# Pro-Life - Is it about compassion or punishment. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2000, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163 "2000-09-14T08:36:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/41 "2000-09-14T22:41:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satan \* > \*\*The part that I am confused about is why a Christian religion has to make a big deal out of it at all! > > I mean, the Bible itself shows that people guilty of harming a woman and her fetus get off a lot lighter than someone who murdered a living human being. > > It never specifically says, “Killing thine unborn infant is a sin” anywhere to my knowledge. > > \*\* True! The penalty for killing a fetus was a small amount of silver, and that was for causing the miscarriage of someone else’s child. In this case, said child was valued about as much as livestock. And in the case of suspected infidelity, the test was whether or not an abortificant worked! Granted, the formula for the abortificant was a bit of hocus-pocus, that none of us atheists would ever think could work (so the women were safe, unfaithful or no), but the whole point is that God is portrayed as setting up a test where a bastard child is aborted. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/42 "2000-09-14T22:50:50Z")
Actually, I think the penalty was an amount of grain, not silver. I can’t recall the exact verse, but I do recall that part. The Bible appears to support abortion. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/43 "2000-09-14T23:29:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Badtz Maru \* > \*\*Actually, I think the penalty was an amount of grain, not silver. I can’t recall the exact verse, but I do recall that part. The Bible appears to support abortion. \*\* No, actually, it’s silver. Furthermore, you are missing the context of the verses. The context clearly makes it clear that the miscarriage is an accident. \*Exodus 21:22 (from the JPS) \* > [@](#): > > And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. The verse is clearly not talking about a case where a person _deliberately_ has an abortion. As for the Jewish position, I should point out that the Talmud (in Sanhedrin, sorry, I don’t have the specific page handy…) specifically prohibits abortion (save for the case where the mother’s life is in danger). Zev Steinhardt Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/44 "2000-09-14T23:41:01Z")
Wait, where in there does it say that this was only if the damage was unintentional? I don’t see it. Check out different versions of that verse from different bibles. Some of them seem to have specifically been reworded so that it cannot be used as an argument for abortion. What would the punishment be if an innocent bystander was killed during a fight? Silver to the relatives of the bystander? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2000, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/45 "2000-09-14T23:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Badtz Maru \* > \*\*Wait, where in there does it say that this was only if the damage was unintentional? I don’t see it. > \*\* Because it puts it in a context where an abortion was clearly not the intended result. The combatants were intending to have a fight, not an abortion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Check out different versions of that verse from different bibles. Some of them seem to have specifically been reworded so that it cannot be used as an argument for abortion. \*\* Sure it can. I know the original Hebrew. The translation is correct. > [@](#): > > \*\* > What would the punishment be if an innocent bystander was killed during a fight? Silver to the relatives of the bystander? \*\* No. The penalty for accidental death was usually exile. A distinction is made between a fully born person and a fetus. That does not, however, mean that killing a fetus is OK according to the Bible. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/46 "2000-09-15T00:04:50Z")
What I don’t understand is why I can’t kill people, they are after all just a bunch of cells. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/47 "2000-09-15T00:16:37Z")
Hey, could we try to talk about the OP just a little bit? We all know each others position on abortion, and I dont think any amount of bible quoteing or rhetoric from any side is going to change how anyone feels. I was hopeing that this thread would be a debate a specific aspect of abortion, mainly looking in to reasons that people are pro-life besides wanting to save fetuses" Are there any taker to a real debate, or do we just want to sit around and squabble about issues that aint gonna be resolved here? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/48 "2000-09-15T01:41:54Z")
Well, what _is_ the debate raised by the OP? You’re basically asking people to confirm your notion that pro-life folks are, for the most part, disingenuous and unfeeling, with hidden and unworthy motives. Exactly what sort of debate did you expect would result? Did you expect pro-lifers to suddenly recognize the error of their ways because you were kind enough to group them all thusly, with a couple of fundamentalists’ quotes as “proof”? Or do you want responses limited to pro-choicers stating variations on “Yeah, I agree, those pro-life jerks are self-righteous creeps”? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/49 "2000-09-15T01:56:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*… Did you expect pro-lifers to suddenly recognize the error of their ways because you were kind enough to group them all thusly, with a couple of fundamentalists’ quotes as “proof”?.. \*\* as much as I dislike me too posts…DAMN Bob, you nailed it… ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/50 "2000-09-15T02:03:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Pro-Choice: My biased self hates to strike down fellow pro-choice people, but the sword cuts both ways. Lots of people I know say “abortion should be legal, but it is really bad when used as birth control”. Why? If it is a personal medical decision, then it doesnt matter what the motivation is. Unless you are worried about the health or finances of the woman involved, which isn’t what I think you all mean. So? Just because I happen to believe abortion should be legal ( which I do) does not necessarily mean I think abortion is not a moral issue. There are plenty of things I believe are immoral which are not illegal ( and I don’t think they should be) and there are things I think are immoral in some situations but not others ( which is where abortion falls) and there are actions which I don’t exactly think are immoral, but will cause me to have an negative opinion about the person involved. To use the example of abortion as birth control, that to me means a person who makes little or no effort to prevent pregnancy, and simply has an abortion if a pregnancy occurs. I don’t see that as being any more responsible or intelligent than a person having a fifth child when they can’t properly care for the first four and both would affect my opinion of the person. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/51 "2000-09-15T02:48:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > Please clarify for me, Tris, if you don’t mind. Why does the process of birth significantly change your right here? Because events that take place after birth occur outside of the woman and the sanctity of her body does not limit my legitimate concerns for the well being of a living child. Decisions about the fetus prior to that must be made within the limits of her rights. I wish to maintain the sanctity of my own body against the presumption of interest by the State. I therefore must make the same assumption of rights for the woman. However, that is a legalism, a matter of politics. I make my life decision on a different basis than legalisms. I don’t presume to decide things about other people’s lives without their specific request that I do so. In the highly specialized case where a woman seeks my council on how to resolve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy that would be a private matter, dealing with her life, and the potential life which would be created by that birth. The entire life, in both cases, not the few moments over which the State wishes to exercise control. When the State begins to exhibit that same type of personal concern and commitment I will reassess my political opinions based on that new behavior. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Malik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/48db29/32.png) [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/52 "2000-09-15T04:15:09Z")
My logic is as follows. We are tasked with creating a reasonable definition of personhood. To evaluate a candidate definition, it should exclude every obviously non-human thing, and include everyone obviously human. We cannot achieve perfection but we can place our decision on a more rational basis than simply saying, “such-and-such is a human begin because I say so;” a technique entirely void of rationality. Let us consider some obviously non-human things: A rock, A carrot, A dog, My severed finger, A sperm in a man’s testicle and the ovum in his wife’s ovary. A precondition for humanness is biological animal life. Clearly a rock or a carrot does not qualify in this regard. However a dog does qualify, so this qualification, while necessary, is not sufficient; it includes too many obviously non-human items. Let us consider some obviously human beings: An ordinary adult, a baby, a mentally retarded child, a pair of identical twins. Now, let us consider qualifications that include each of the obviously human items but (and this is the critical consideration) does not include any of the obviously non-human items. Human genetic material includes all the humans, but includes my severed finger and the sperm and ovum. _Unique genetic_ information includes the finger (from random mutations in the various cells). Unique and _sufficiently distinct_ genetic information incorrectly _excludes_ one of the pair of twins. Clearly it seems difficult to formulate a consistent rational definition based on genetics alone. Sentience, the exhibition of obviously human mental processes, seems a more fruitful area of inquiry. But sentience alone will not serve; a baby does not display distinctively human mental processes. However, it posseses in present time the necessary physical apparatus of the brain to develop such consciousness, as well as the ability to in present time to exist independently. If we attempt to include the _indirect_ potential, we lose the ability to exclude things like the seperate sperm an ovum, which does indeed have the indirect potential. I have summarized the argument and necessarily omitted many important points. For instance in some cultures an infant under one year old does not qualify as “obviously” human; infanticide is not considered murder. But the basic thrust of the matter in creating a definition is that one must craft it based on substantial agreement (obviousness), and then see where the situation in dispute lies. My analysis may be flawed, but I believe I have conclusively proven that it rational and not arbitrary. The distinction between “arbitrary” and “rational” is not a matter of opinion or perspective. There are many rational decisions I disagree with in detail, but I oppose on principle _all_ arbitrary decisions (when someone else is coercively applying that decision on another). I consider even more objectionable decisions and distinctions that are irrational and self-contradictory. The rational argument against imposing arbitrary decisions and distinctions is that, simply put, there is no consistent means to separate valueable arbitrary decisions from obviously horrid ones. One may simply say that rational, logical considerations are simply not sufficient for deciding which decisions to coercively enforce upon others. Obviously, such a position cannot be rationally debated; to such beings I can only say we have no basis for communication. We may coexist peacefully or engage in hostility, but we cannot communicate. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/53 "2000-09-15T06:02:43Z")
Here’s an interesting passage from Exodus: 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 21:23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Yes, ‘eye for eye’ is punishment for a fetus who was harmed. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/54 "2000-09-15T12:38:44Z")
> [@](#): > > - > > Let us consider some obviously human beings: An ordinary adult, a baby, a mentally retarded child, a pair of identical twins. > > \*\* Of course what is an “obvious” humaness to some, …does not meet the criteria of others…witness the Dred Scott decsion… Again…the purpose of this thread seems a bit murky to me. Supposedly it is NOT to debate the abortion issue per se…yet it seems to be designed to group all pro life positions together into one arbitrary moral stand…and to equate the advocacy of this issue with tyrrany…whatever I’m still waiting for the line of reasoning to pop up that men don’t even have a right to render an opinion on thi sissue…sigh ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/55 "2000-09-15T13:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > > **Satan, of course it’s not lost on you that those who seek abortions are (from at least one perspective) pushing their definition of when life begins on someone with a real interest in the matter–i.e., the unborn person.** If something is “unborn,” it is not a “person.” * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) \*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Five months, six days, 12 hours, 2 minutes and 3 seconds. 6380 cigarettes not smoked, saving $797.51. Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 40 minutes. \***“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. _(Amen, brother!)_** \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Malik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/48db29/32.png) [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/56 "2000-09-15T14:05:11Z")
