# Okay, Fine, Abortion Again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2016, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635 "2016-03-11T07:59:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/121 "2016-03-12T16:14:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I also find it troubling. But I can’t think of a logical argument that says a two month old fetus isn’t alive but a seven month old fetus is. Bricker and other lawyers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe life is legally regarded as a binary state. You’re either alive or you’re not alive - you can’t be somewhere on a scale in between. > > I’m aware that some people hold to a viability standard; that a fetus should be considered alive when it could live outside the womb. But fetal viability in cases of premature births generally relies on artificial life support. And if you argue the standard for viability includes life that is sustained by means of technology until it develops the means to sustain itself, then how would you argue that a frozen sperm sample is alive - with the proper technology those sperm cells will go on to become a human being. There is no easy answer, but I think it’s helpful to have a position that avoids both extremes, i.e., disallow abortions after XX number of weeks. It is admittedly not a “pure” position, but as I’v said, I think this is a moral issue and good people can disagree on when “life” begins. So eliminate late term abortions and allow abortions in cases of rape or incest and I think you arrive at a position that satisfies the greatest number of people. And once those two extremes are off the table, then maybe everyone can spend their energies on things that would reduce the greatest number of abortions. Because even the Pro-Choice side is not ‘pro abortion’. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/122 "2016-03-12T16:28:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m similarly troubled by late-term abortions. But my troubles don’t matter – what matters is how a woman feels about who/what is inside her body. I trust women to make these decisions rather than government. See, I can’t quite agree with that. How someone feels is not what decides what is right and wrong. And I do expect the government to prevent gross wrongs. The issue is whether or not I consider late-term abortions to be a gross wrong. I’m not sure, so, for now, I go with the less restrictive option, where the line is drawn at birth. At that point, there is no longer any claim by the mother that her body is being controlled. But I could be convinced that she should have to deliver the baby post viability–especially if we ever figure out a pain- and complication-free child birthing process. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/123 "2016-03-12T16:39:28Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Unbaptised babies don’t get to go to heaven, or so I’ve been told. Unborn babies have not been baptised. Sinful-but-churchgoing mommies have presumably been baptised and if they are properly repentant & all, will. Hence in a difficult pregnancy you save the baby at the cost of the mother’s life because she’ll go to heaven but if the baby died it would go to limbo. So by extension I guess abortion bothers them a lot because the unborn child hasn’t been baptised. That is not my understanding. First off, not all Christians believe in infant baptism at all, nor do they all believe that the physical baptism is required. But, limiting it to those who do, it is stated in the Bible that the baptism of the mother is enough for the child until the child is old enough to make their own decision. ([I Corinthians 7:14](http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Cor%207.14)) Granted, they do baptize the infants anyways, but I take it to be done as an additional precaution. And also because there spiritual benefits to baptism besides being “made holy” (at least, in for Catholics–the most common infant baptizers). I do note that nearly all the pro-lifers I know are Protestant, and most Protestants do not believe in infant baptism at all. I’ve been taught all my life that all children go to heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/124 "2016-03-12T16:46:19Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I don’t agree with this AT ALL. From everything I’ve heard from the ‘pro-life’ crowd, and all of their actions and proposed laws, in their deepest moral hearts they believe that women seeking abortions are sluts who should be punished for having sex, and the baby is the instrument of that punishment. This is demonstrably untrue. I just posted to this very thread confirming that my acceptance of rape/incest exceptions is a practical one: that rape and incest together amount to less than 1% of all abortions and if I can stop 99% by agreeing to the exception, or stop 0% by insisting on no exceptions, the path is obvious. So you cannot say “everything” you have heard from pro-lifers suggests a desire to punish, with the evidence being the acceptance of rape/incest exceptions. You’ve clearly heard at least one alternate voice. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/125 "2016-03-12T16:52:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For myself, the answer is practicality. Abortions for cases of rape or incest are together less than one percent of all abortions. I would certainly prefer to save the vast majority of unborn lives and concede the ground on rape or incest as a matter of practical compromise. The problem with that type of argument is that, if it’s as immoral as you say, how can you compromise at all? Are not those 1% of babies being murdered worth as much as the 99% who would not be murdered? The other issue is that, if practicality is the reason you mention it, then why isn’t that pushed in pro-life circles? Why do they let people believe that they are not compromising? When I was pro-life, I was never taught that rape and incest exceptions were wrong. It also doesn’t seem like a compromise at all. It’s not as if any pro-choicers are willing to concede to that level. A compromise is something you think your opposition might be willing to do. A compromise would be like limiting abortions only after viability or only after brain wave activity. