# Pro-choicers: would you take this abortion deal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119 "2013-04-30T16:39:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/121 "2013-05-02T10:50:16Z")
And just to be clear, if it’s a surrogate mother and the parents change their minds or don’t like how the fetus is developing, it’s still her body, her choice. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/122 "2013-05-02T11:00:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I agree with that 100%. However, whether or not we support it, the right to abortion does have a eugenics result and the more we learn about genetics the more that will be true. > > We’ve seen that in China, where men outnumber women by a good margin, and that’s just the beginning. Oh,please. That’s about China, not about abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/123 "2013-05-02T11:04:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I agree with that 100%. However, whether or not we support it, the right to abortion does have a eugenics result and the more we learn about genetics the more that will be true. > > We’ve seen that in China, where men outnumber women by a good margin, and that’s just the beginning. > > In the end, liberty has to trump those concerns, but we should still watch the trends and prepare for them as best we can. How should we track them and to what end? Methods of tracking would range from next to useless (anecdotal) to inappropriately invasive (from a mandatory survey prior to the abortion to tracking who gets genetic tests, what the results were and then if these people went on to obtain an abortion). I can’t see an end that would justify such intrusion. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/124 "2013-05-02T11:08:27Z")
> [@stui\_magpie](#): > > I’m pro choice and I’m male and I agree with the proposition. > > I cannot agree to unfettered access to abortion in late term. For mine, the half way mark is reasonable (20 weeks) but I can live with 22. The point of no return for me is once the fetus is viable… > I’ve held a 20 week stillborn in my hands and had a daughter born at 26 weeks. I could not in conscience agree with aborting a viable fetus at 26 weeks or after unless there was a significant risk to the mother or the fetus. Who decides what is a “significant” risk? You? A committee of bureaucrats? ---
**Author:** ![stui\_magpie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stui_magpie/32/11010_2.png) [@stui\_magpie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stui_magpie)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/125 "2013-05-02T11:12:26Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Who decides what is a “significant” risk? You? A committee of bureaucrats? A qualified medical practitioner. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/126 "2013-05-02T11:22:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh,please. That’s about China, not about abortion. Sex selective abortion happens here too, and it’s almost never for the purpose of aborting males. As for tracking, the census already does that. If we notice that the percentage of males is increasing, that has social implications. If we notice all the gay people disappearing, that does too. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/127 "2013-05-02T11:29:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Sex selective abortion happens here too, and it’s almost never for the purpose of aborting males. Yeah, sure, sure it does. :rolleyes: ---
**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 2, 2013, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/128 "2013-05-02T11:35:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Would this apply to religious organizations who agitate in other political issues (say all those religious groups who are antiwar and directly protest various wars as a result)? I had previously withdrawn my point. Yes, churches often do advocate for moral causes, even those (like anti-abortion and anti-gay rights) which I disagree with them about. ---
**Author:** ![stui\_magpie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stui_magpie/32/11010_2.png) [@stui\_magpie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stui_magpie)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/129 "2013-05-02T11:47:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yeah, sure, sure it does. :rolleyes: It happens. [http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/couples-expecting-girls-demand-abortions-because-they-want-boys-say-obstetricians/story-fnet085v-1226630636083](http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/couples-expecting-girls-demand-abortions-because-they-want-boys-say-obstetricians/story-fnet085v-1226630636083) ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/130 "2013-05-02T12:08:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, as opposed to the pro-_choice_ position, where people’s choices are respected even if they choose not to support or assist in abortions. > “Pro-choice” = the belief that people should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to have/support/enable abortions. “Pro-abortion” = the belief that people should not be allowed to choose not to for themselves. > > The rest of your garbage about being in favor of child molesting and rape is too reminiscent of **Der Trihs** ’ crap to bother with. > > Regards, > Shodan Just as any one has the right to self preservation, a woman should have the right to self defense. Her doctor and the woman should be the one’s determining this, not some outsider who does not know her circumstance. It is something that will affect her the rest of her life, regardless of what Choice she makes. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/131 "2013-05-02T12:14:05Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > True. > But if the parasitic twin _could not_ be saved, then it could be removed and allowed to die. Oh yes. And, as I understand this proposal, that would apply to foetuses after 22 weeks too. > [@](#): > > Other than a criminal like Gosnell, is there ANY evidence that people are aborting healthy, viable babies and _not_ attempting to save them? > > Late term abortion is such a strawman. They happen extraordinarily rarely, and pretty much always for a good reason. Reading about them, I feel like are often the _most_ moral, justified abortions, and also the most tragic. Ignoring the suffering of these real women, and creating foolish analogies that brush aside the reality of late term abortions is pretty disturbing to me, actually. I think that’s a good point in a way, in that, if there are so few (as good as none?) late-term abortions being done for non-medical reasons right now, they don’t need to be legislated against. Otoh, if that’s the case then it’s also true that this proposal would not prevent large numbers of women from having late-term abortions, since they’d still be allowed to for medical reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/132 "2013-05-02T12:35:38Z")
> [@stui\_magpie](#): > > A qualified medical practitioner. Are the women involved allowed to have any input on _how much_ risk they wish to accept? What if different practitioners assess the risks differently? