# Pro-Lifers: Are they hypocrites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400 "2005-10-15T21:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/141 "2005-10-18T14:53:58Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > If there is a distinction then abortion is not the same as murder, which contradicts your stated opinion that abortion is murder. Think hard. Go back and review. Did I say anything about the legal system, and how that might distinguish the cases? Did I offer any sort of recognition about abortion providers acting in good faith? Furrow your brow and concentrate. I know you can do it. We’re all pulling for you! ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/142 "2005-10-18T15:06:30Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > And do you, on principle, believe that a newly fertilised egg has the same rights and same value as a fertile 18 year old woman? Can I just pick up on this and answer it, leaving the rest of the argument to those who are doing just fine without me? The answer is: “No. But the right to _life_ is so basic and fundamental that we had better be very, very careful about setting it aside for the sole purpose of avoiding stepping on someone else’s rights. Additionally, the further away we get from a newly-fertilised egg (and, in practice, it’s very seldom we need to concern ourselves with the rights of the newly-fertilised egg), the greater the care we should exercise.” Any help? ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/143 "2005-10-18T15:11:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is the relevance, precisely? > > If I were a member of some other pro-life group that included women - as many do - my answers would be the same. The fact that I happen to be a member of a group whose membership is restricted to men has nothing to do with this debate. If ALL groups opposing abortion were men-only, then your objection would be valid, perhaps. But since there are many groups with co-ed membership that take precisely the same stance I am espousing, how is my particular membership in a single-sex group relevant? Because I have been discussing _your_ hypocricy in particular. If you can show that I have been wrong, I’ll gladly accept it. I value you as a board member, but on matters of principle I am more disturbed by moral misteps by those I value than by those I don’t. > [@](#): > > Notwithstanding that objection, I’ll answer your question. Appreciated. > [@](#): > > When you ask if a successful businesswoman or congress-lady is not good enough to join, you insinuate a whole slew of sly hints and suggestions. You suggest that we judge our potential members as “good enough” or “not good enough” somehow. Correct. > [@](#): > > You suggest that there’s a value judgement attached to occupations or financial or political success that we would somehow value; that even if an ordinary, run-of-the-mill female were found lacking, our supposed hypocriscy is laid bare when we reject a successful businesswoman or congress-lady, as these are traits we somehow especially prize in our male members. Incorrect. I merely provided an example of a highly esteemed member of society to make clear that her sex is the only reason to refuse her as a member of your society. > [@](#): > > Needless to say, none of that is remotely close to the truth. Really? > [@](#): > > We accept male pratical Roman Catholics eighteen years of age and older, in communion with the Holy See. Our membership decision is based on religion. we wouldn’t accept a successful Episcopal businessman or congressman. Or even a senator! On the other hand, we will happily induct a struggling day laborer, an unemployed artist, or a poor seminarian, as long as he’s a male Roman Catholic. Is that the same Roman Catholic church where a woman could never be a priest, Bisshop or ‘God Forbid’, Pope? Or do you, brethren, openly support this position as laid out here: > **[A Teaching Not Received - Women Priests](https://womenpriests.org/teaching-authority/oregan-a-teaching-not-received/)** > > by Hugh O'Regan. Editor of the on-line magazine the San Fransisco Bay Catholic published on the Internet at https://www.sfbayc.org/magazine/ On November 18, 1995, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to the bishops of the world stating that the... > [@](#): > > The reasons for this requirement may be found in the organization’s history: we were founded to provide a mutual aid society in a time in this country when Catholics were routinely and openly discriminated against. I’d have thought this would lead to all the more understanding of the position of women in society. > [@](#): > > Today, there is both a traditional and a practical reason to continue our membership scheme as it stands. The traditional should be obvious. Not so obvious to me. A tradition to remember the evils of discrimination that preserves similar evils of discrimination seems flawed, and would have benefited from a better solution to your practical problem, which can be easily found - I thought of one within a minute. > [@](#): > > The practical relates to our insurance operations. We can now legally restrict our insurance to members and their spouses and retain our current tax classification. If we were to admit woemn, we could no longer operate in that way. To offer insurance to a person, they would have to join. Our market surveys have shown conclusively that making that change would reduce the number of insured that we have. That is, not enough women would join to offset the loss of spouse-insured. How about changing the requirements for members to be men, to members to be bread-winners? I cannot believe that you find the PERCEPTION of the legality of abortion so important, that you find it necessary