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/126 "2016-03-12T17:08:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The problem with that type of argument is that, if it’s as immoral as you say, how can you compromise at all? Are not those 1% of babies being murdered worth as much as the 99% who would not be murdered? Yes. But I don’t have an option that saves 100%. In the movie, “Sophie’s Choice,” Meryl Streep plays a woman haunted by the choice forced on her by a Nazi officer: he told her to pick which child would be taken away to be killed. She protests that she cannot possibly choose one of her children over another, and he responds that if she fails to choose, both will be taken. Do you understand? > [@](#): > > The other issue is that, if practicality is the reason you mention it, then why isn’t that pushed in pro-life circles? Why do they let people believe that they are not compromising? When I was pro-life, I was never taught that rape and incest exceptions were wrong. I have no idea what you were taught and what the underlying moral framework was. Further, given the … insights you have shared on this board, I have no particular confidence you correctly recall or understood anything you were taught. > [@](#): > > It also doesn’t seem like a compromise at all. It’s not as if any pro-choicers are willing to concede to that level. A compromise is something you think your opposition might be willing to do. A compromise would be like limiting abortions only after viability or only after brain wave activity. There is vastly more support among the public for abortion restrictions that include rape/incest exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/127 "2016-03-12T17:34:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There is no easy answer, but I think it’s helpful to have a position that avoids both extremes, i.e., disallow abortions after XX number of weeks. It is admittedly not a “pure” position, but as I’v said, I think this is a moral issue and good people can disagree on when “life” begins. So eliminate late term abortions and allow abortions in cases of rape or incest and I think you arrive at a position that satisfies the greatest number of people. And once those two extremes are off the table, then maybe everyone can spend their energies on things that would reduce the greatest number of abortions. Because even the Pro-Choice side is not ‘pro abortion’. My problem with this argument is that if I can’t even claim I’m certain about my position, how can I argue my position should be imposed on other people? You and I may think there’s some moral difference between an early-term abortion and a late-term abortion but somebody else may think they’re morally equivalent. Should we be allowed to impose out moral view on them? Should they be allowed to impose their moral view on us? I think the only time society can impose a moral standard is when that moral standard represents a broad consensus. Only then can we argue that the people who don’t agree with the moral standard are wrong and should be compelled to follow it regardless of their opposition. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/128 "2016-03-12T17:48:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My problem with this argument is that if I can’t even claim I’m certain about my position, how can I argue my position should be imposed on other people? You and I may think there’s some moral difference between an early-term abortion and a late-term abortion but somebody else may think they’re morally equivalent. Should we be allowed to impose out moral view on them? Should they be allowed to impose their moral view on us? > > I think the only time society can impose a moral standard is when that moral standard represents a broad consensus. Only then can we argue that the people who don’t agree with the moral standard are wrong and should be compelled to follow it regardless of their opposition. Do you think there is NOT a broad consensus to outlaw abortion after viability (except when there is threat to the life or health of the mother)? ---
**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:** [March 12, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/129 "2016-03-12T17:59:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you think there is NOT a broad consensus to outlaw abortion after viability (except when there is threat to the life or health of the mother)? There is, or was, a broad consensus that that’s a reasonable compromise. It does not represent my opinion. I’d use birth as the dividing line. (If medical science can keep the aborted late-season baby alive, and society as a whole opts to invest the resources to do so, do so, but the woman should, in my opinion, have the right to cease being pregnant even after viability). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/130 "2016-03-12T18:31:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My problem with this argument is that if I can’t even claim I’m certain about my position, how can I argue my position should be imposed on other people? You and I may think there’s some moral difference between an early-term abortion and a late-term abortion but somebody else may think they’re morally equivalent. Should we be allowed to impose out moral view on them? Should they be allowed to impose their moral view on us? > > I think the only time society can impose a moral standard is when that moral standard represents a broad consensus. Only then can we argue that the people who don’t agree with the moral standard are wrong and should be compelled to follow it regardless of their opposition. Um, I don’t think we disagree. I’m selecting the choice that I think has the largest moral consensus. Do you know that to not be the case? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/131 "2016-03-12T18:34:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There is no easy answer, but I think it’s helpful to have a position that avoids both extremes, i.e., disallow abortions after XX number of weeks. It is admittedly not a “pure” position, but as I’v said, I think this is a moral issue and good people can disagree on when “life” begins. So eliminate late term abortions and allow abortions in cases of rape or incest and I think you arrive at a position that satisfies the greatest number of people. And once those two extremes are off the table, then maybe everyone can spend their energies on things that would reduce the greatest number of abortions. Because even the Pro-Choice side is not ‘pro abortion’. If you allow abortion before XX number weeks (assume XX is at least a 2 digit number), why do you need exceptions for rape and incest? Those are needed when XX = 0. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/132 "2016-03-12T19:09:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you cannot say “everything” you have heard from pro-lifers suggests a desire to punish, with the evidence being the acceptance of rape/incest exceptions. You’ve clearly heard at least one alternate voice. You’ve expressed a desire to punish a woman who lets herself get raped by forcing her to carry the baby to term, reducing her to just a human incubator, and draining her finances to benefit the rapist. That’s some horror-movie level punishment right there, so your alternate voice is actually worse than typical, though it doesn’t fit the model I described. It also doesn’t explain why ‘pro-life’ circles routinely speak of ‘except in the case of rape or incest’ with no reservations. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/133 "2016-03-12T20:00:29Z")
I hope we all agree that NOBODY should have the right to use anybody’s body without their permission. If we give that right to a fetus, who’s next. The rape who says “I thought she meant yes, even though she said no”? The stalker who says “I can make her love me if we have sex?” Who else? Personally, I think all abortions should be done by inducing labor. If the fetus survives outside the woman’s body without any artificial means, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/134 "2016-03-12T21:06:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you allow abortion before XX number weeks (assume XX is at least a 2 digit number), why do you need exceptions for rape and incest? Those are needed when XX = 0. Correct, you don’t. Perhaps I was unclear in what I was trying to say. I was trying to eliminate what I consider to be ridiculously extreme positions from either side. From the Pro-Choice crowd: allowance of abortion up to Birth minus one minute From the Pro-Life crowd: a prohibition against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest. Clearer? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/135 "2016-03-12T22:46:58Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > I mostly ignore comments about “when life begins” and “are fetuses persons” because I think the human rights violation of forcing a woman to become an incubator FAR override any of these concerns. As I tried to explain before, EVEN IF a fetus is fully aware and a person (which it is not), a woman has every right to kill it in order to avoid being forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth. > > I also think most anti-abortionists (I refuse to call them pro-life) aren’t actually against abortion. They are trying to force women into de facto slavery. For example, explain why so many anti-abortionists allow for abortions in cases of rape? spamforbrains… We take a dim view of painting one’s debate opponents with such a broad brush here on the SDMB. It is not a good idea to get into argument with another then make some sweeping generalization that paints your opponent as some sort of monster. I’m not warning you for it this time, you’re new here. But we have higher standards than that. Please don’t do so again. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/136 "2016-03-12T22:48:20Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I don’t agree with this AT ALL. From everything I’ve heard from the ‘pro-life’ crowd, and all of their actions and proposed laws, in their deepest moral hearts they believe that women seeking abortions are sluts who should be punished for having sex, and the baby is the instrument of that punishment. While there is a certain amount of ‘well, if she got raped she must have been dressed like a slut’, they’re more willing to forgive a woman for being raped than for being a slut, so don’t think she needs the punishment. > > If you really believe the fetus is a person, you shouldn’t support giving it the death penalty for the crimes its father committed, period. Pantastic… My post above to spamforbrains applies to your posts in this thread, too. Again, I’m not warning you for it this time, you’re new here. But we have higher standards than that. Please don’t do so again. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/137 "2016-03-12T22:49:43Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > . . . Personally, I think all abortions should be done by inducing labor. If the fetus survives outside the woman’s body without any artificial means, so be it. That won’t work for very early term abortions. There isn’t enough material in the uterus to support labor. The patient might undergo labor-like symptoms, and still not eject the (very early) placenta. It’s like using a sledgehammer to treat a migraine. It’s a crude and inappropriate tool. ---
**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:** [March 12, 2016, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/138 "2016-03-12T22:52:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I was trying to eliminate what I consider to be ridiculously extreme positions from either side. > > From the Pro-Choice crowd: allowance of abortion up to Birth minus one minute > > From the Pro-Life crowd: a prohibition against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest. > > Clearer? I’m OK with _Roe v Wade_ as a compromise, as long as every county in the country has available services: no 1st trimester restrictions, no 3rd trimester abortions except to save the mom’s life or prevent major physical damage to her health, split the difference for 2nd trimester. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/139 "2016-03-13T01:38:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The trouble with this argument is that it assumes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Personally, I don’t believe that it attains personhood until later in development. If I lay a brick on the ground and then smash it, I’m not destroying a house. A mass of cells the size of a slug is not in my view a person though it has the potential to develop into one. Since we will never agree on when the fetus becomes a person with rights, there is no way for us to agree on abortion. Bad analogy, babies aren’t made like houses. The most common way to show that a person is alive is the heartbeat. Well the baby has a heartbeat before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. Let alone when she’s decided to abort it. Yes it’s growing but it’s certainly a fully separate living human regardless of the size it has grown to. What exactly is the difference between a baby at 4 weeks growing than a baby who’s already been born? Both are helpless and easy to kill, both have been started on a path destined for adulthood unless something stops them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635/140 "2016-03-13T01:44:14Z")
**Trinopus** : Can you clarify what you want to debate here? I just re-read the OP, and I can’t tell for certain. Surely you’re not proposing an open ended debate on whether abortion should be legal or not, right? Because I see a lot of people trying to take this thread in that direction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-fine-abortion-again/748635.md?page=8)