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/133 "2013-05-02T12:41:03Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > I think that’s a good point in a way, in that, if there are so few (as good as none?) late-term abortions being done for non-medical reasons right now, they don’t need to be legislated against. Otoh, if that’s the case then it’s also true that this proposal would not prevent large numbers of women from having late-term abortions, since they’d still be allowed to for medical reasons. There may not be many parents who would refuse to donate a kidney to their child if they were a match but I still would not want the government to mandate such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/134 "2013-05-02T12:44:43Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Oh yes. And, as I understand this proposal, that would apply to foetuses after 22 weeks too. > > I think that’s a good point in a way, in that, if there are so few (as good as none?) late-term abortions being done for non-medical reasons right now, they don’t need to be legislated against. Otoh, if that’s the case then it’s also true that this proposal would not prevent large numbers of women from having late-term abortions, since they’d still be allowed to for medical reasons. No. The proposal is that late-term abortions would be permissible _only_ if the _life_ (not just health) of the woman were “clearly and directly threatened.” There is no allowance at all for taking the baby’s prospects into account, and apparently no input from the woman herself. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/135 "2013-05-02T14:04:36Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > A fetus is generally considered viable at 23 weeks, and a few have survived at 22 weeks. I think it’s pretty reasonable to use “viability of surviving out of the womb” as the standard for denying abortions, since at that point it’s medically possible for the fetus not to “parasitize” the mother without being aborted. > > I’m not a pro-lifer, but I’d accept the OP compromise, as long as women still had the right to remove the fetus after 23 weeks. I’d expect doctors to attempt to save the life of the fetus in those cases. Okay, fine. Who’s on the hook for raising the severely disabled “fetus” for the next 18 years? Paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care and therapy? Do we just have Post-23 Week Fetus Homes or something? You cannot ignore the practical reasons for abortion. In fact, IMO, that’s the only ones we should be debating. You have no invitation nor any right to get into anyone’s else personal morality in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/136 "2013-05-02T14:06:26Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Oh yes. And, as I understand this proposal, that would apply to foetuses after 22 weeks too. > > I think that’s a good point in a way, in that, if there are so few (as good as none?) late-term abortions being done for non-medical reasons right now, they don’t need to be legislated against. Otoh, if that’s the case then it’s also true that this proposal would not prevent large numbers of women from having late-term abortions, since they’d still be allowed to for medical reasons. What about the medical status of the fetus? What if, at 24 weeks, you find out your child is Downs, or missing part of it’s face or any number of really horrible things have gone wrong? Just, too bad, you have to raise and pay for a disabled kid for the rest of your life? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/137 "2013-05-02T14:30:52Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > What about the medical status of the fetus? What if, at 24 weeks, you find out your child is Downs, or missing part of it’s face or any number of really horrible things have gone wrong? Just, too bad, you have to raise and pay for a disabled kid for the rest of your life? It doesn’t usually take till 24 weeks to find out your child has Down’s. If some states don’t screen until then, then the limit should be higher. I said something similar earlier when explaining why 24 weeks makes more sense to me than 22. UK law allows abortion after 24 weeks if the child will be severely disabled, and that makes sense to me. Adoption should also be made easier to do - after all, birth itself can cause serious disabilities, and some parents simply can’t look after a severely disabled child well, which isn’t fair on the child or them. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/138 "2013-05-02T17:24:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Theoretical question: if there is a gay gene, and it can be pre-screened for, would it be a problem if most gay babies were aborted? It’s hard enough to keep an abortion thread on track; let’s not hijack this one, ok? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/139 "2013-05-02T18:24:25Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > Okay, fine. Who’s on the hook for raising the severely disabled “fetus” for the next 18 years? Paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care and therapy? Do we just have Post-23 Week Fetus Homes or something? Please don’t poison the well by assuming that children born at 23 weeks must necessarily be severely disabled. A lot of them are, but some are not. And yes, the government should care for all children who don’t have parents, whether they’re born at 23 weeks, or full term. > [@](#): > > You cannot ignore the practical reasons for abortion. In fact, IMO, that’s the only ones we should be debating. You have no invitation nor any right to get into anyone’s else personal morality in this regard. I’m not ignoring practical reasons for abortion. You must have missed where I said I support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119/140 "2013-05-02T19:17:09Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Please don’t poison the well by assuming that children born at 23 weeks must necessarily be severely disabled. They are if the woman wanted to terminate the pregnancy _because_ the baby was profoundly disabled. > [@](#): > > …I support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. But only on the terms that you, in your armchair, are most comfortable with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-choicers-would-you-take-this-abortion-deal/657119.md?page=8)