# Political Compass #21: Abortion should be illegal. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2004, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092 "2004-05-14T10:08:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/41 "2004-05-15T01:34:02Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > [Reasons](http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html). Interestingly enough, all the arguments are centered around “What is a human being”. A technically dead human being would fulfil all the criteria this paper presumes, except for cell division, which does not occur in living human beings. Logically, if there can be dead human beings, being human does not equate to alive. The arguments in the paper only argue that the foetus is a human being, not life. I also quote a refutatation of the paper. > [@](#): > > – what she is engaging in is an appeal to authority and it is a false appeal since > > Biologists and embryologists do not have a definition of life > There is no consensus among biologists on this question and only those with a particular axe to grind have the gall to make pronouncements of the type she bases her argument on. > Biologists can tell us when - approximately - a joining of haploids results in a diploid cell with unique DNA but DNA is not a human being and even at the unicellular stage the precursor of the placenta is present so her argument is based on a false premise to boot. > The ‘authority’ cited is anonymous and therefore less than useless as an authority. > Since the authority is anonymous this is difficult to prove but I strongly suspect the authority has a vested interest in the outcome if only from a self serving theological perspective. > To repeat - both the questions “When does life begin?” or, since she is smart enough to recognize that haploids are already alive she asks “When do human beings begin”, are irrelevant to the abortion debate. She is turning to ‘science’ or ‘biology’ for answers to questions that science is incapable of answering and using a bait and switch red herring argument to bolster her own particular view of humans. The only way the question should be approached, and can be approached is from medical, philosophic, and social context and in all those disciplines the only question that has any meaning is “When should we place value on developing humans?” [http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7\_R\_Eile/IrvineCrit2.htm](http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/IrvineCrit2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/42 "2004-05-15T01:59:30Z")
It appears that I have made a logical error. A bunch of arm cells and a foetus are both alive. The difference between them are (or should be) rights. I realise that the individual cells in a foetus must be alive, as they have biological function. However, I contend that they are only alive in the sense of any other cell, and not worthy of being accorded seperate rights. Please continue. ---
**Author:** ![d\_redguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@d\_redguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/d_redguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/43 "2004-05-15T01:59:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > A fetus, like your man on lifesupport, is completely dependent on the decisions of those with the responsibility for them. If a woman gets pregnant but decides, for whatever reason not to have the child, the decision is her’s because its her body. d\_redguy: -2.38, -3.23; Agree Just for the record, I heard a heartbeat in my wife’s tummy yesterday. 155 bpm. It’s not her heartbeat. The owner of said heartbeat has only been “alive” in this context for 11 weeks. I doubt said “life” is “sentient” in a capacity that would enable it to participate in this thread. But hey, it’s my kid, and I’m pretty damn impressed by that heartbeat. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![d\_redguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@d\_redguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/d_redguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/44 "2004-05-15T02:00:45Z")
And, in that context, \*\*xtisme’s quote is entirely inapplicable. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/45 "2004-05-15T02:07:55Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > A better question is: can we force other people to use their bodies to keep others alive? Should I be legally required to donate blood, tissues, and organs against my will to keep other people alive? Even if it was my own son or daughter? Donating my bodily resources may be the morally proper thing to do, but should we put people in prison for not being generous in lending their bodies to others? I think an example that is closer to the pregnant woman & fetus case is the following: What if there are two siamese twins, and they are both fully developed and functioning, except for the fact that one of them does not have a vital organ (say a liver) and would die if the two were separated. Does the fully-functional twin have the absolute right to decide the fate of his twin, even based on a whim? Because pro-choicers say (as far as I know) that it is the mother’s absolute choice and she can make it for whatever reason she wants. > [@](#): > > No, but people under general anaesthesia have a brain structure which represents a lifetime or thoughts, feelings, emotions, and interactions. This does not relate to what I was saying. I was refuting the “it doesn’t feel pain therefore it is not alive & we can destroy it” argument Also, so what? Are you now