to use such a petty insurance issue to justify keeping a men’s club like this one which really doesn’t need to be, keep up the PERCEPTION of mysogynism. To be honest, it sounds incredibly … hypocritical. > [@](#): > > This dishonest and off-topic jab of yours suggests to me your complete inability to understand and carry on a relevant debate, or, possibly, your complete lack of confidence in the merits of whatever position you are advancing. Either way, it’s disgraceful. It is not dishonest and off-topic. You so easily gloss over the position of women being forced to carry a child they do not want for 9 months, and the right to abortion is such an important part of the women’s liberation movement, that a discussion of your personal hypocricy is completely on-topic. I have a fairly absolute confidence in the merits of the position I am advancing, as I am becoming increasingly certain that my position is based on a lot more thought and consideration than yours. I will patiently await you proving me otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/144 "2005-10-18T15:19:51Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > You so easily gloss over the position of women being forced to carry a child they do not want for 9 months Who is forcing them? Evil men? Or their own actions in getting pregnant in the first place? You react to the women’s ‘right’ to have an abortion as if women spontaneously become pregnant with no thought or action beforehand. If women do not want children, or to be in a position of carrying a child they do not want for 9 months- and men do not want to be in a position of being forced to financially support the mother and said child- perhaps they should involve themselves in understanding and using birth control. > [@](#): > > and the right to abortion is such an important part of the women’s liberation movement It is? Oh, how the mighty have fallen; once upon a time, the important part of the women’s liberation movement was attempting to gain equity between the sexes in regards to the law and the businessplace. Now it’s about being able to kill children. Whee. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/145 "2005-10-18T15:24:25Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Who is forcing them? Evil men? Or their own actions in getting pregnant in the first place? So then the woman’s to blame if she gets pregnant? It’s not birth control can fail or anything…right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/146 "2005-10-18T15:30:03Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Because I have been discussing _your_ hypocricy in particular. If you can show that I have been wrong, I’ll gladly accept it. I value you as a board member, but on matters of principle I am more disturbed by moral misteps by those I value than by those I don’t. Actually, we were discussing my hypocrisy on the issue of abortion as murder. If it should develop that I inveigh nightly against the evils of alcohol before slipping off to the study for a single-malt scotch over ice, it would not be relevant to this discussion. > [@](#): > > Is that the same Roman Catholic church where a woman could never be a priest, Bisshop or ‘God Forbid’, Pope? Or do you, brethren, openly support this position as laid out here: No, we don’t support the position that is laid out by [womenpriests.org](http://womenpriests.org). We contend that the Pope, together with the Bishops, is the teaching authority of the Church. While no one has ever said that as a matter of faith or morals it is impossible to have women priests, the fact is that at the present time, the Church does not permit women to be ordained. This authority to make this decision, we believe, comes from God. When Christ told Peter, “You are the rock upon which I will build My Church,” he was granting Peter the authority and license to lead His Church on Earth. And that authority in turn flowed through the succession of Popes unto the present day. Similarly, the apostles upon whom descended the Holy Spirit were given gifts. The apostles ordained others by laying on hands, and there is an unbroken chain of laying on of hands from each and every bishop today, back through the years, to that group and Peter. For this reason, we contend that God has given this Pope and these bishops teaching authority to determine the proper way to run the church. While we may debate the wisdom of their decisions – and properly, since they are men, and subject to failures and foibles – we cannot debate that authority. It exists as a cornerstone of Catholic faith. To be a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See is to accept that as a given. > [@](#): > > Not so obvious to me. A tradition to remember the evils of discrimination that preserves similar evils of discrimination seems flawed, and would have benefited from a better solution to your practical problem, which can be easily found - I thought of one within a minute. > > How about changing the requirements for members to be men, to members to be bread-winners? My understanding is that such a change would, under current tax law, eliminate our tax-free status. I welcome correction to the contrary. > [@](#): > > I cannot believe that you find the PERCEPTION of the legality of abortion so important, that you find it necessary to use such a petty insurance issue to justify keeping a men’s club like this one which really doesn’t need to be, keep up the PERCEPTION of mysogynism. > > To be honest, it sounds incredibly … hypocritical. The difference between tax-free and taxed operation is NOT petty. It’s millions of dollars per year. