# 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:** 5
**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 17, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/81 "2004-05-17T01:42:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Ok, so we are debating if abortion should be legal or not. However, it breaks down to your personal vision/conviction (i.e. that abortion is ‘murder’) and mine, that it isn’t. We can both yammer on for page after page, but in the end you will remain convinced that a fetus is a thinking human being with a right to life, and I won’t be disputing this or agreeing with it as for me its irrelevant…because a fetus is part of a womans body until birth separates them into to distinct entities (and there after society has some say in the matter). Until that separation the fetus is part of the womans body and therefore subject to her decisions. Any other take on this makes a woman a virtual slave to whats growing inside of her. > > If we ever get to the point that babies can be grown without a female host you might have a better point in my eyes. Until that time, whats happening INSIDE your body is your business and not societies. > > -XT Wha? How can it be irrelevant whether or not a fetus is a thinking human being or not? I don’t get it. To test my understanding of your argument, **location** is what distinguishes what it right and what it wrong? Inside tummy = not human; outside tummy = human? Because that is what “society” (7 men) decided? Or is your “right” to control what happens inside your body is more important than the rights of the human inside your body? The distinction **is** important, and needs to be clarified. Of course, you could just go back to the whole, “nobody can convince anybody, because everybody’s mind is made up” argument if you’d like. It’s quite compelling. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/82 "2004-05-17T10:39:42Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Racism and slavery engender the suffering of sentient beings and I _can_ become subject to racism and slavery. Foetuses are no more sentient beings than plants, sperm or ova. I cannot become a separate sperm and egg: should they be “treated correctly”? Your old-fashoined choice of “conception” as the point at which to grant human rights is just as **arbitrary** as any other. > [@](#): > > the cell by itself is not a human being. Neither is a foetus: It is a _potential_ human being, like the cell. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why people can’t grasp that they are wrong about this…Is it clear now? Perhaps because they are _not_ wrong, and that the choice of conception as the threshold is overly simplistic and essentially a superstitious argument which the civilised world, rightly, left behind decades ago? You have tested my definitions and arbitrary thresholds and personally found them wanting, but that is the point of these threads and so thank you I would be surprised if many of the audience had found _your_ definitions and thresholds particularly convincing: perhaps you could talk us through precisely what happens after the sperm comes into contact with the outer membrane and four stages of mitosis and meosis occur and explain your “right…NOW!” point wherein beforehand we have a non-human-being and afterwards we have a human being? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/83 "2004-05-17T10:41:10Z")
Sorry: “that is the point of these threads and so thank you for your cooperation. I would be surprised…” ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/84 "2004-05-17T12:22:06Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Racism and slavery engender the suffering of sentient beings and I _can_ become subject to racism and slavery. What I was referring to was, if you are a white person in the American South during slavery, there is no way you could fathom that some day blacks could become slaveowners and whites could become slaves. So, using your “I can’t become _that_, therefore I don’t care about it” rule, you should not care about black slaves, since in your mind there is no way you could end up a slave. Also, in general, even if we forget the slave exampe, it is an unsound rule. You cannot become 2 years old again, so you don’t care if we kill 2-year-olds? > [@](#): > > Foetuses are no more sentient beings than plants, sperm or ova. You state that as if it is scientific fact. If you have a cite, please provide it. > [@](#): > > I cannot become a separate sperm and egg: should they be “treated correctly”? Your old-fashoined choice of “conception” as the point at which to grant human rights is just as **arbitrary** as any other. > …perhaps you could talk us through precisely what happens after the sperm comes into contact with the outer membrane and four stages of mitosis and meosis occur and explain your “right…NOW!” point wherein beforehand we have a non-human-being and afterwards we have a human being? Actually, I did not claim that conception is where we grant human rights. I was just saying that a fetus is very different from a separate sperm and egg. There is a type of glue that you can buy that has two tubes of chemicals side-by-side. Each material is not a glue, but when you squeze the tubes, the chemicals mix and become glue and harden very quickly. So, my analogy is - egg & sperm == two chemicals - fetus == glue You cannot say that the two chemicals by themselves have the same value as glue as the mixture of the two chemicals. I don’t know _exactly_ when the mixture of the two chemicals starts to behave like glue