proposing a new rule for when not to kill humans: “when they have a brain structure which represents a lifetime or thoughts, feelings, emotions, and interactions” What about people with Alzheimer’s? Can we kill them then? > [@](#): > > Preventing that hypothetical future from coming into being by abortion has the same practical effect as preventing it by not having sex in the first place. This is clearly wrong. If you go to Rome and take several pictures and come back with a roll of negatives, and I take the roll of negatives and destroy it, is that the same as you not having taken the pictures in the first place? I’d say you would be pretty pissed in the former case, but not about the latter. Also, if I destroy the negatives, wouldn’t you say that I destroyed your pictures? Or, since they were not developed, they were not really pictures yet, because they only had “potential” to become pictures, so no big deal! > [@](#): > > I think it’s a pretty strong argument. If you were to look at a human embryo and a monkey embryo, could you tell the difference? What does it matter if you can’t tell the difference just looking at it? You can tell the difference in other ways. If you can’t tell the difference between real and fake diamonds or dollar bills just by looking at them, does that make them the same? > [@](#): > > Why is a human embryo sacred and a monkey embryo nonsacred? What objective distinctions can be made to value one and not the other? Why is an adult human sacred and an adult monkey nonsacred? Because, as human beings we value our own species more than other species. Some animal-rights people might object to this, but this is another discussion, and has nothing to do with abortion for humans. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/46 "2004-05-15T02:12:55Z")
> [@d\_redguy](#): > > Just for the record, I heard a heartbeat in my wife’s tummy yesterday. 155 bpm. It’s not her heartbeat. The owner of said heartbeat has only been “alive” in this context for 11 weeks. I doubt said “life” is “sentient” in a capacity that would enable it to participate in this thread. But hey, it’s my kid, and I’m pretty damn impressed by that heartbeat. Just for the record, I’ve had 4 children and buried one who died at age 9 months due to a heart defect. Neither me or my wife have ever considered abortion. However, its our PERSONAL choice. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/47 "2004-05-15T02:24:02Z")
And one last thing about “potential” Many try to discredit the “fetus has the potential to be human” by saying “so does sperm, and DNA in your leg, and …” However, there are different degrees of potential. A blank piece of paper has a much different potential to become a literary masterpiece compared to a half-finished play by Shakespeare. A bowl of flour and sugar has a much different potential to become a great tasting pie compared to a pie that has already been made and is almost finished baking. I’m not saying this proves the fetus is alive or human, I’m just trying to point out that the sperm/DNA/etc comparisons are incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/48 "2004-05-15T02:46:32Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > I also quote a refutatation of the paper. Wow…talk about your irony…your question was "Give a reason, then. Why is a foetus alive, and any other bunch of cells not? "…so you’re asking about whether an organism is alive or not…as if it’s relevant to the abortion debate…when the very source you cite says that questions about when something is alive are “irrelevant to the abortion debate”. ## IOW, you’re asking a science based question, but the source you cite says it’s the wrong question, that we should only be concerned about “When should we place value on developing humans”" Her response to the Irving piece is dubious at best… > [@](#): > > Biologists and embryologists do not have a definition of life > > There is no consensus among biologists on this question and only those with a particular axe to grind have the gall to make pronouncements of the type she bases her argument on. I’ve read plenty of biologists and embryologists who differ on the ramifications of conception (whether a z/e/f is “fully developed” enough to warrant any “rights” with respect to the “rights” of the mother) , I’ve yet to read any mainstream biologist or embryologist who does not suggest that a unique human life is created during the process of conception. Surely (since Irving provides several cites from established geneticists and embryologists) “Eileen” could provide “one” teeny weeny cite of differing opinion? She claims that Irving’s appeal to authority is based on “anonymous” authority. Did I miss the various cites at the bottom of my link? Here…I’ll help you and her out B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11. Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998). (and several more…they’re at the bottom of my linked page) I REALLY get a chuckle out of her homepage… [http://eileen.undonet.com/](http://eileen.undonet.com/) > [@](#): > > The purpose of this site is to provide information on subjects commonly discussed in the abortion debate in as **unbiased** a way possible. Of course looking at the rest of the web site…(referring to the American Life League as American Lie League etc…, for example) Ummm. Yeah. Credible source ya got there :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/49 "2004-05-15T03:33:50Z")
(+0.75, -5.00) Strongly disagree. Not much to add. ---
