# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/81 "2001-06-24T21:10:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by darian00 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Greyson3 \* > > \*\* darian00 said: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > 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. > > > > Ooh, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to call you on that one. Cite, please? \*\* > > Here goes, from the Allen Guttmacher survey on abortions in the United States. The Allen Guttmacher Institute is a Planned Parenthood affiliate. I quote, “About 14,000 women have abortions each year because they became pregnant after rape or incest.” > It also says, “In 1996, 1.37 million abortions took place…”. > So, in 1996 14,000 out of 1.37 Million abortions took place due to rape or incest, or about 1.02%. Good enough for you, Greyson? > > \*\* Actually, although I agree with you that the percent of “hard case” abortions (rape,incest life of mother etc) is realatively small …I think Greyson may have questioned the notion that in rape…“the woman’s hormones go all screwy and pretty much eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant.”…which you really didn’t address ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/82 "2001-06-24T21:23:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DMC \* > \*\*beagledave, > > I’ll give you that Larsen and Bowes are respected members of their fields and do not on the surface appear to have a religious axe to grind. There are of course many scientists that disagree with them, and even more that have concluded that this isn’t really a scientific debate, but a philosophical one. In their estimation, “living” occurs at conception, but only in the biological sense. At what point that starting cell becomes a person, is something they leave up to philosophers to decide. > > /B] But…ironically…that is the entire point of the web site that I referenced earlier. Whether an organism is a living human IS a matter for scientific exploration. Whether an organism is a “person” is a matter for philosophical and somewhat meaningless (in my opinion, as regards to the abortion question) debate. In 1856, [slaves](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/) were not considered to have personhood and thus citizenship…so you’ll get no argument from me or the author of the web site article that “personhood” is anything less than an arbitrary, often culturally based, notion. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/83 "2001-06-24T21:41:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*But…ironically…that is the entire point of the web site that I referenced earlier. Whether an organism is a living human IS a matter for scientific exploration. Whether an organism is a “person” is a matter for philosophical and somewhat meaningless (in my opinion, as regards to the abortion question) debate. > > In 1856, [slaves](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/) were not considered to have personhood and thus citizenship…so you’ll get no argument from me or the author of the web site article that “personhood” is anything less than an arbitrary, often culturally based, notion. \*\* Actually, I would get an argument from her. She does define “personhood” as beginning at fertilization. Straight from her mouth [here](http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/whendoes.html): > [@](#): > > \*III. When does a human person begin? > > The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question–not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here,39 but “personhood” begins when the human being begins-at fertilization. But since many of the current popular “personhood” claims in bioethics are also based on mythological science, it would be useful to just look very briefly at these philosophical (or sometimes, theological) arguments simply for scientific accuracy as well. > > Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called “delayed personhood”-that is, “personhood” does not start until some point after fertilization-involves the theoretical disaster of accepting that the idea or concept of a mind/body split has any correlate or reflects the real world. Historically this problem was simply the consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment after Plato=s time (even by Plato himself in his Parmenides!), but unfortunately resurfaces from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes in his Meditations, and now again with contemporary bioethics.40 And as in the question of when a human being begins, if the science used to ground these philosophical “personhood” arguments is incorrect, the conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that incorrect science) are also incorrect and invalid. > > Myth 12: “Maybe a human being begins at fertilization, but a human person does not begin until after 14-days, when twinning cannot take place.” > > Fact 12: The particular argument in Myth 12 is also made by McCormick and Grobstein (and their numerous followers). It is based on their biological claim that the “pre-embryo” is not a developmental individual, and therefore not a person, until after 14 days when twinning can no longer take place. However, it has already been scientifically demonstrated here that there is no such thing as a “pre-embryo,” and that in fact the embryo begins as a “developmental individual” at fertilization. Furthermore, twinning can take place after 14 days. Thus simply on the level of science, the philosophical claim of “personhood” advanced by these bioethicists is invalid and indefensible.\* ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/84 "2001-06-24T22:36:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DMC \* > \*\*so you’ll get no argument from me or the author of the web site article that “personhood” is anything less than an arbitrary, often culturally based, notion. \*\* Actually, I would get an argument from her. She does define “personhood” as beginning at fertilization. Straight from her mouth [here](http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/whendoes.html): > [@](#): > > \*III. When does a human person begin? > > The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question–not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here,39 but “personhood” begins when the human being begins-at fertilization. > \*\* Good Point. My read on her article is that many people in the pro choice camp create a distinct, scientifcally based (they think) category of personhood…entirely different from the category of “human life”. She seems to be arguing that personhood is a philosophical construct…not rooted in embryology, genetics or anatomy…and so attempts to peg “personhood” at a later time than fertilization (twinning, for example) are flawed science. So if “personhood” does not scientifically occur later…than “it” occurs at fertilization (from a science point of view). Of course, philosophically…societies can and do establish “personhood” based on non-scientic criteria, hence the Dred Scott reference. I think the use of quotes around “personhood” in her piece are indicative of the weight she places on such a term…in a scientific context. I grant that it’s confusing on the one hand to say that , as she does, that “The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question”… …and then to say that ’ “personhood” begins at the same time as when a human being begins.’ ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/85 "2001-06-24T22:39:17Z")
apologies for my formatting faux paux. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/86 "2001-06-24T23:39:43Z")
I would just like to take a moment and mention that Ad does not represent all pro-lifers(myself included). It always bothers me when people just blurt out statements obviously generated chiefly by emotion. This is less a “Great Debate” and more of an argument starter. Both sides of this issue have had people start threads like this. It bothers me both ways. ---
**Author:** ![zensi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@zensi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zensi)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/87 "2001-06-24T23:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. \*\* While I am in agreement with the fact that ome women can’t take the pill, there are several different formulations of birth control pills, and in most cases, its likely that at if one type isn’t safe for someone, another type will be. The same goes for lessened effectiveness due to other medications. As for the cost to women without the right insurance: Free clinics, or clinics like Planned Parenthood, which employ a sliding-fee payment method, offer safe and affordable birth control options, as well as other services, to women and men without medical insurance. The services are even discreet and confidential at most clinics. Also, there are more birth control options available that just condoms and the Pill. If one method doesn’t work for someone, there’s bound to be another one that will. Again, I agree with you that it impossible for us to prevent all unwanted pregnancies - accidents happen, and birth control methods fail. However, I feel like the above mentioned reasons are often used as excuses for unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, when, in actuality, another method could have been employed. I’m Pro-Choice. I believe that making this decision should be left solely to the mother (and her SO, under many circumstances). Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control. That said, What the hell is your deal, Ad Noctum? Who are you to sit in the judgement of others, when you have never personally experienced anything remotely similar to what a woman goes through in this situation? Surely, you don’t think that women who are victims of Rape and end up pregnant with their attackers child should be forced to deal with the emotional distress that such a pregnancy would bring with it? Choosing abortion is not an easy decision for most women. For you to pass it off as such is not only ignorant and judgemental, it’s also inconsiderate and just plain insulting to any woman who has ever been forced to make that decision. ---
**Author:** ![TexasSpur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a6a055/32.png) [@TexasSpur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexasSpur)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/88 "2001-06-25T00:06:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zensi \* > \*\*Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control. > \*\* So how exactly would that be legislated? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zensi \* > \*\*Choosing abortion is not an easy decision for most women. For you to pass it off as such is not only ignorant and judgemental, it’s also inconsiderate and just plain insulting to any woman who has ever been forced to make that decision. > \*\* I don’t necessarily agree with Ad Noctum, but I’ll take issue with this. It may be ignorant, judgemental, inconsiderate, and rude of me, but if it really is such a hard decision for most women, why do so many women have multiple abortions? ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/89 "2001-06-25T00:33:28Z")
> [@](#): > > My point is that the US federal government has no business forcing the people of State X to keep abortion on demand legal if they don’t want it in their state. Period. What if the people of State X don’t want gays in their state? What if they want to recognize an official state religion? The Supreme Court has decided that up to a point, the Ninth Amendment protects a woman’s right to control what goes on inside her body. The Constitution does not, however, grant people the right to a society where everything they don’t approve of is prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![Greyson3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greyson3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greyson3)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/90 "2001-06-25T00:44:55Z")
