If it’s her child or she has some preexisting legal responsibility to it, then she _is_ legally bound to protect it, and I don’t quite see the relevance to an abortion debate. > [@Lama Pacos](#): > > 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? Sensible in what way? As a matter of practicality, few doctors are likely to perform a purely elective late-term abortion. How many abortions do you think your proposal will actually prevent? I’d be disinclined to accept your demarcation because it serves no purpose except to impose a restriction that could later be expanded. It’s a compromise that has no value except to weaken one side. ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/126 "2006-07-19T23:52:33Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, the legal concept of “positive duty” does exist. If it’s her child or she has some preexisting legal responsibility to it, then she _is_ legally bound to protect it, and I don’t quite see the relevance to an abortion debate. It might become clearer if we recall that I originally posed the scenario in response to **MrDibble** ’s agreement/endorsement of your post: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’m pro-choice and I don’t care if the fetus is a person or not. I don’t care if the fetus is sentient or not. I only care that the fetus’s host has the right to choose whether or not to continue in that role. > [snip] The fetus is just shit outta luck. See, you’re saying that the pregnant woman has the absolute right to opt out of the role as host, causing the demise of the fetus. I was wondering whether (and why or why not) you would consider the mother of a newborn infant to have the right to opt out of the role as parent, causing the demise of the infant. Had you not explicitly stated that the issues of peronhood and sentience were irrelevant, I would not have wondered this; since you did say that though, I think the desert island scenario is approximately equivalent, or at least closely analogous. ---
**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 20, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/127 "2006-07-20T00:01:09Z")
> [@](#): > > No, the more sensible line is when it’s no longer inside another person. Could you explain why the fetus/baby’s orientation with regard to a body cavity is a sensible _moral_ guideline for whether or not it is acceptable to destroy/kill it? > [@](#): > > Sensible in what way? As a matter of practicality, few doctors are likely to perform a purely elective late-term abortion. How many abortions do you think your proposal will actually prevent? I’d be disinclined to accept your demarcation because it serves no purpose except to impose a restriction that could later be expanded. It’s a compromise that has no value except to weaken one side. Not to hand-wave aside your words, but I don’t understand where practicality and pragmatism comes into it (or why they come into it _before_ moral ambiguity that has to be resolved). I’m not proposing considering a brain-function demarcation because it will “prevent pregnancies”, but because it may (or may not) be the point where a fetus becomes what we would generally recognize as a person. The moral issue must be cleared up, and then the pragmatism can fill in around it. ---
**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, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/128 "2006-07-20T00:03:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > See, you’re saying that the pregnant woman has the absolute right to opt out of the role as host, causing the demise of the fetus. I was wondering whether (and why or why not) you would consider the mother of a newborn infant to have the right to opt out of the role as parent, causing the demise of the infant. Sure, she can opt out. Many venues have foundling drop-off laws and virtually all of them have adoption laws. She can’t simply _kill_ the infant, though. Using birth as a demarcation is pretty easy. As for the highly artificial well-stocked desert island scenario… I look forward to a real-world test case because it’s currently too hypothetical to affect my stance. ---
**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, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/129 "2006-07-20T00:13:07Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Sure, she can opt out. Many venues have foundling drop-off laws and virtually all of them have adoption laws. She can’t simply _kill_ the infant, though. Using birth as a demarcation is pretty easy. As for the highly artificial well-stocked desert island scenario… I look forward to a real-world test case because it’s currently too hypothetical to affect my stance. Fercryinoutloud! she’s on the desert island precisely because that puts her in a position that is more analogous to that of a pregnant female carrying a non-viable fetus; i.e. her decision to opt out **will inevitably cause the demise** of the infant. There is nobody to adopt. If you would prefer it as an abstract question, with no hypothetical desert islands: -Can a mother of a newborn infant ‘opt out’ of parenthood if that decision will inevitably cause the demise of the infant? If not, why not? ---
**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, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/130 "2006-07-20T00:13:11Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > The moral issue must be cleared up, and then the pragmatism can fill in around it. Making it a moral rather than a medical issue is what clouds it in the first place. In fact, trying to get a moral consensus on the issue only guarantees it’ll remain a deadlock forever, whereas pragmatism allows to examine what is and isn’t possible (as opposed to what we _wish_ was possible in an ideal world) and we can make compromises from there, attempting for the best mix of individual freedom and the needs of society. I’m biased toward the former, but I recognize the necessity of the latter. Anyway, these posts of yours are starting to make me suspect any of three things:[ul][li]You’re pro-choice but doing a moderately-effective job of playing devil’s advocate - presenting a weak pro-choice argument in order to draw out stronger ones.