# Novel Pro-Choice Argument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490 "2013-10-28T21:47:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/21 "2013-10-29T15:36:26Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This side steps the whole metaphysical “life begins at conception” business There’s nothing metaphysical about this: a fertilized egg is a living thing. The problem with the ‘life begins at conception’ argument is that lots of other things are alive whose lives we don’t give a shit about preserving. (Excuse me while I swat that mosquito.) So ‘X is alive’ doesn’t by itself imply that ‘X should be protected by law.’ The pro-lifers have at least gotten in the right ballpark by discussing ‘personhood’ in the past few years. The problem this time is that they _flatly assume_ that the fertilized egg has this property. In the absence of any evidence or coherent argument in support of that assumption, that amounts to nothing more or less than an attempt to inflict a religious belief on the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/22 "2013-10-29T19:00:58Z")
Life is a minestrone. Death is a cold lasagna, suspended in deep freeze. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/23 "2013-10-29T19:36:28Z")
The problem with your argument is that unless the sex was forced against the will of the mother, it would be like stating that move in and you get 9 mouths here. By having sex willingly you are welcoming this possibility under your guidelines, and thus you are also negating the right to choose for the woman. Using your reasoning you have stated because you have had sex you now must bear this child without your input. Seems misogynistic to me. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/24 "2013-10-29T21:28:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It doesn’t strike me as implicit. If one isn’t required to donate the use of a kidney, why is one required to donate use of a uterus? Because (and again, we are going off of the idea that a fetus is a person, just like you or I) it seems absurd to have such complex and far reaching laws requiring parents to care for children in most other circumstances. If I get drunk and pass out for hours while my 3 year old is in the house, I could go to jail. Nothing happened, but just from my actions we will punish that. But then we would legalize killing a 3 month old fetus because of an argument that the child is inside a womb (which is, as well all know, where we all were as a 3 month old fetus) has ZERO protection? It’s not like giving a kidney or rushing into a burning building which has immediate and severe consequences. If we assume a healthy woman, the risk to her is minimal. If we balance the risk between both humans, one with a special duty to the other, it would be an absurdity to say that a 9 month stay in the caregivers womb is so intrusive as to justify killing the dependent party. [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I don’t know about crumbles (or “pro-abortion”) - it’s just a matter of labeling. Calling a fetus a person doesn’t change it’s nature. We could expand the definition of murder to include swatting flies if we wanted and nothing would change, except that we gain a self-defined justification to severely punish the swatting of flies, such justification to evaporate the moment we change our definitions to something else. [/quote] That’s a lot of hand waiving that is fighting the hypothetical. It would be like saying that there is no right to anything because we could just change the definition. It’s literally true, but really doesn’t state much. [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] If you have to create an extreme and unlikely circumstance, I’m less than convinced. [/QUOTE] It is just a realization that in modern society, bodily integrity is rarely compromised. To test the hypothetical, you must find situations where it would apply. Mine was a bit extreme, but imagine something not so crazy: A couple with a newborn is stranded after their car breaks down on a road outside of cell phone range—or otherwise make up a hypo where mother of young infant is away from access to formula. I don’t think that any police department would have trouble charging her if she shows up in civilization with a dead baby and a smug declaration that she didn’t have to use “her body” to nourish the child. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/25 "2013-10-29T21:54:00Z")
Nm 4 4 4 4 4 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/26 "2013-10-29T23:29:58Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > There’s nothing metaphysical about this: a fertilized egg is a living thing. And an unfertilized egg is not living? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/27 "2013-10-29T23:41:26Z")
I’m not pro-choice, I’m pro-abortion, but that’s a terrible argument. ---
**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:** [October 30, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/28 "2013-10-30T00:06:19Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s not like giving a kidney or rushing into a burning building which has immediate and severe consequences. If we assume a healthy woman, the risk to her is minimal. If we balance the risk between both humans, one with a special duty to the other, it would be an absurdity to say that a 9 month stay in the caregivers womb is so intrusive as to justify killing the dependent party. Well, pregnancy _is_ an intrusive, risky proposition for the mother, with implications that can go far beyond just her immediate physical discomfort. I’m not eager to shrug it off. > [@](#): > > That’s a lot of hand waiving that is fighting the hypothetical. It would be like saying that there is no right to anything because we could just change the definition. It’s literally true, but really doesn’t state much. Well, tell you what, propose a narrowly-construed law that requires breastfeeding in castaway or similar desperate-survival situations and see where that takes you. It is of no relevance to conventional everyday situations. And redefinitions don’t cause crumbling. If one build a sturdy brick wall, it doesn’t “crumble” because we redefine the word “wall” to mean something else. > [@](#): > > It is just a realization that in modern society, bodily integrity is rarely compromised. To test the hypothetical, you must find situations where it would apply. Mine was a bit extreme, but imagine something not so crazy: A couple with a newborn is stranded after their car breaks down on a road outside of cell phone range—or otherwise make up a hypo where mother of young infant is away from access to formula. I don’t think that any police department would have trouble charging her if she shows up in civilization with a dead baby and a smug declaration that she didn’t have to use “her body” to nourish the child. I don’t know of a case where this actually happened (or why her smugness is relevant) but if you do, feel free to share. I think it would be interesting to find out if there are actual laws about nursing. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/29 "2013-10-30T00:18:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t know of a case where this actually happened (or why her smugness is relevant) but if you do, feel free to share. I think it would be interesting to find out if there are actual laws about nursing. Why would there need to be specific laws? There is a requirement that parents care for their children. Part of that is feeding the children. If all I have in the house to feed my child is Cheerios, I can’t refuse to feed my child Cheerios because they’re not organic or whatever: I am required to feed the child I have available to feed to the child. Unless the law specifically exempts breast milk from that requirement, I think the more general law that requires feeding your child applies. ---
**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:** [October 30, 2013, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/30 "2013-10-30T00:52:14Z")
Certainly there are laws establishing the duty for care, protection, sustenance, etc. I’m not aware that breast-feeding is explicitly or implicitly included in any of them, nor any legal barriers to a woman seeking alternatives if for whatever reason she doesn’t want to breast-feed. Using desperate-survival situations seems to me a bad way to formulate law or reasonable arguments, though. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/31 "2013-10-30T01:09:12Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I hate to rehash this old perennial topic, but I think I might have a new argument for the pro-choice side, and one that might be a little more persuasive to libertarian-ish conservatives. If anything, I haven’t seen this approach argued by anyone before. Please shoot as many holes in it as you can. Libertarian thought: yes, you can kick out a homeless adult (that is, a person who is responsible for himself) you took into your house. If you adopt an infant, you cannot kick the infant out. End of argument. Libertarian-style relationships apply to adults. Adult-child relationships are different. Especially adult-her child. ---
**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:** [October 30, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/32 "2013-10-30T01:44:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Libertarian thought: yes, you can kick out a homeless adult (that is, a person who is responsible for himself) you took into your house. If you adopt an infant, you cannot kick the infant out. End of argument. Not entirely, you _can_ take steps to legally terminate your parental obligations. That a fetus can’t be “adopted” or turned over to the custodial care of someone else is just bad luck for the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/33 "2013-10-30T03:06:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not entirely, you _can_ take steps to legally terminate your parental obligations. Only if someone else takes them over. ---
**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:** [October 30, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/34 "2013-10-30T03:09:40Z")
Sure, though it need not be a specific person, or a person at all. A fetus is still screwed, though, unless something crazy happens like it gets “person” status, in which case the mother is screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/35 "2013-10-30T03:25:44Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I hate to rehash this old perennial topic, but I think I might have a new argument for the pro-choice side Its not a new argument and generally works better for cases of rape than it does otherwise. > [@kanicbird](#): > > The problem with your argument is that unless the sex was forced against the will of the mother, it would be like stating that move in and you get 9 mouths here. By having sex willingly you are welcoming this possibility under your guidelines, and thus you are also negating the right to choose for the woman. > > Using your reasoning you have stated because you have had sex you now must bear this child without your input. Seems misogynistic to me. His argument is intended to negate the right to elective abortions except in cases of rape. Is there any way we could ban abortion without you thinking it was misogynistic? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not entirely, you _can_ take steps to legally terminate your parental obligations. > > That a fetus can’t be “adopted” or turned over to the custodial care of someone else is just bad luck for the fetus. You can’t always take steps to terminate your parental obligations if there is noone who can take custody. ---
**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:** [October 30, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/36 "2013-10-30T04:33:37Z")
Are we back on the island again? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/37 "2013-10-31T19:13:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Are we back on the island again? yes. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/38 "2013-10-31T20:10:07Z")
I think you’ve demonstrated that a fetus is a trespasser and eligible for killing, at least at night-time in Texas. Problem is: _Fetus has the right to stand its ground_, at least in some states. Since few fetuses are competent to handle a weapon, I’m afraid the pro-gun anti-woman libertarians will trump your _Kill a Trespasser in Texas_ argument by extending _Stand your Ground_ to _Helping a Helpless Trespasser Stand its Ground_. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/39 "2013-10-31T21:49:28Z")
Though a Libertarian might argue that you can evict an adult trespasser from your home, I don’t think they would agree you get to dismember him first. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490/40 "2013-11-01T13:25:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Using desperate-survival situations seems to me a bad way to formulate law or reasonable arguments, though. Not at all because keeping a fetus inside the mother’s womb is a “desperate survival situation” if we assume the fetus is a person. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/novel-pro-choice-argument/672490.md?page=3)