> [@](#): > > I think Greyson may have questioned the notion that in rape…“the woman’s hormones go all screwy and pretty much eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant.”…which you really didn’t address True 'dat, beagledave. I couldn’t care less how many abortions are the result of rape or incest. I am rather interested in this new discovery that pregnancy from rape was “pretty much [impossible]”. I realize that this is somewhat off topic, but I like this board and would rather not see it become a breeding ground for “facts” that sound remarkably similar to the things the teacher debunked in health class. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/91 "2001-06-25T01:16:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DMC \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > \*\*In other words, “She represents a pro-life organization, and so we should ignore her pro-life arguments.” Hardly a compelling answer. > > > > This is an example of _ad hominem_ reasoning – dismissing a stand based on the person presenting it, rather than specificially answering her arguments. Surely one can do better than that. > > \*\* > > If I were trying to denounce her claims, it would be an ad hominem, but I wasn’t doing that. The issue above was “where does life begin” from a non-religious standpoint. Using a person with a religious standpoint to answer that can be challenged fairly with evidence of her religious beliefs.\*\* Not so. She has a religious background, but the arguments she presented were non-religious in nature. In other words, your statement was **distinctly** _ad hominem_ in nature. It dismissed her arguments merely because she’s religious, rather than because the arguments themselves were religious or invalid. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2001, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/92 "2001-06-25T01:22:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Cervaise_ > **I note with a mixture of satisfaction and disgust that none of the pro-lifers have made anything even vaguely resembling an attempt to comment on my very painful real-life example of why abortion must remain legal, preferring to restrict their comments to the realm of the abstract and philosophical.** **Cervaise** , I didn’t respond because I didn’t want to feel like I was marginalizing your experience by responding to it. You did say that you wanted feedback in your original post, and you reiterated that desire, so here ya go. First, I would like to say that I do feel for you and your wife. Sincerely, that’s a shitty, shitty thing to have to go through. But, at best, I see it as an argument for why abortions should be legal in cases where a fetus was “fucked up” (for lack of a better term) by invasive surgery and radiation. If you could demonstrate that a statistically large number of abortions occur for these reasons, we could talk. But I don’t see your story as a valid argument for making abortions legal for whoever wants them. I’m not sure if it applies to you in particular, **Cervaise** , but I know that **zensi** had this to say (and it’s a common stance) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by zensi_ > **Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control.** To which I reply: why the hell not? If, again quoting **zensi** > [@](#): > > **I believe that making this decision should be left solely to the mother (and her SO, under many circumstances)** then aren’t you restricting the woman’s choice to say that abortion should not be used as birth control? If one is to take **Stoid** ’s position, which if I may paraphrase, is “It’s my body, everyone else has fuck-all input,” then why not permit abortion to be used as birth control? If a woman has no problem with abortion, and you’re pro-choice, you have to respect her choices, yes? Suppose a woman, of her own free-will, takes multiple fertility drugs, gets gangbanged by 10 strapping young men, and then gets an abortion a month later. As a pro-choice advocate, don’t you have to say, “Hey, it’s your choice”? **Cervaise** , I _like_ talking in the abstract about abortion, because abortion is nasty business. Again, I am sincerely sorry for your ordeal. Quix ---
**Author:** ![darian00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@darian00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/darian00)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/93 "2001-06-26T01:06:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoboDude \* > \*\*What if the people of State X don’t want gays in their state? What if they want to recognize an official state religion? > > The Supreme Court has decided that up to a point, the Ninth Amendment protects a woman’s right to control what goes on inside her body. The Constitution does not, however, grant people the right to a society where everything they don’t approve of is prohibited. \*\* Your logic here is flawed. If the people of State X don’t want gays in their state, they’re just shit outta luck. They can thank the Civil Rights Movement for that. If they want to recognize an official state religion, they are again, shit outta luck. The Constitution expressly **forbids** establishing or recognizing a state religion. The First and Tenth Amendments did that. You are correct in stating that the Constitution does not give us a right to live in a society where what we don’t approve of is prohibited. We owe that to the First Amendment. However, the Constitution did limit the scope of the Federal government quite severely. How is abortion a Ninth Amendment issue? At what point does the Ninth Amendment no longer apply to a woman’s right to control her body? Greyson:. I apologize; I misunderstood what you were asking. Let me do some research to find your answer. However, I did say that I could be wrong and if I am I asked for someone to correct me. ---
**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 26, 2001, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/94 "2001-06-26T16:50:48Z")
The point, **quixotic** , is that every story is different. Our experience is probably unique. However, the exceptions proposed by anti-abortion legislation are almost invariably “in cases of rape or incest.” We fall into neither of those categories, and if the anti-abortion crusaders had their way, I would in all likelihood now have a wife paralyzed from the waist down, and a dead (or at best badly handicapped) baby. You’ll forgive me for not feeling a tremendous sense of warmth for this notion. That’s exactly why an honest person **must** debate abortion in the real world, and why trying to stay in the abstract is such a cowardly cop-out. It **is** a nasty business. It **is** unpleasant, and complex, and difficult. It has all sorts of messy implications and ramifications that cannot be distilled into a nice, clean, on-paper philosophical debate. Ivory-tower theorizing has its place, but when you actually try to apply your notions to the real world, you’d damn well better be prepared to dig into the ugly, complicated reality. Either that, or go find somebody else’s sand to stick your head into. ---
