# My one and only thread about Abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519 "2001-06-20T20:30:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![darian00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@darian00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/darian00)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/41 "2001-06-21T09:38:54Z")
by **Dignan** : > [@](#): > > Uh, she is only carrying the potential for life. How do you define life? Make no mistake, a fetus is a living organism. After about 4 and a half months, it is possible for a baby to be born and live (with help, obviously). But what qualifies an organism as being alive? A fetus moves, grows, is self-sustaining (eats, sleeps, shits), has a detectable brain wave. Whether you view it as human or not is your own thing, but it _is_ alive. My question to you is:. When does the embryo or fetus or whatever you choose to call it become human? At the point it becomes human is when it should be given full access to its “human” rights, right? Which gives it a right to life, right? When does it earn that right? I, unlike others, feel that it is human from the moment of conception. Its genetic code states that it will be male or female, have brown, blue or green eyes, whether it will have blonde hair or light brown. But it can be nothing other than human. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s selfish if the mother doesn’t feel that she is in a position to take care of a baby. It seems selfish that you would want to impose your morality on her and make her carry it to term because you’re worried about the world going to hell in a handbasket. She shouldn’t be charged the extra expenses (financial and otherwise) of carrying a baby for 9 months, because you want her to. If the mother doesn’t feel she is in that position, then granted it would be irresponsible of her to keep the baby. However, there is a perfectly viable alternative to abortion that we pro-lifers like to call adoption. And besides, Medicaid is a nice help to low-income expectant mothers. So is WIC. I’m not going to argue the pros and cons of these two programs here, but they are available. > [@](#): > > If the baby is going to be born with a disability, would you be against the mother choosing to have an abortion to prevent the extra expenses of raising a disabled child and difficulty and suffering the child/person would eventually have to go through? Yes. I have a cousin with spina bifida, hydroencephalitis, edema, asthma, and a whole slew of other problems. However, she is very happy and energetic. She’s 12 years old, which is five more than she was expected to have. Right now she’s big on one of the guys from N’Sync. Does she have difficulties? Yes, without a doubt. Is she suffering? No. She loves life more than most people I know. Having a disability or handicap of some sort or another does not justify abortion. She is no less human than you and I for her disability. Her right to life is absolute. by **Reprise** : > [@](#): > > In your OP, Ad, you stated unequivocally that abortion is murder. Are you now saying that an act you believe to be murder is ratified under certain conditions? If that is what you are saying, under what other conditions do you believe it’s ratified? I have to agree with Reprise here, Ad. Is what you believe is murder justifiable in one or two cases? Why not three? Or ten? I do not believe abortion is ever justified. Life of the mother cases are very rare, though they do happen. Case in point: Mercutio’s aunt. In cases like this, it’s a judgement call whether or not to perform the abortion. Again, I do not feel it is justified. But the procedure should be available, without moral judgement of any kind, to those who feel it is in such a case. Rape and incest cases are also very rare, regardless of propaganda stating otherwise. Reason being (if I am correct. Please correct me if I’m wrong) the emotional trauma of such abuse makes the woman’s hormones go all screwy and pretty much eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant. However, it does happen. My question here is: Why does a [fetus/embryo/baby/whatever] conceived of a rape or incestuous act deserve not to live? Does that [fetus/embryo/baby/whatever] have less of a right to life than one conceived of a consensual relationship? If so, why does it have less of a right? Is it less human? I personally don’t believe that it is, so I cannot morally justify aborting it. However, as in life of the mother cases, the option should be available **without moral judgement of any kind** to those who feel it is justified. Now to the other part of the question: the legal issue. Do I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned? Absolutely. This is not something that the American federal government has any right to weigh in on. Abortion is strictly a states’-rights issue. The only possible way to make abortion a constitutional question would be in a **very** loosely interpreted “freedom of expression” issue. If Maryland decides to outlaw abortion-on-demand in Maryland, it is frankly none of the federal government’s business. Girls seeking an abortion-on-demand should then go to Connecticut to get one, if Connecticut decides to leave abortion legal. However, were I serving on a state legislature that was faced with legalizing abortion-on-demand, I would always vote no. In the cases mentioned above (life of the mother, rape, incest), abortion should be left available but only for those cases. I do not agree with those three reasons, but I cannot make the choice for a husband who must decide between his wife and his child. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/42 "2001-06-21T12:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ad Noctum \* > \*\*ABORTION IS MURDER. > \ > God have mercy on those of us who know it is evil and who say nothing. \*\* Please correct me if I’m wrong, **Ad Noctum** , but you seem to believe that Abortion is murder because of strong religious beliefs. If that assumption is true, wouldn’t you be advocating making a medical procedure illegal based your religion? I think that would violate the separation of Church and State. I don’t know what faith you belong to, it probably doesn’t matter, but I know mine _doesn’t_ require mercy from _your_ God and I will not meekly subjugate myself to beliefs of your faith. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/43 "2001-06-21T15:58:57Z")