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/147 "2005-10-18T15:33:33Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > So then the woman’s to blame if she gets pregnant? It’s not birth control can fail or anything…right? _Au contraire_ - and it’s common knowledge that birth control can fail. This argues strongly for having sex only under circumstances where it’s not going to be disastrous if it does, of course. Blame’s an inflammatory word. Say rather that she knew what she was doing before she decided to have sex. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/148 "2005-10-18T15:36:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Conception is the start of human life. > > However, a newly-conceived human being (or, if you prefer, a newly fertilized egg) does not have the same rights and value as a fertile 18 year-old woman. Ok, great. Now we are starting to have a real discussion, with content. Thanks, this is much appreciated. > [@](#): > > All human life is valuable. But circumstances may place some lives into situations where they have less value than others. > > Consider a plane that’s been hijacked, 9-11 style, heading for the Sears Tower in Chicago. The military should shoot down that plane before it reaches the city. This is the correct decision, even though the passengers on the plane have done nothing wrong. Some of those passengers may even be women. Some of them may even be fertile. Some of them may even be 18. > > Through no fault of their own, these passengers were in a situation in which the proper moral course was to kill them. But we don’t look at it that way. We don’t _intend_ to kill them. We intend to stop the plane from killing countless others. The death of the passengers is an unintended, secondary effect of our intentional, moral action. No discussion here. > [@](#): > > Now let’s turn to our newly fertilized egg. This is a human being. If you suggest he or she should be killed simply for the convenience of the new mother, I disagree. > > But if the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother, we’re in a different situation. Now it may make sense to terminate the pregnancy to save the health of the mother. Our intention is NOT to kill the child – that’s an unintended, secondary effect of the necessary medical procedure to save the mother’s health. > > Because the baby depends on the mother, but the mother doesn’t depend on the baby, the balance must necessarily tilt heavily towards the mother’s interests. So no, the two sets of rights and values are not equal. As long as the mother must risk her body and health to carry the child, her body and health is entitled to great care and deference. Ok, so we’ve established that. I will still dispute with you that the relativele value of a human being varies and increases greatly over time and depends partially on the investment made into it. This sounds terribly materialistic, but that’s often a consequence when you try to apply the most objective of standards. But first things first. The two sets of right not being equal, how do you deal with the fact that carrying a child always means the mother risks her body and health to some extent? Why should she, for instance, involuntarily risk pre-eclampsia? After all, that only’ affects 5-8% of all pregnancies, and [76.000 women still die of it each year](http://www.preeclampsia.org/about.asp). That’s just one of the more serious risks and trust me it is not the only one - though I hope you will refrain from making me to discuss all of them, preferably, lest I or my SO might lose the courage to put a child into this world … :D. So, where would you draw the limits? What do you consider an acceptible risk? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/149 "2005-10-18T15:40:59Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Asking someone to heed his own advice is always the worst excuse to ignore it. It can be used as such an excuse, certainly. This is not the case here, though. > [@](#): > > You say the start of life, but the scientists your cites quote talk about the biological start of a human individual. Not just any human individual, but a _living_ one. Moreover, of what relevance is your objection? If these experts state that an individual human being is present at conception, then that statement disproves the notion that the unborn is just a lump of cells. If anything, your assertion is fatal to the pro-choice cause. > [@](#): > > Were you to call for ‘evidence’ on whether or not a sperm cell is alive or dead, or whether a female egg is alive or dead, or whether a stem-cell is alive or dead, or whether a skin cell is alive or dead, you’d get equally relevant answers. Not true. The killing of a sperm cell or egg cell does not take a human life. In contrast, if the fertilized egg does mark the beginning of a new human individual, then the extermination of that zygote is the same as killing a human being. This is a completely relevant distinction. Oh, and I can’t help but notice that you’re still dodging my earlier objection. Let’s suppose that the fertilized egg is not a living human individual. How does this justify abortions that occur eight weeks or more into pregnancy? You keep dodging that question, and I think we all know why. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/150 "2005-10-18T15:41:00Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > _Au contraire_ - and it’s common knowledge that birth control can fail. This argues strongly for having sex only under circumstances where it’s not going to be disastrous if it does, of course. > > Blame’s an inflammatory word. Say rather that she knew what she was doing before she decided to have sex. What circumstances would that be? Marriages fail, lovers lie, people die. What, I should be wealthy before I have sex, in case something disastrous happens and I find myself having to make a decision based on my circumstance? ---
**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:** [October 18, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/151 "2005-10-18T15:51:01Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Not just any human individual, but a _living_ one. > > Moreover, of what relevance is your objection? If these experts state that an individual human being is present at conception, then that statement disproves the notion that the unborn is just a lump of cells. If anything, your assertion is fatal to the pro-choice cause. > Not true. The killing of a sperm cell or egg cell does not take a human life. In contrast, if the fertilized egg does mark the beginning of a new human individual, then the extermination of that zygote is the same as killing a human being. This is a completely relevant distinction. You’re confusing “human” and “person”. A fertilized egg is human, but it’s no more a person than my pinky is; less, since it’s not even _part_ of a person yet. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/152 "2005-10-18T15:54:58Z")
Why did a discussion of hypocrisy turn into yet another pointless debate about when life begins? No one’s opinions are going to change and, for the record, for some of us it doesn’t even matter. ---
**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:** [October 18, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/153 "2005-10-18T16:01:52Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Why did a discussion of hypocrisy turn into yet another pointless debate about when life begins? No one’s opinions are going to change and, for the record, for some of us it doesn’t even matter. Because it’s a fairly one sided debate. Even if they feel that way, not many people are going to admit they want to mass-murder the opposition. Also, if a fetus _isn’t_ human ( or a person, as I would put it ). that automatically causes one side to lose. Killing people to protect a nonperson is indefensible. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/154 "2005-10-18T16:04:41Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It can be used as such an excuse, certainly. This is not the case here, though. It isn’t? Reading below, I see you’ve not even noticed that I’ve answered your question already. > [@](#): > > Not just any human individual, but a _living_ one. More evidence of not reading my posts. If you had, you wouldn’t have needed to repeat that. > [@](#): > > Moreover, of what relevance is your objection? If these experts state that an individual human being is present at conception, then that statement disproves the notion that the unborn is just a lump of cells. If anything, your assertion is fatal to the pro-choice cause. Let’s stick to just the one fertilised cell for the moment, ok? This one fertilised cell is still only a fertilised cell. A tiny speck of dust. Valueless to anyone who does not want a child. Incapable of suffering, remembering, feeling, sensing, acting, and so on. It is where an individual life begins, but at the same time it is practically nothing at all. > [@](#): > > Not true. The killing of a sperm cell or egg cell does not take a human life. In contrast, if the fertilized egg does mark the beginning of a new human individual, then the extermination of that zygote is the same as killing a human being. This is a completely relevant distinction. That is a relevant distinction, but doesn’t also mean that if you were to ask a biologist whether a (live) sperm cell isn’t also alive, he would say yes. So to understand the value and importance of living, it is important to recognise that a fertilised cell and a sperm cell or any other cell does not differ very much in anything but the fact that they mark the beginning of a new human being, purely by virtue of DNA being exchanged. > [@](#): > > Oh, and I can’t help but notice that you’re still dodging my earlier objection. Let’s suppose that the fertilized egg is not a living human individual. How does this justify abortions that occur eight weeks or more into pregnancy? You keep dodging that question, and I think we all know why. I have not dodged it, I have answerd it already before you asked the question. Something to do with 16 weeks, brains forming, memory, etc. Feel free to read back. The value of life is not absolute. Bricker has already understood that, so there is a beginning at least. I feel that people like you too easily want to take away from others the rights to choose what to do with their own bodies, without making an honest effort to fully appreciate what life is and what lives need to be protected. In that sense, I hope discussions like these contribute to a better understanding of life. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/155 "2005-10-18T16:05:46Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > You’re confusing “human” and “person”. A fertilized egg is human, but it’s no more a person than my pinky is; less, since it’s not even _part_ of a person yet. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/156 "2005-10-18T16:19:58Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > But first things first. The two sets of right not being equal, how do you deal with the fact that carrying a child always means the mother risks her body and health to some extent? Why should she, for instance, involuntarily risk pre-eclampsia? After all, that only’ affects 5-8% of all pregnancies, and [76.000 women still die of it each year](http://www.preeclampsia.org/about.asp). That’s just one of the more serious risks and trust me it is not the only one - though I hope you will refrain from making me to discuss all of them, preferably, lest I or my SO might lose the courage to put a child into this world … :D. > > So, where would you draw the limits? What do you consider an acceptible risk? It’s nearly impossible to draw a bright-line distinction here. Consider a mother and a toddler. We would punish, criminally, a mother that failed lift a finger to save her child from drowning, even though by offering some help she may put herself at risk. We do not require that she kill herself, but we as a society are comfortable with the mother assuming some measure of reasonable risk to save the life of her child. I cannot imagine why the same calculus cannot be brought to bear here. If the mother is at some special risk for pre-eclampsia, then that certainly is a factor bearing on her health, as I discussed above. But the vast majority of pregnancies are not at any serious risk. 76,000 seems like a high number… until you consider it’s a global figure, not a national one. How many US deaths are there every year from pre-eclampsia? In a normal, healthy, fertile 18 year old, what are the realistic odds of this problem? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/157 "2005-10-18T16:24:07Z")
So with all this said… where, precisely, is my hypocrisy on this issue? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/158 "2005-10-18T16:27:48Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > You’re confusing “human” and “person”. A fertilized egg is human, but it’s no more a person than my pinky is; less, since it’s not even _part_ of a person yet. What’s the difference, then? What is the essential difference between a human being and a person? Now, this is the point at which some debaters say, “It’s a person if it’s born, and a non-person if it’s not.” That answer is mere circular reasoning, though. It dodges the question of why personhood should be taken to begin at birth, and what intrinsic qualities make the unborn a non-person. So please, can you cite some commonly accepted definition of personhood that predates Roe v. Wade, and which firmly establishes the unborn as a non-person? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/159 "2005-10-18T16:31:26Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > More evidence of not reading my posts. If you had, you wouldn’t have needed to repeat that. No, it’s evidence of the incoherence of your statements. You claim that the experts in question argue that the unborn is a living human being – which is certainly true. However, your objection does NOT support your case, which is why your stance is logically incoherent. > [@](#): > > Let’s stick to just the one fertilised cell for the moment, ok? This one fertilised cell is still only a fertilised cell. A tiny speck of dust. Valueless to anyone who does not want a child. Incapable of suffering, remembering, feeling, sensing, acting, and so on. It is where an individual life begins, but at the same time it is practically nothing at all. Again, more circular reasoning. And, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, irrelevant as far as the overwhelming majority of abortions are concerned. > [@](#): > > I have not dodged it, I have answerd it already before you asked the question. Something to do with 16 weeks, brains forming, memory, etc. Feel free to read back. You have made assertions, and incoherent ones at that. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400/160 "2005-10-18T16:48:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s nearly impossible to draw a bright-line distinction here. > > Consider a mother and a toddler. We would punish, criminally, a mother that failed lift a finger to save her child from drowning, even though by offering some help she may put herself at risk. We do not require that she kill herself, but we as a society are comfortable with the mother assuming some measure of reasonable risk to save the life of her child. > > I cannot imagine why the same calculus cannot be brought to bear here. If the mother is at some special risk for pre-eclampsia, then that certainly is a factor bearing on her health, as I discussed above. But the vast majority of pregnancies are not at any serious risk. 76,000 seems like a high number… until you consider it’s a global figure, not a national one. How many US deaths are there every year from pre-eclampsia? In a normal, healthy, fertile 18 year old, what are the realistic odds of this problem? Then again, you have to also consider that this is just one of the more serious conditions (and I specifically asked you to not make me discuss all of them ;)). Of course there are good odds, or mankind would probably have been extinct by now. However, your analogy with the responsibility of a mother risking her life to some extent for safeguarding that of her child (not a universal law and where it is penalties vary wildly penalties), does not necessarily equate. The mother, in this case, has assumed responsibility for the child. It has had the option to give the child up for adoption. By not doing so, the mother has wilfully assumed responsibility. By outlawing abortion, this choice is not available to a pregnant woman. I also disagree that there is anything that needs protection at the very least before the 16th week, for reasons given above. But one step at a time (and I have to run) > [@Bricker](#): > > So with all this said… where, precisely, is my hypocrisy on this issue? I still don’t believe you want women to have a choice in this. And so my stance that your goal to make having the child the better choice is hypocrite. For that, you have to keep it a choice. While that is certainly my main gripe, I am also fully not convinced that your cited reason for the brotherhood is based on tax. To put it mildly, I don’t think you respect the position of women in this issue as much as you seem to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-are-they-hypocrites/326400.md?page=9)