**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 26, 2001, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/95 "2001-06-26T16:54:10Z")
Oh, and **darian00.** if your wriggling gets any more convoluted, we could bake you and salt you and eat you at ball games. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/96 "2001-06-26T17:34:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by darian00 \* > \*\*Your logic here is flawed. If the people of State X don’t want gays in their state, they’re just shit outta luck. They can thank the Civil Rights Movement for that. > \*\* Ummm . . . no. While there may be explicit or implicit Constitutional protections keeping gays and lesbians from being declared _persona non grata_ by a state (probably Article IV, Sec. 2), there is no piece of Federal Civil Rights legislation that explicitly guarantees equal protecion on the basis of sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/97 "2001-06-27T01:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cervaise \* > **The point, quixotic, is that every story is different. Our experience is probably unique. However, the exceptions proposed by anti-abortion legislation are almost invariably “in cases of rape or incest.” We fall into neither of those categories, and if the anti-abortion crusaders had their way, I would in all likelihood now have a wife paralyzed from the waist down, and a dead (or at best badly handicapped) baby. You’ll forgive me for not feeling a tremendous sense of warmth for this notion.** Forgive me if I missed something, but you said that your wife carrying the baby to term would be “dangerous.” The third exception that is even MORE popular than the two you mentioned is “if the mother’s life is in danger.” Wouldn’t your wife be able to get an abortion for that reason? Now that I re-read what you wrote AGAIN, I’m even more confused, especially where you said that you’d “have a wife paralzyed from the waist down.” What does paralysis have to do with presence or absence of a fetus? I would think that without the _surgery_, your wife would be paralyzed. The fetus had no bearing on the surgery, as you didn’t discover it until after the fact. Could you maybe clarify? \*\* > [@](#): > > It [abortion] is unpleasant, and complex, and difficult. It has all sorts of messy implications and ramifications that cannot be distilled into a nice, clean, on-paper philosophical debate.\*\* There are very, very, very few things in society that can be “distilled” as you put it. By your logic, it seems you would agree with a person who said, “There are so many flavors of murder. Justifiable homicide, self defense, wartime criminals, etc. There is no way we could distill regulations against murder into a nice, clean, on-paper philosophical debate.” And yet, society attempts to do just that! Governments write laws forbidding murder in abstract terms, not in specific terms (although court cases do add a flavor of concreteness). Do you consider humanity’s anti-murder crusade “cowardly,” because it’s not dealing with concrete people? Quix ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/98 "2001-06-27T02:53:39Z")
> [@](#): > > How is abortion a Ninth Amendment issue?At what point does the Ninth Amendment no longer apply to a woman’s right to control her body? Look up the Supreme Court case _Roe v. Wade_ for the details. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution cannot be used to justify infringement on basic rights that aren’t listed therein(right to travel, right to privacy, etc.) ---
**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:** [June 27, 2001, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/99 "2001-06-27T03:01:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mahaloth \* > \*\*I would just like to take a moment and mention that Ad does not represent all pro-lifers(myself included). It always bothers me when people just blurt out statements obviously generated chiefly by emotion. This is less a “Great Debate” and more of an argument starter. > > Both sides of this issue have had people start threads like this. It bothers me both ways. \*\* Hello, Mahaloth. I agree with you, aside from being a rather committed pro-choice partisan. I do hate rehashing the same hash. Can you think of means and methods satisfactory to you for providing women with the necessary and sufficient sense of control over their reproductive functions to allow them to have impromptu sex if they feel like it, without fear of being trapped by pregnancy? To me, that is of sufficient importance to outweigh any considerations for embryos and fetuses, but perhaps this same necessary freedom could be obtained through means other than legal and available abortion services? Can you think of means and methods satisfactory to you for providing women with a way out in the event that they change their mind after conception? Again, to me it is imperative that they have this freedom and therefore I am pro-choice. But are there other options you can envision supporting that would allow a person to choose no longer to be pregnant as need be? Is there an alternative to abortion that would address this issue? ---
**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 27, 2001, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519/100 "2001-06-27T06:24:37Z")
**quixotic:** I’m sorry. Evidently I wasn’t clear. Let me explain further. Giving birth, you see, is hard work. The baby doesn’t just pop out after conception. The uterus swells up to accommodate the growing fetus. This puts significant strain on the spine. Then, during the actual birth, there are lots of muscles in the abdomen that spasm and contract for a period of hours, usually six to eight, sometimes shorter, sometimes much longer. This is difficult and painful under the best of circumstances. When you have fresh surgery on the spine, all of this muscular activity pulls on the bones and tendons and creates an enormous risk of pulling apart the healing bones. Now, inside the spine is the spinal cord. If the spinal cord gets damaged, partial or complete paralysis usually results. A broken vertebra being yanked on by spasming, contracting birth muscles is a bad, bad thing. Let me know if you need further details. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-one-and-only-thread-about-abortion/69519.md?page=6)