Ok . . . so here’s where we’re at: **Ad Noctum** is not **Nocturne** , and seems to be upset about accidental comparisons. **Ad Noctum** believes abortion is murder. Period. **Ad Noctum** believes that anyone who does _not_ agree that abortion is always murder requires special mercy from God (presumably to avoid burning, although that’s not explicit). However, **Ad Noctum** believes murder is justifiable under certain circumstances. So . . . I guess the next question (which others have already asked) is this: **Ad Noctum** , is murder wrong? If so, how can it _ever_ be justified? ---
**Author:** ![TexasSpur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TexasSpur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexasSpur)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/44 "2001-06-21T16:16:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by seawitch \* > \*\ ***TexasSpur** , I’d feel a little better about your cite if it were not sponsored by Heritage House, a strongly pro-life organization. I also note that the total shows that 26.4% of women who are undergoing an abortion have had one previous abortion - is this what you mean by “half”? I see that the stats purport to come from the CDC website, but I haven’t as yet been able to locate the original version. (I was kinda wondering what happened to the missing states - the stats shown by Heritage House use 36 states only.) \*\* Actually, I think you are reading those statistics incorrectly. It shows that 46% of abortions have had previous abortions. It says that 26.4 have had ONE previous abortion. However, another 20% have had two or more previous abortions. I think disagreeing with it simply because it is sponsored by a pro-life organization is a little silly. If you do not agree with their methods in compiling the stats, that is one thing, but if you disagree with it simply because of the source that is silly. ---
**Author:** ![TexasSpur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TexasSpur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexasSpur)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/45 "2001-06-21T16:33:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by TexasSpur \* > > \*\* > > I seriously doubt that people that are having multiple abortions are using birth control correctly. Condoms and the pill are pretty effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. > > > > \*\* > > Some women cannot take the pill. It would literally be life-threatening for them to be on it. Other medications can lessen its effectiveness. It’s also costly for people without insurance (or an insurance plan which covers it). So while it might be _theoretically_ possible to make unwanted pregnancies very rare, due to the pill being excluded as a perfect birth control method for some women, in actuality that doesn’t happen. \*\* I don’t buy that at all. Are you saying that because some small percentage of women can not take the pill (cite please), that making unwanted pregnancies rare can not happen? There are dozens of other types of birth control. Many of them are very inexpensive. I think it is a lot more likely that if you have had 2 or 3 or more abortions, you are not using any of the conventional methods of birth control. ---
**Author:** ![TexasSpur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TexasSpur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexasSpur)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/46 "2001-06-21T16:52:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\*by **Texas Spur** > > > [@](#): > > > > I seriously doubt that people that are having multiple abortions are using birth control correctly. Condoms and the pill are pretty effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. > > Maybe we should try to educate people then. In most cases pro-“lifers” are the ones that are also against sex education in schools. If our country wasn’t so scared about discussing this taboo in our schools, we might see a decline in unwanted pregnancies. Then again, we’d actually have to try to educate kids about it to see if it works. > \*\* Sure, maybe we should try to educate them. Of course, maybe we should also try to educate both pro-lifers and pro-choicers about the truths about abortion instead of both sides trying to fool the American public into agreeing with their side. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/47 "2001-06-21T16:58:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by malkavia \* > \*\*This is such a silly debate anymore. > > No one ever changes their minds via an abortion debate. > \*\* Well, ok, maybe nobody ever changes their minds. But I’ve already had two myths dispelled in this thread alone. First: I’ve always considered abortion the only option when the mother’s life is in danger. I thought this one was pretty much a no-brainer, distasteful as it is. And yet, **darian00** showed me that no, it’s possible to value the baby’s life over the mother’s without exception. That was something I didn’t know. Second: I’ve always seen the pro-choice camp say, “No one just decides to have an abortion. Every woman who has an abortion thinks long and hard about what she has to do.” Then, I see **Stoid** saying > [@](#): > > … there was never a split second in which I even hesitated. So, while I haven’t changed my mind, and no, I