I will say this one more time. The advocacy of an issue is not tyranny in and of itself. However, the issue that you are advocating, the imposition of your moral value without rational basis, is tyrannical. In short you are _advocating_ tyranny, not _performing_ it. The definition of “human” is not (nor is any proposition) absolutely determinable from entirely abstract and irrefutably correct philosophical principles. The definition could well differ in different cultures and settings. I am speaking now of our culture in our time. Rather than boringly pointing out that the definition is not perfect, perhaps you might try to refute my actual analysis. Do you _yourself_ disagree that in my choice of obviously humanity and non-humanity? Do you argue that a rational definition is _unnecessary_, that your own person opinion qualifies as a legitimate basis for the coercion of moral standards? ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/57 "2000-09-15T14:31:00Z")
Let me log in with my opinion. When I was married, I wanted very much to be pregnant. When I did get so, I was thrilled. A few years later, I conceived; accidentally. The guy said he would pull out but forgot. Thanks. I did not love him, I did not want his child. I did not want to be pregnant. I was depresed. I knew right away I was pregnant, and knew also what I wanted to do. Have an abortion. I am sorry for the child (I could have given it up for adoption), but was happy for myself. Yes, I think abortion is wrong, but I learned my lesson. Never have sex with someone you don’t want to havea child with. The woman mentioned earlier who had 5 abortions is just ridiculous. Theres something to be said from learning from your mistakes. I haven’t had sex since then, 6 years ago, and don’t plan to until I am married. I would never protest or stop a woman from having an abortion. It would make me a hypocrite and I know how it feels to not want to have a child. But a question: what if the “father” doesn’t want the woman to abort his child? Does he have rights? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/58 "2000-09-15T16:11:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Malik \* > \*\*I will say this one more time. The advocacy of an issue is not tyranny in and of itself. However, the issue that you are advocating, the imposition of your moral value without rational basis, is tyrannical. In short you are _advocating_ tyranny, not _performing_ it. > > The definition of “human” is not (nor is any proposition) absolutely determinable from entirely abstract and irrefutably correct philosophical principles. The definition could well differ in different cultures and settings. I am speaking now of our culture in our time. > > Rather than boringly pointing out that the definition is not perfect, perhaps you might try to refute my actual analysis. Do you _yourself_ disagree that in my choice of obviously humanity and non-humanity? Do you argue that a rational definition is _unnecessary_, that your own person opinion qualifies as a legitimate basis for the coercion of moral standards? \*\* I tire of you deciding that a pro life position has no rational basis. The issue of abortion has been debated ad nauseum in countless other forums and threads…your defense seems to be, “i disagree with your point of view…therefore your point of view is irrational, therefore ANY attempt to advocate that point of view is an attempt to advocate tyrrany” It amounts to silly name calling (that and using terms like “coersion”, or “boringly” are cute ways to defame my posts) I have not called the advocacy of a pro choice position to be tyranny, even though I think it is a morally bankrupt position in many respects…please don’t stoop to that behavior with me Tyranny is "1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. " My actions don’t quality as either of those…Nor do I ADVOCATE either of those definitions. I advocate a legislative/judicial/persuasive solution to the abortion problem…you may disagree with that solution or viewpoint, but that gives you little room to say that i am advocating tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/59 "2000-09-15T16:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*Here’s an interesting passage from Exodus: > 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. > 21:23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, > 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, > 21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. > > Yes, ‘eye for eye’ is punishment for a fetus who was harmed. > \*\* Capacitor, I’m sorry, but you’re reading that wrong (and I’m not pro-choice). Look at ver22 “and no harm follow…”. Yet, the miscarriage has already happened. Hence, this part of the verse cannot be referring to the fetus, but to the woman. Therefore, ver 23-25 which specify “if any harm follow…” MUST be referring to harm to the woman, not the fetus. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2000, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163/60 "2000-09-15T16:50:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*Exodus 21:22 (from the JPS) \* > > > [@](#): > > > > And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. > > The verse is clearly not talking about a case where a person _deliberately_ has an abortion. I don’t see that as being necessarily accidental. The odds of a pregnant woman being in the way of a fight aren’t that high. Much better is the chance of inflicting violence on that women merely because you are in a feud with her husband. > [@](#): > > As for the Jewish position, I should point out that the Talmud (in Sanhedrin, sorry, I don’t have the specific page handy…) specifically prohibits abortion (save for the case where the mother’s life is in danger). So what about my second verse? Numbers 5:21 invokes a curse that will cause the mother’s womb to rot if she commits adultury. That seems like deity sanctioned abortion if I ever saw it… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-life-is-it-about-compassion-or-punishment/33163.md?page=4)