and I don’t have to give you a step-by-step description of the chemical reaction that turns the mixture of the two chemicals into glue. The same with the egg & sperm and the fetus. > [@](#): > > choice of conception as the threshold is overly simplistic and essentially a _superstitious_ argument Why on earth is it superstitious? It may be wrong, but on what grounds is it superstitious? I did not invoke any gods, souls, or spirits in my arguments. Where is the superstition? Do you know what superstitious means? Or do you like to just throw “heavy” words around? (Besides that fact that I did not actually propose conception as the threshold) > [@](#): > > You have tested my definitions and arbitrary thresholds and personally found them wanting Actually, I don’t know what your thresholds are. Since a human being does not begin at conception, in your view, when does it begin? At the moment of birth, or before? What I have found wanting are your two arguments 1. I can’t become a fetus, so I don’t care how we treat it 2. A cell/egg/sperm has the same potential to become human as a fetus does. I don’t think people have to agree on the abortion issue to agree that these two positions are: For argument (1) : odious and illogical (I can’t turn into a 2-year old so who cares about them?) For argument (2) : illogical (does flour and water have the same potential to become cake as a half-baked cake in the oven?) > [@](#): > > I would be surprised if many of the audience had found _your_ definitions and thresholds particularly convincing: Actually, as has been pointed out many times, these discussions don’t convince anyone, so it doens’t matter how many people found my arguments convicing. The point, for me, is to learn how “the other side” thinks, to see if I can at least say, well, I don’t agree with that because of personal preferences, but at least it is logically consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/85 "2004-05-17T12:34:07Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > it doesn’t matter how many people found my arguments convicing Actually, it might be neat to have an amazon.com-like button, where, for each review they have: _Was this review helpful to you? [yes] [no]_ and each review has something like _30 of 33 people found the following review helpful_ So, the SDMB might have something analogous. Not important really, but if the capability was there, it would be cool. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/86 "2004-05-17T12:40:21Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’ll call myself a Pro-Abortionist the day you call yourself Anti-Choice. :rolleyes: If you reread the thread again you’d undoubtedly notice that I already stated my position as for free abortion and I don’t believe in sugar coating my world with pretty euphemisms. Pro-abortion is what I am since that is what the outcome of my decision entails. > [@Blalron](#): > > As far as I’m concerned you can do whatever you want with the fetus as long as it doesn’t raise public health issues. If you want to bury it, or use it in cosmetics, or make soap, or keep it in a Formaldahyde Jar in your living room as a conversation piece that’s fine with me. Well at least you’re consistent. Even being pro-abortion I would never go that far. But then I can’t boast of being consistent. In fact I believe inconsistency is an important trait of every well-balanced human being. How about you **SentientMeat**? Use the foetuses (I’m going to use the correct British/non-American anal retentive spelling since that’s what my anal retentive English teacher beat into me) for cosmetics? Are you cool about it? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/87 "2004-05-17T13:40:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, in general, even if we forget the slave exampe, it is an unsound rule. You cannot become 2 years old again, so you don’t care if we kill 2-year-olds? I did not say it was a rule _in toto_: I seek to minimise the suffering of sentient beings, and recognise that 2 year-olds display many indicators associated with sentience, such as recognising themselves in the mirror. (Again I am not saying “killing beings who can’t recognise themselves in the mirror should be legal”. I am advocating certain criteria for sentience and recognising that one might temporarily fail those criteria, citing enlightened self-interest and collective suffering due solely to mortality-awareness as reasons for granting human rights _past_ the arbitary date of 18 weeks, though even this date errs vastly on the side of caution in this regard). > [@](#): > > You state that as if it is scientific fact. If you have a cite, please provide it. Foetuses fail criteria such as an ability to recognise themselves, which is why I define them as non-sentient. What is _your_ definition? > [@](#): > > Actually, I did not claim that conception is where we grant human rights. Where _is_? > [@](#): > > You cannot say that the two chemicals by themselves have the same value as glue as the mixture of the two chemicals. I can consider such distinctions irrelevant for the matter at hand, in the same way that there is a difference between “fresh” glue and “set” glue > [@](#): > > I don’t have to give you a step-by-step description of the chemical reaction that turns the mixture of the two chemicals into glue. You do if you wish to propose a reasonable principle by which we can call one thing “chemicals” and the other “glue” given that others consider it far more important whether or not the glue is “set”. > [@](#): > > Why on earth is it superstitious? I