probably never will, I don’t think these discussions are worthless. Worst case scenario, someone starts an abortion thread, and everyone else ignores it, because they’re tired of talking about it. Quix ---
**Author:** ![Ad\_Noctum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ad\_Noctum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ad_Noctum)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/48 "2001-06-21T20:42:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\* > **Ad Noctum** , is murder wrong? If so, how can it _ever_ be justified? > \*\* of course Murder is wrong. killing another human being is always wrong. manslaughter is killing, but a lesser sentance is placed on the violator. During wartime murder is justified. and to the person that asked what I think of someone where the condom breaks-- I think that the person should not be able to have an abortion because they were taking the risk of having sex, and they should have been educated that condoms DO break, and they do not have a 100% safety rate. as you’ve heard thousands of times before, the only 100% safe sex is masturbation. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/49 "2001-06-21T21:45:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TexasSpur \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by TexasSpur \* > > > \*\* > > > I seriously doubt that people that are having multiple abortions are using birth control correctly. Condoms and the pill are pretty effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. > > > > > > \*\* > > > > Some women cannot take the pill. It would literally be life-threatening for them to be on it. Other medications can lessen its effectiveness. It’s also costly for people without insurance (or an insurance plan which covers it). So while it might be _theoretically_ possible to make unwanted pregnancies very rare, due to the pill being excluded as a perfect birth control method for some women, in actuality that doesn’t happen. \*\* > > \*\* > I don’t buy that at all. Are you saying that because some small percentage of women can not take the pill (cite please), that making unwanted pregnancies rare can not happen? There are dozens of other types of birth control. Many of them are very inexpensive. I think it is a lot more likely that if you have had 2 or 3 or more abortions, you are not using any of the conventional methods of birth control. \*\* \*\* Spur is right in my opinion. The fact that the pill isn’t an option for many women (including me, too high a family history of reproductive cancer **s** for me to even consider it) doesn’t rule out using birth control. There are many methods, some very effective. Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that people have birth-control failure rates high enough to account for a significant precentage of unwanted conceptions. An article in the Portland Phoniex last year(too old for inclusion their archives, it seems, sorry) outlined 18 methods of \*\* male \*\* birth control currently being researched as well. Hopefully some of these methods will become readily availible in the near future. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/50 "2001-06-21T21:59:54Z")
Since it’s clear that Ad’s position on abortion is founded on religion (and, quite honestly, I can think of no other grounds on which to oppose abortion), I’d really like to hear the source of this belief. Or, to rephrase as a question: Ad, what specific religious edict, writing, canon, Dead Sea Scroll, or whatever, led you to believe that “abortion is murder”? ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/51 "2001-06-21T22:08:19Z")
I’ll google this myself after I’ve ingested some caffeine, but does anyone (from either side of this debate) know whether statistics are kept which include the stated reason for women seeking TOPs? I realise that stated reason may well be different from the true reason in some cases, but it seems to me all we have to work with, and it may address some of the enormous assumptions being made about the circumstances under which women seek abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/52 "2001-06-21T22:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > by **Weird Al Einstein** > > > [@](#): > > > > Keeping in mind that “murder” is a legal concept . . . cite, please? > > > > * * * > > > > I think that is a flawed argument. > > I don’t. There is a line (no matter how thin) between self defense and murder, right? (Note: I’m not saying abortion is self defense. I’m saying this to illustrate the point that murder _is_ a legal concept. > > \*\* **Dignan** you didn’t address my argument at all. I never mentioned self defense. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/53 "2001-06-22T00:24:14Z")
I guess I don’t understand how something can be wrong, always wrong, completely wrong . . . and ever be justified. Assume that murder is wrong. Is it any less wrong if it’s to save my own life? Nope. In a war? Nope. To save a mother’s life? Nope. To save a rape victim from bearing her attacker’s child? Nope. Where do you draw the line? _Why_ is murder justified during wartime, or to save your own life? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/54 "2001-06-22T00:46:11Z")