**Author:** ![d\_redguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@d\_redguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/d_redguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/50 "2004-05-15T06:47:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Just for the record, I’ve had 4 children and buried one who died at age 9 months due to a heart defect. Neither me or my wife have ever considered abortion. However, its our PERSONAL choice. > > -XT OK. It’s your personal choice. I think what is being debated here is whether or not it **should** be your personal choice. It could be my personal choice to shoot people in the street. Of course, I would never consider it. But it would be my PERSONAL choice. Now’s the part where you tell me I am setting up a straw man… ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/51 "2004-05-15T07:56:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Neither me or my wife have ever considered abortion. However, its our PERSONAL choice. In the old days, children did not have many rights and many parents beat the sh\*t out of their kids. Most probably, in those days, someone might have said: “I choose not to whip my kids until they bleed, but it is a PERSONAL choice for each parent to make” Today, of course, if a parent whips a child or otherwise beats them to a pulp, we as a society _do_ care and we do not think this is their PERSONAL choice, and in fact there are laws against such behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/52 "2004-05-15T09:49:25Z")
A different tack, then. Should a pregnant woman be allowed to smoke? After all, smoking and drinking are scientifically proven to harm the foetus. How about suicide? Should the woman be allowed to commit suicide? By logical extension, smoking would constitute a battery against the foetus, and suicide murder. Is this right? ---
**Author:** ![d\_redguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@d\_redguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/d_redguy)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/53 "2004-05-15T10:20:37Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > A different tack, then. Should a pregnant woman be allowed to smoke? After all, smoking and drinking are scientifically proven to harm the foetus. How about suicide? Should the woman be allowed to commit suicide? > > By logical extension, smoking would constitute a battery against the foetus, and suicide murder. Is this right? Sure, I’m all for it. Especially the suicides. I say that we punish pregnant women who commit suicide to the fullest extent of the law. Smoking and drinking? Is it illegal to provide minors with alcohol and cigarettes? Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/54 "2004-05-15T12:27:23Z")
> [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > I despise the current system in California where taxpayer money funds abortions on demand for low-income women, regardless of reason. Look it that way: As a taxpayer, you can either pay now a small amount of money for the low-income woman to have the abortion, **or** you can pay a bigger amount of money later for funding the police, because these kids usually end up as criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/55 "2004-05-15T14:45:25Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > [low-income women’s] kids usually end up as criminals. So, in order to save even more money, we should have public programs that actively encourage abortion among low-income women, in order to minimize those pesky “police expenses”. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/56 "2004-05-15T14:48:30Z")
To clarify, I _do_ grant human rights to brain damaged or comatose organisms out of enlightened self-interest: I might _become_ one of those things, and would wish every effort to be made to _return_ me to full sentience. I cannot _become_ a tadpole-like organism or indeed a separate sperm and egg, both of which have similar potential for sentience (as indeed will a cloned cell given recent advances: should throwing away dead skin cells be considered murder since they are potential human beings?) > [@](#): > > I’m not saying this proves the fetus is alive or human, I’m just trying to point out that the sperm/DNA/etc comparisons are incorrect. Incorrect how? Cloning might advance to the point where, once the procedure has begun, there is nigh _certainty_ that a human being will eventually result - the question of degree would then be irrelevant. And, as I explained in my OP, a young fertile couple is arguably _more_ certain of eventually producing a human than even, say, a _fertilised_ egg in a 50-year-old woman’s womb. Appealing to _quantitative_ differences is surely a herring as red as Chairman Mao’s curtains. ---
**Author:** ![EsotericEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e274bd/32.png) [@EsotericEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EsotericEnigma)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/57 "2004-05-15T16:25:31Z")
I wish I had time to review all the responses to this thread. I don’t, unfortunately, so I apologize in advance if I’m going over ground that has been covered since about 3/4 through the first page. I took the political compass test awhile ago and forgot exactly what i scored, but i think was near the 3, -3 range, more to the economic right and away from the authoritarian right. I believe that comparing the sentience of a fetus with that of a pig is misleading and inappropriate for this discussion, for reasons that have already been mentioned. Is it moral to kill people who are stupider than pigs? Is it moral to kill a child whose brain is damaged enough that it will never reach normal human