cannot conceive (no pun intended) of any other reason for arbitrarily choosing this hazy concept (sorry!) called “conception” other than some odd appeal to a ‘soul’ or the like. Please enlighten me. > [@](#): > > a human being does not begin at conception, in your view, when does it begin? Whenever sentience, as fulfilled by certain criteria such as self-recognition, begins. I **arbitrarily** err absurdly on the side of caution and say 18 weeks to the day of conception: such is the basis of any legal system. > [@](#): > > 1. I can’t become a fetus, so I don’t care how we treat it And yet to appear to allow any treatment, no matter how sadistic, of _animals_ since they are not human either. I offer that _neither_ are human. > [@](#): > > 1. A cell/egg/sperm has the same potential to become human as a fetus does. In fact, a foetus in an unhealthy older woman’s womb might have _less_ potential to become human than an ova surrounded by sperm in a healthy young woman’s womb. This appeal to the exact _probabilities_ of a non-human becoming a human is a far inferior principle, I feel. [quote[Actually, as has been pointed out many times, these discussions don’t convince anyone[/quote] I think you might be surprised! **Rune** : > [@](#): > > How about you **SentientMeat**? Use the foetuses for cosmetics? Are you cool about it? Absolutely. Use this surgical waste however one wishes, like unwanted cysts. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/88 "2004-05-17T15:20:32Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Foetuses fail criteria such as an ability to recognise themselves, which is why I define them as non-sentient. What is _your_ definition? Do one-day-old babies have the ability to recognize themselves? In general, what can a one-day-old baby do that the fetus can’t (in terms of sentience)? I don’t provide a definition of sentience because I don’t use that as my criterion for when we can kill someone/something. My criterion for when we can’t kill someone is when they are a human being, with certain exceptions, such as for example, in self defense. I don’t care how “sentient” someone is. That means I don’t have to worry about people in comas, people who have Alzheimers, one-day-old babies, etc. > [@](#): > > I can consider such distinctions irrelevant for the matter at hand, in the same way that there is a difference between “fresh” glue and “set” glue Good for you. Although you’re wrong, and you know it. So, here’s another example that avoids the “set” and “fresh” glue non-issue you brought up. Hydrogen and oxygen. When they mix under certain conditions they produce water. At some point they are “hydrogen & oxygen”, and after a while they are “water” So, the analogy is - egg & sperm == hydrogen & oxygen - fetus == water I don’t know exactly when the mixture of the two chemicals starts to behave like water and I don’t have to give you a step-by-step description of the chemical reaction that turns the mixture of the two chemicals into water, because we all know that it does. > [@](#): > > I cannot conceive (no pun intended) of any other reason for arbitrarily choosing this hazy concept (sorry!) called “conception” other than some odd appeal to a ‘soul’ or the like. Please enlighten me. I cannot conceive of any other reason for arbitrarily choosing this hazy concept called “sentience” other than some odd appeal to a ‘soul’ or the like. Please enlighten me. So, why _do_ you choose sentience as your criterion? In fact, so what if we kill something with sentience? In the grand scheme of the universe it doesn’t really matter, does it? > [@](#): > > In fact, a foetus in an unhealthy older woman’s womb might have _less_ potential to become human than an ova surrounded by sperm in a healthy young woman’s womb. This appeal to the exact _probabilities_ of a non-human becoming a human is a far inferior principle, I feel. In fact, a half-baked pie in a crappy old oven may have _less_ potential to become a pie than flour and water in a chef’s kitchen, but so what? No one can claim that the flour and water in a chef’s kitchen is “more pie” than the half-baked pie in the crappy old oven. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/89 "2004-05-17T16:15:24Z")
**Polerius** , I feel you are avoiding the question. I am happy to try and respond again to your questioning of my position, but you do not even appear to be stating clearly what your position _is_ in order that an earnest debate might take place. Nevertheless, I’ll persevere as intellectually honestly as I can. > [@](#): > > Do one-day-old babies have the ability to recognize themselves? > In general, what can a one-day-old baby do that the fetus can’t (in terms of sentience)? I repeat, yet again, that I am placing my arbitrary point far, far into the “safety” zone. I actually _do_ believe that a one-day-old baby is just as non-sentient as something I might kill and eat for breakfast. > [@](#): > > My criterion for when we can’t kill someone is when they are a human being When is this? Contact? Membrane-penetration? Reduction division of the chromosomes? Separation of the foetal and placental cells? Does your arbitrary labelling of one thing as a human being and that thing an instant before as _not_ human seem to you any less arbitrary as my criteria based on the suffering of a sentient being? > [@](#): > > Good for you. Although you’re wrong, and you know it.So, here’s another example that avoids the “set” and “fresh” glue non-issue you brought up. Your water example sheds no more light, I’m afraid. Yes, one _can_ make these distinctions. My