Chew on this, Ad Noctum (and others). I’m reproducing it from a previous thread. > [@](#): > > **(Me, responding to somebody who wanted a reason anyone would want an abortion outside of rape or incest…)** > > You want a reason? I’ll give you a reason. Let me tell you a story. > > My wife and I plan to have children. However, she’s currently finishing her PhD; if we were to start a family now, her degree (and career) would be back-burnered. We would rather bring a child into a family where both the mother and father have their life and career plans solidly in place, because it would be better for the kid. Therefore, for the time being, we use birth control to prevent conception. > > Now: A while back, she was in an auto wreck, and broke her back. She wasn’t paralyzed; the fracture was in the wing of the vertebra, not the main body, so the spinal cord was not in danger. However, it was extraordinarily painful, and limited her movement. She tried physical therapy, cortisone shots, and all sorts of other treatments. Finally, we had to resort to surgery. > > The surgical solution for this involves putting a titanium cage around the affected section of the spinal column to lock those vertebrae in place. (The operation is called “spinal fusion.”) First, the surgeons go into the back, removing bone fragments and such, and then screw the back half of the cage to the spine. Then they turn the body and enter through the belly, pushing all the internal organs aside to expose the spine from the front, so they can attach the other half of the cage. > > The operation lasts for many hours, and recovery is extremely painful. My wife was in a wheelchair for weeks afterward, and still now, a couple of years later, has reduced flexibility in her lower back. It is not, by any means, a minor procedure. > > Here’s the thing: About a month after the surgery, we discovered that the birth control had failed, and she was pregnant. Not only that, but she had been pregnant for between two and three months. > > That’s right – she had been pregnant during surgery. The developing fetus was bombarded with x-rays as they were planning for the spinal work. It was filled with narcotics during and after the surgery. It was physically traumatized by the entry of the surgeon’s hands into my wife’s abdomen and the shifting of her organs. > > We were heartbroken. We looked at the ultrasound that confirmed the pregnancy, and we cried and cried. Given what the fetus had been through, it would have been cruel and irresponsible to bring it to term; the odds were very high that it would be negatively affected, if it even survived. And moreover, my wife was in no physical shape to carry a child; the stress on her healing back, all the way through pregnancy and up to birth, would have been extremely dangerous. > > We decided we had no choice but to terminate the pregnancy. It was a difficult, horrible decision. It was painful and deeply depressing. I still get bummed out thinking about it; this is not easy to write. > > And if we had the opportunity to go back, knowing what we know now, knowing how emotionally devastating it was, we would make the exact same choice – because, really, there is no choice. > > You wanted a reason? **That’s** a reason. > > And the emotional trauma we suffered as a result, the pain we went through, is why I have nothing but a vehement, bitter, and angry “fuck you” response to all those people who believe they can dictate my morality and who would insert themselves into this painful, difficult, and entirely personal and private decision for their own selfish purposes. We have firsthand experience with it, we know exactly how painful it is, and we **still** support freedom of choice. > > Any more questions? Feedback is welcome. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/55 "2001-06-22T00:49:12Z")
I appreciated it the first time, I appreciate it now. Thanks, **Cervaise**. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/56 "2001-06-22T01:22:45Z")
Sigh. I did not make any form of claim that those who have had multiple abortions must be made up of those members of the population who cannot rely on oral contraception to assist in their birth control. And it’s laughable to think that just _just because I pointed out that oc is not an option for some people_, I’m excusing those people from using other birth control. Hello? THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Someone said that OC + condom offers near-perfect conception prevention. I did not challenge that, as to the best of my knowledge that’s true. I noted that some people can’t take OC. For some it’s life-threatening; for others (like women who smoke) it’s ill-advised. I don’t know what proportion of the sexually-active child-bearing-age female population smokes, but I doubt it’s in the single digits, unfortunately. What that implies, of course, is that people who can’t take OC must rely on other methods, which alone or in combination may be fairly effective, but do not achieve the “There’s no excuse for abortions” level of 0% pregnancy rate the poster suggested. That is what I said, that is all I said, and while I applaud attempts to enlarge the conversation from that point, I must ask that you don’t attribute bizarre and laughably inaccurate claims to me. I’ve got enough problems as it is; I need no one’s assitance to make me look like an idiot. I do that just fine on other threads. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/57 "2001-06-22T01:28:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max Torque \* > \*\*Since it’s clear that Ad’s position on abortion is founded on religion (and, quite honestly, I can think of no other grounds on which to oppose abortion), \*\* Actually, I know several people who are against abortion where it has nothing to do with religion. Athiest, Pagen, and others. I’m opposed to abortion, and it has nothing to do with my relious beliefs. I think taking an innocent human life is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/58 "2001-06-22T04:50:41Z")
[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html](http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html) It’s not the most glamorous webpage in the world, but it exists. For the record, I’m an agnostic who is anti-abortion. Quix ---