[/li][li]You’re pro-choice but feel guilty about it, and are hoping others will give you a relaxing rationalization[/li][li]You’re not really pro-choice at all.[/ul][/li] Just my opinion, for what it’s worth. ---
**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 20, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/131 "2006-07-20T00:21:16Z")
To be honest, I’m not sure we can even debate within the same plane, so to speak, given our approaches. I don’t really understand how morality _can’t_ feature-- unless we’re going to go with a completely utilitarian worldview. > [@](#): > > Anyway, these posts of yours are starting to make me suspect any of three things: > You’re pro-choice but doing a moderately-effective job of playing devil’s advocate - presenting a weak pro-choice argument in order to draw out stronger ones. > You’re pro-choice but feel guilty about it, and are hoping others will give you a relaxing rationalization > You’re not really pro-choice at all. > > Just my opinion, for what it’s worth. I’m pro-choice, but based on a fairly arbitrary (IMO) demarcation. I’m trying to explore the spectrum of possible demarcation sites and find one that is justifiable. ---
**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, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/132 "2006-07-20T00:27:05Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Fercryinoutloud! she’s on the desert island precisely because that puts her in a position that is more analogous to that of a pregnant female carrying a non-viable fetus; i.e. her decision to opt out **will inevitably cause the demise** of the infant. There is nobody to adopt. I don’t equate a fetus with a baby (mostly because one is inside a human host and the other is not), so the comparison doesn’t hold. If she can’t legally hand off her responsibility to an infant in the absence of a legal framework (i.e. on a desert island), the legal responsibility remains with her. Of course, if she’s absolutely and totally outside _all_ legal frameworks, she could just kill the infant anyway. > [@](#): > > If you would prefer it as an abstract question, with no hypothetical desert islands: > -Can a mother of a newborn infant ‘opt out’ of parenthood if that decision will inevitably cause the demise of the infant? If not, why not? I need more information. How do you suggest this scenario works? The newborn has a metabolic disorder and can only digest the milk of its mother? I’m hard-pressed to imagine any other way the mother’s continued presence is absolutely critical to the infant’s survival without coming back to the desert island scenario - where mother and infant are physically isolated. So fercryinoutloud, give me something to work with. ---
**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, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/133 "2006-07-20T00:39:48Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I don’t equate a fetus with a baby (mostly because one is inside a human host and the other is not), so the comparison doesn’t hold. Except that this doesn’t seem to gel with your previous comment of “I don’t care if the fetus is a person or not. I don’t care if the fetus is sentient or not.” What’s the difference between a fetus and a helpless baby, if we purposely ignore the issues of personhood and sentience? > [@](#): > > If she can’t legally hand off her responsibility to an infant in the absence of a legal framework (i.e. on a desert island), the legal responsibility remains with her. Of course, but that’s irrelevant, since we’re discussing _how things ought to be_, not _how they currently are_ > [@](#): > > I need more information. How do you suggest this scenario works? The newborn has a metabolic disorder and can only digest the milk of its mother? I’m hard-pressed to imagine any other way the mother’s continued presence is absolutely critical to the infant’s survival without coming back to the desert island scenario - where mother and infant are physically isolated. > > So fercryinoutloud, give me something to work with. I don’t see what’s wrong with the desert island scenario, and I certainly wouldn’t expect you to treat any other hypothetical more seriously, but anyway, why is an example even necessary? I’m asking you for an exposition of your _principle_, not a specific application of it. ---
**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, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/134 "2006-07-20T00:49:04Z")
> [@bup](#): > > And I’m not on the same side regarding the rape tangent. Just that having sex means assuming some responsibility. Not if you’re both 54 it doesn’t. 🙂 In slight defense of **kanicbird** , it is not a good idea to set up a system of laws that practically force people to lie to exercise their rights. To get away from abortion, in New York, the last non no-fault divorce state, men set up fake affairs at which they are caught by private eyes all the time in order to have cause for a divorce. This is damn stupid. I could conceive of a situation where women make rape charges, in full cooperation with men, and then refuse to testify or cooperate with the prosecution, leading to prosecutors not even bringing charges. The really bad thing would be if some real rapists got off because of a high percentage of false charges. There are a lot better reasons to be pro-choice, but I can see this one without accusing anybody of being a slut. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/135 "2006-07-20T01:20:42Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Sensible in what way? As a matter of practicality, few doctors are likely to perform a purely elective late-term abortion. How many abortions do you think your proposal will actually prevent? Let’s see. The [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) reports a little more than 850,000 abortions a year in the US. The number of third term abortions is usually touted to be [1.4%](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Abortion+late+term+1.4%25) so that’s about 11,900. Or, to put in another light, almost six times as many 20+ week fetuses a year as total service men and women [killed in Iraq](http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.main/index.html) as of October of last year - 2000 - which is another number people get worked up about. In the grand scheme of things both numbers are quite small, but it’s hard for most people not to see at least one, if not both, as compelling and unacceptable. I find both sorrowful, though I fully admit that the loss of a soldier is (usually) a lot more devastating to those left behind. ---