point was that other people could make _other_ distinctions and consider yours irrelevant - we must explain our reasoning why the distinction we chose is _useful_ or _fundamental_. I still do not understand why you think a fusion of sperm and egg is a human being. > [@](#): > > I cannot conceive of any other reason for arbitrarily choosing this hazy concept called “sentience” other than some odd appeal to a ‘soul’ or the like. Please enlighten me. Well, I will, but since I asked first I will expect a little more detail from you in return. I seek to minimise the suffering of sentient beings out of enlightened self interest, _ie._ so that _I_ won’t be on the wrong end of such suffering in future. _Non_-sentient things, plants, cysts and so on, _cannot_ suffer. I might temporarily _become_ non-sentient, but would wish to be _returned_ to full sentience. > [@](#): > > So, why do you choose sentience as your criterion? In fact, so what if we kill something with sentience? In the grand scheme of the universe it doesn’t really matter, does it? This is rather getting off the point but, again, my attempt to minimise the suffering of sentient beings is partly enlightened self-interest: _I_ might suffer in future if I don’t propose a reasonable framework of rights today. > [@](#): > > In fact, a half-baked pie in a crappy old oven may have less potential to become a pie than flour and water in a chef’s kitchen, but so what? No one can claim that the flour and water in a chef’s kitchen is “more pie” than the half-baked pie in the crappy old oven. Trying to cope with this vast multitude of metaphors is rather taxing, but again, if the crappy oven spat out the half-raw ingedients on a far more regular basis than the fully raw ingredients failed to become a pie in the chef’s hands then, yes, I think it _would_ be reasonable to say that the chef’s raw ingredients had greater pie-potential than the almost universally destuctive oven. By whatever metaphor you choose, you are trying to get me, and indeed the audience, to see this blastocyst as a human being and becoming frustrated when we simply don’t see it your way. Again I ask: At which precise point does your non-human become human? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/90 "2004-05-17T16:34:25Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Again I ask: At which precise point does your non-human become human? I don’t know. I would guess within a couple of hours or days after the sperm enters the egg. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/91 "2004-05-17T16:42:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know. I would guess within a couple of hours or days after the sperm enters the egg. After the membrane has been penetrated and becomes impervious, I assume. What makes the thing only one hour after this point _non_-human? If I chose to argue that this was a “human being”, how would you rebut me? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/92 "2004-05-17T17:18:23Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > After the membrane has been penetrated and becomes impervious, I assume. What makes the thing only one hour after this point _non_-human? If I chose to argue that this was a “human being”, how would you rebut me? Fertilization is a **process** that takes several hours (penetration of wall…mirgation…exchange of genetic material… yadda yadda). The typical pro life view that I’m familiar with posits that the result of that process is a unique human life. Since elective abortions aren’t even performed on zygotes (they’re performed at the embryo or fetal stage) , I find myself wondering why folks are trying to break this down into minutes or seconds (or picoseconds or…)? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/93 "2004-05-17T17:23:02Z")
> [@](#): > > The typical pro life view that I’m familiar with posits that the result of that process is a unique human life. But it might well _not_ be. At this stage, the thing has not even divided into placental cells and foetal cells yet: it is “half placenta”, and one cannot even distinguish whether or not this thing is actually going to become not a “human” but a type of cyst called a **teratoma**. Not even “pro-life” proponents would argue the “rights” of life such as a placenta or a cyst. Again, we descend to the murky realms of probability. We don’t know whether this thing will _ever_ be any more complex than the hair we routinely have cut off at the salon, and yet some argue that it should be ascribed all the human rights of a toddler. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/94 "2004-05-17T17:31:13Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But it might well _not_ be. At this stage, the thing has not even divided into placental cells and foetal cells yet: it is “half placenta”, and one cannot even distinguish whether or not this thing is actually going to become not a “human” but a type of cyst called a **teratoma**. Not even “pro-life” proponents would argue the “rights” of life such as a placenta or a cyst. Again, we descend to the murky realms of probability. We don’t know whether this thing will _ever_ be any more complex than the hair we routinely have cut off at the salon, and yet some argue that it should be ascribed all the human rights of a toddler. I don’t even need to quibble about the status of 2 hour old zygote…because it has nothing to do with decisions involving elective abortions (which is what I thought this thread was about) Perhaps you missed the second part of my post. Abortions **are not performed** on this “thing” (whatever you wish to call it) . They ARE performed at the embryo and fetal stage. So again, in the context of THIS thread (you know…about abortion?) what point are you trying to make? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/95 "2004-05-17T17:40:53Z")