**Author:** ![Dignan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@Dignan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dignan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/59 "2001-06-22T06:14:56Z")
by **darian00** , > [@](#): > > How do you define life? I’m not even going to answer this. Medical professionals aren’t even positive about when life begins. > [@](#): > > Whether you view it as human or not is your own thing, but it is alive. Please do not put words into my mouth. I run into this problem more than anything in these debates. Quote me, where did I ever say that it was not human? I’ll save you some time, I didn’t. > [@](#): > > My question to you is:. When does the embryo or fetus or whatever you choose to call it become human? At the point it becomes human is when it should be given full access to its “human” rights, right? Which gives it a right to life, right? I agree with you that it is human. I never said it wasn’t, you came up with that idea. I don’t think that it’s “right to life” takes precedent over the mother’s though. > [@](#): > > I, unlike others, feel that it is human from the moment of conception. Really? I will say that the _potential_ for life begins at conception. If you think that a fertilized cell is the same as a fetus that is 30-some weeks along, I’m going out on a limb and saying that you are wrong. There is a clear difference between the two. > [@](#): > > If the mother doesn’t feel she is in that position, then granted it would be irresponsible of her to keep the baby. However, there is a perfectly viable alternative to abortion that we pro-lifers like to call adoption. Don’t fool yourself. If it’s going to be a _perfectly healthy **white** baby_, then yes, without a doubt adoption is very likely. However, for minorities, kids that aren’t going to be completely healthy, or have learning disabilities there are not as many options. The “market” for those two types of babies are very different. > [@](#): > > Yes. I have a cousin with spina bifida, hydroencephalitis, edema, asthma, and a whole slew of other problems. \Having a disability or handicap of some sort or another does not justify abortion. She is no less human than you and I for her disability. Her right to life is absolute. Don’t even start to preach to me about this. I’m sorry that your cousin has those conditions. I’m paralyzed too, and when I think about if I would be willing bring someone into this world that I knew would have a disability like that I am really torn. That’s wonderful that your aunt and uncle feel they can handle a disabled child. Once again, it’s not the same for everyone else. If a family doesn’t feel that they would be able to handle all the additional costs and work that a disabled child would require, they shouldn’t be forced to have the baby. There might be a rare case where someone would adopt a baby with severe handicaps, but it is not very likely. > [@](#): > > Life of the mother cases are very rare, though they do happen. \ I do not feel it is justified. You said it should be availible (you are _so_ kind), but you said it’s not justified? If someone decides not to risk their life by carrying a baby to term, that isn’t justified? I’m really having trouble figuring this one out, feel free to go into further detail. > [@](#): > > Abortion is strictly a states’-rights issue. If by some crazy chance this were to happen, you do realize how prejudiced this would be, right? Hypothetically say it wasn’t legal in California, but was legal in Washington. A poor woman in the ghetto in LA wouldn’t be able to go and get an abortion, but a wealthy woman from Beverly Hills would be able to fly to Washington and get one. **Texas Spur** said: > [@](#): > > maybe we should also try to educate both pro-lifers and pro-choicers about the truths about abortion instead of both sides trying to fool the American public into agreeing with their side. And what would these truths, that you seem to be privy to, be? I’d love to know. **Quixotic** , Stoid also said that she was only six or seven weeks along. I believe that brain waves aren’t even detectable before the eighth week. **Weird Al Einstein** > [@](#): > > Dignan you didn’t address my argument at all. I never mentioned self defense. You didn’t address mine either. All I was saying is that murder _is_ a legal concept. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2001, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/60 "2001-06-22T07:22:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dignan \* > \*\* > I’m not even going to answer this. Medical professionals aren’t even positive about when life begins. > > > [@](#): > > > > Whether you view it as human or not is your own thing, but it is alive. > > Really? I will say that the _potential_ for life begins at conception. \*\* \*\*Life \*\*begins at the instant of conception. It could even be argued that the egg and sperm are alive. The cells divide…only living cells do that. Non-living cells do not change and grow. And of course, they are human cells. Therefore, what really is being argued is, for lack of a better term, \* personhood \*. Technically, the question is actually, “At what point do living human cells cross over into being a \*\* person \*\*?” And I think there are lots of ways that could be answered, but that is, in fact, the question. Here’s an excellent answer, scientifically (as opposed to morally or politically) speaking: “Personhood” begins at the moment the cells are no longer undifferentiated. That comes very early, so i’t’s not much use politically, but it’s an interesting point, don’t you think? (It has been demonstrated that up to a certain point, the embryonic cells have the potential to become anything at all: brain, heart, foot, teeth. But there comes a point when that is no longer true, all the cells are fixed in what they will be. I think that is a good point of “personhood” - because the undifferentiated cells aren’t that radically different than sperm and egg: they have potential, but they could go in any direction, given time. Just an interesting note.) stoid [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519.md?page=4)