**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, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/136 "2006-07-20T02:12:53Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Let’s see. The [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) reports a little more than 850,000 abortions a year in the US. The number of third term abortions is usually touted to be [1.4%](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Abortion+late+term+1.4%25) so that’s about 11,900. Or, to put in another light, almost six times as many 20+ week fetuses a year as total service men and women [killed in Iraq](http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.main/index.html) as of October of last year - 2000 - which is another number people get worked up about. In the grand scheme of things both numbers are quite small, but it’s hard for most people not to see at least one, if not both, as compelling and unacceptable. I find both sorrowful, though I fully admit that the loss of a soldier is (usually) a lot more devastating to those left behind. Your numbers are wrong. That 1.6% number is for so-called “_late_ term abortion” (not a medical term) which is somewhat of a tendentous phrase used to refer to abortions after the 20th week. The third TRIMESTER doesn’t occur until the 28th week and abortions in that TRIMESTER are exceedingly rare (something like 1/16 of 1%) and are only performed out of medical necessity (often when to the fetus is already dead). Elective abortions in the 3rd trimester are illegal in most states and most doctors would not be willing to perform them in any case. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/137 "2006-07-20T02:23:49Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > All women know that having sex might lead to creating a pregnancy. What does that have to do with pro-choice, pro-life, or abortion? Everything with pro-choice, by consenting to sex you are _chosing_ to assume the risk of pregancy and the responsibility to that life you may create. Now if for some reason you think that the way you create offspring is to eat a fish with your mate and don’t understand that sex has the possibility of pregnancy then you did not chose. If you didn’t chose then you can have your offspring killed during the time it is dependent on you by having it removed. ---
**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, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/138 "2006-07-20T02:27:54Z")
> [@Lama Pacos](#): > > To be honest, I’m not sure we can even debate within the same plane, so to speak, given our approaches. I don’t really understand how morality _can’t_ feature-- unless we’re going to go with a completely utilitarian worldview. I don’t think it’s possible to find a universal _moral_ stance on this issue (or any issue, really) but if you’re looking for argument pro-choicers can use to try to make sure abortion remains _legal_, you’ve been given several which are simpler and probably more effective than what you proposed in the original post. > [@elfkin477](#): > > Let’s see. The CDC reports a little more than 850,000 abortions a year in the US. The number of third term abortions is usually touted to be 1.4% so that’s about 11,900. And how many of those were, as I said, purely elective? Frankly, I bet virtually all of them were for compelling medical reasons (I’ll grant that a handful _may_ have been elective) so putting on a ban wouldn’t save 11,900 babies; it might just kill 11,900 women _and_ their babies. Congratulations. > [@Mangetout](#): > > Except that this doesn’t seem to gel with your previous comment of “I don’t care if the fetus is a person or not. I don’t care if the fetus is sentient or not.” What’s the difference between a fetus and a helpless baby, if we purposely ignore the issues of personhood and sentience? It gels just fine; you simply jumped to a conclusion. I’m only ignoring the “issues of personhood and sentience” as they relate to _a fetus_. Since I don’t equate fetuses with babies (the primary difference being whether or not one is located inside the body of a person), why should I equate the personhood of a fetus with the personhood of a baby? > [@](#): > > I’m asking you for an exposition of your principle, not a specific application of it. My principle on this issue is that a woman who does not wish to remain pregnant should not be forced to do so when a safe medical solution exists. Similarly, any person (male or female) who faces a significant self-inflicted health problem (even a self-limiting one that’ll clear up on its own after nine months or so) should not be legally blocked from getting a simple treatment solely to teach them “responsibility for their actions.” The value to society of aborted fetuses (whose own mothers don’t want them) is not great enough in my opinion to justify this level of intrusion into personal freedom. ---
**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, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/139 "2006-07-20T02:29:17Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Everything with pro-choice, by consenting to sex you are _chosing_ to assume the risk of pregancy and the responsibility to that life you may create. No, she’s willing to assume the risk that she may have to take responsibility for a _pregnancy_. Terminating a pregnancy is one perfectly acceptable way of taking responsibility for it. ---
**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, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/140 "2006-07-20T02:33:36Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > If you didn’t chose then you can have your offspring killed during the time it is dependent on you by having it removed. Sounds like ignorant women get a pass while knowledgeable women get punished. Great. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=8)