> [@](#): > > So again, in the context of THIS thread (you know…about abortion?) what point are you trying to make? That it is reasonable to contend that neither a foetus nor a blastocyst is a human being. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/96 "2004-05-17T18:19:05Z")
A small hijack: I think that the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are stupid. They oversimplify the situation, are disingenuous, and are condescending to the other point of view. Of course, pro-abortion and anti-abortion also oversimplify the situation and do not capture the whole issue, but at least they are more direct and honest. I wish there were better terms to describe peoples’ positions on this matter. For example: “Jack is ok-with-abortion-up-to-first-trimester” “Jane is anti-abortion-except-in-cases-of-rape-or-health-risks-to-the-mother” “Joe is anti-abortion-in-any-case” “Jill is ok-with-abortion-until-just-before-birth” If someone could turn these into latin or greek and make them shorter, that would be a significant improvement over what we have now. Or, we could have an even more explicit scheme that captures most of a person’s position on the issue: - beyond which week is it OK to have abortions? (0 to 42) - under what conditions (no condition justifies it (N), rape & health risk to mother (H), conditions are unnecessary (U)) - what reasons led me to my position (religious ® or secular (S)) So, for example, “Jack is 13/U/S” “Jane is 42/H/S” “Joe is 42/N/R” “Jill is 0/U/S” Anyway, not the best terminology, but there has got to be a better way out there. /end hijack ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/97 "2004-05-17T18:24:31Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > - beyond which week is it OK to have abortions? (0 to 42) Oops, I meant “- \*before \* which week is it OK to have abortions? (0 to 42)” Which would change the examples to So, for example, “Jack is 13/U/S” “Jane is 0/H/S” “Joe is 0/N/R” “Jill is 42/U/S” ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/98 "2004-05-17T19:01:37Z")
> [@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? Well, if someone commits suicide, there is no way to punish them anyway, so the point is moot. Regarding smoking and drinking, consider this hypothetical situation: What if there was a drug that, if the woman took it while pregnant, the child was 100% guaranteed to be born retarded, with three arms, and heart problems that would cause it to die by age 7. So, even though the woman takes the drug when the fetus is tiny and, according to some, _non-human_, the action has an effect on the actual baby when it is born. If this were ever the case, do you think the government should allow women to use the drug as they wish, or should a law be passed stating that they cannot use this drug while pregnant, and should be punished if they take this drug? If someone thinks that even in this case the government has no right to tell the woman what to do, then of course they would consider the smoking and drinking issue much less of a problem. If someone thinks that in this case the government does have the right to tell the woman what to do, then the way they treat the smoking and drinking issue depends on how much damage, and how certain is the damage from smoking and drinking while pregnant. I personally would want the government to outlaw the hypothetical drug for pregnant women, but don’t know enough about the damage done by smoking and drinking to have an opinion on this. Just as the government doesn’t allow parents to hit their kids until they have brain damage, it should similarly not allow parents to engage in behavior that results in the birth of brain-damaged babies, if we want to be consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/99 "2004-05-18T05:08:47Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > 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. Or…you can look at it this way: One of the kids that were born instead of aborted was given up for adoption, and as an adult became the person who discovered an ingenious method of rehabilitating criminals, saving billions of dollars on prisons. You see unwanted pregnancies as our future criminals and I see them as future problem solvers…the real answer is that there will be a mix. Dueling Strawmen. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092/100 "2004-05-18T13:46:25Z")
I disagree but not strongly. As a religious person, I am very troubled at the prospect of ending a human life. The pertinent question is, at which point does the fetus become fully human and endowed with the same rights as the rest of us? If you believe in a soul, at which point does the soul enter the fetus? Nobody can answer these questions. In the end, what keeps me from being a “right to lifer” is the lack of unanimity among religions regarding abortion. If all major religions condemned abortion, I might be inclined to switch positions as a matter of there being a clear moral consensus against it. But without that clear moral consensus, then I side with keeping my own religious beliefs out of public policy. I side more with the mother, for which we all agree has rights, than with the fetus, for whom such agreement is lacking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-21-abortion-should-be-illegal/245092.md?page=6)