intelligence? Obviously not, and therefore “sentience” or “intelligence” should not be used as a measure of the morality in this issue. Fetuses in some cases can be surgically removed, implanted in a woman’s uterus that is not the genetic mother, transported outside of a woman’s body, and still grow to become a child. Therefore the viability of a fetus outside of the mother’s body should not be an argument for abortion. It is not a “part of her” genetically any more than it is a “part of” the male. Pro choice defenders are in almost every case pro women’s choice, completely excluding the male who contributed half of the gentic material to the fetus, and are therefore arguably half-owners of this genetic clump of material. Would it be moral for the father (and not the mother) of this fetus to “choose” abortion? In all I think this is a sticky situation. I don’t know exactly what I feel about it, because there’s no real convincing scientific answers for questions that I have. Aborting a child the day before its due date is very clearly murder in my mind, while aborting a child the day after conception is clearly not. In between is where it starts to get fuzzy. My opinion may have something to do with the brain development of the child, and at which point the fetus has a brain capable of feeling pain. I imagine that this point is sometime after the fetus begins to _look_ like a human child though. Eww. I disagree with the statement in the political compass, mostly because I don’t believe that the government should have any authority in this matter in most cases. I do not strongly disagree, because I think that in a minority of abortion cases, the government can and should enforce abortion laws. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/58 "2004-05-15T18:43:30Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > To clarify, I _do_ grant human rights to brain damaged or comatose organisms out of enlightened self-interest: I might _become_ one of those things, and would wish every effort to be made to _return_ me to full sentience. I cannot _become_ a tadpole-like organism You do realize that this sort of reasoning can be used to justify racism and slavery. For example, if you’re caucasian, you cannot _become_ black, therefore, you don’t care about the rights of blacks. Similarly, just because you can never become a fetus is no excuse for not treating them correctly. > [@](#): > > Cloning might advance to the point where, once the procedure has begun, there is nigh _certainty_ that a human being will eventually result - the question of degree would then be irrelevant. I don’t understand why people can’t grasp that they are wrong about this. Even if every cell in my body can be turned into a human being by placing it into a cloning machine, the cell by itself is not a human being. Once placed in the cloning machine, however, and the process begins, and the first cell divisions begin, then _that_ thing is on its way to becoming a human being, and should be treated appropriately. Every piece of metal on earth can be turned into a jet engine. But, once I have taken a specific chunk of metal and actually made the jet engine, that former piece-of-metal is now a jet engine, and if you destroy it, I can accuse you of destroying my jet engine. If you take away any other piece of metal from me I have no right to claim that you took my jet engine. Similarly, even though every piece of metal can be turned into a jet engine, it does not mean that every piece of metal on earth is as precious as a jet engine. Only the pieces that have actually been turned into jet engines are as precious as jet engines. So, even though every cell in my body can be turned into a human being, only those that are actually chosen and have gone through the process are precious and have to be treated accordingly. Is it clear now? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/59 "2004-05-15T19:42:14Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, in order to save even more money, we should have public programs that actively encourage abortion among low-income women, in order to minimize those pesky “police expenses”. Actually, that idea isn’t too far out there. A study several years back postulated that crime rates were dropping because many potential criminals who were at a high risk to grow up and commit crimes had been aborted. > [@](#): > > **During the course of their research, Donohue and Levitt had almost accidentally stumbled upon the number of abortions performed in America and the fact that–in Donohue’s words–“poor, unmarried, young, low-education women tend to have more abortions. And their kids tend to have higher rates of crime.” The two researchers began crunching the numbers, and after several years they concluded, to their own surprise as much as anyone else’s, that fully half of the decrease in crime that has occurred over the past decade can be directly attributed to the fact that women in the 1970s and 1980s had ready access to abortion.** ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/60 "2004-05-15T19:44:57Z")
Cite, by the way: [http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/abramsky-s.html](http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/abramsky-s.html) > [@](#): > > “According to our estimates,” they boldly asserted, "legalized abortion is a primary explanation, accounting for at least one-half of the overall crime reduction… . _The social benefit to reduced crime as a result of abortion may be on the order of $30 billion annually."_ [emphasis mine] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092.md?page=4)