# Pro-lifers, pregnancy, medical costs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597 "2011-09-17T04:33:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/121 "2011-09-28T17:12:46Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Just about as much as being pro-choice means you have to support every choice an individual can make, amirite? No. pro-choice is understood to mean every choice a woman can make concerning her pregnancy: whether to terminate her pregnancy, continue with it to give birth, and then chose to keep the child or let it be adopted. Whoopi Goldberg had two abortions when she was a struggling single mother and is as pro-choice is possible, demonstrated by the fact that she CHOSE to support her 16 year old daughter when the child was pregnant and CHOSE to keep the baby. I doubt that any “pro-life” group praises her for this, however. Ask a pro-lifer what a person should do if they are pregnant, don’t want to be a mother, and don’t think they could give up a child for adoption. The only answer I’ve ever gotton is “Pray for the right answer.” In reference to the “pro-abortion” vs. “pro-choice” debate: In his book “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions” Randy Alcorn states: Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people." Somehow, if there was a vote on forcing people to have abortions, I doubt that the two groups would vote the same. Alcorn also states “It is reasonable to expect a woman to endure a temporary minor inconvenience if the only alternative is the death of a person.” Reasonable to _whom_. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/122 "2011-09-28T18:56:46Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Aside from being a common pro-choice tactic, this is a response which truly lacks substance. It’s the heart of the issue. First because civil law should not, nay, _cannot_ be based upon religious belief. Second because major religions do not agree on this issue, suggesting that the base point needs to be one religious take over all the others gets into a very ugly supremacy battle that none of us needs and no one wants. > [@](#): > > That’s false. What is the science that supports forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies? > [@](#): > > Who cares? This is not an arguing point at all, seeing as how (s)he apparently disagrees with the current laws. The law exists for a reason. If you believe the law is wrong then you’d better have a good argument against it. Thus far, there is none. > [@](#): > > I’m curious, what is this supposed to mean? If it means what I think it means, then I’d say you’re probably a little behind the proverbial eight-ball. But I’ll wait until you tell me what this means so I can make sure. It means that 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion, 3 in 5 women support the right to abortion on demand and 99% of American women use contraceptives for at least some portion of their reproductive years. It is clear by _what we do_ that women in this culture have rejected the notions that biology is destiny or that pregnancy is both inevitable and inescapable. We have shown that we understand the importance of controlling our fertility, and the timing and spacing our of pregnancies for both the financial security of our families and our health and the health of our children. > [@](#): > > I can’t figure out what this is supposed to mean. Exactly what it says. The anti-choice position is built on nothing of civil merit and put into action directly leads to the oppression of women and subsequent harm and damage to their families. We see that in U.S. states with extreme restrictions on abortion access, we see that in other industrialized nations, like Ireland and Malta that continue to deny all access. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/123 "2011-09-28T21:04:11Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > No. pro-choice is understood to mean every choice a woman can make concerning her pregnancy: whether to terminate her pregnancy, continue with it to give birth, and then chose to keep the child or let it be adopted. I see that point went over your head. Don’t worry about it. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > It’s the heart of the issue. First because civil law should not, nay, _cannot_ be based upon religious belief. Second because major religions do not agree on this issue, suggesting that the base point needs to be one religious take over all the others gets into a very ugly supremacy battle that none of us needs and no one wants. No, it’s not. You would do well to read [this](http://www.michelepolak.com/200fall10/Weekly_Schedule_files/Strickler.pdf). > [@](#): > > Finally, our results suggest some thoughts about the links between social movements and public opinion on abortion. To the extent that abortion attitudes have been shaped by social movement organizations, it appears that the pro-life movement has been more successful at framing the abortion issue than has the pro-choice movement. The two social attitude constructs that have become more closely correlated with abortion attitudes are attitudes toward sexuality and belief about the sanctity of human life. These are the two central issues that have been emphasized by pro-life media campaigns (Ferree, 1998). The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, has focused on the claims that legal abortion is an entitlement of the right to privacy, that the state should not be coopted by religious views, and that abortion is necessary for gender equality (Ferree, 1998). Our results indicate the correlates that increase in strength are sexual liberalism and belief in sanctity of human life, the values that have been emphasized by the pro-life movement. The frames most utilized by the pro-choice movement, feminism and religiosity, have remained stable or weakened in their association with abortion attitudes. As I said, it’s a response which truly lacks substance. You can simply look at abortion attitudes by age and age cohort (which gives a rather sobering outlook for pro-choicers) to see it lacks substance. > [@](#): > > What is the science that supports forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies? “Wantedness” is not adequate grounds to deprive another human of his or her life. > [@](#): > > The law exists for a reason. If you believe the law is wrong then you’d better have a good argument against it. Thus far, there is none. I find that ensuring no human is arbitrarily deprived of his or her life is a pretty good reason. > [@](#): > > It means that (A) 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion, (B) 3 in 5 women support the right to abortion on demand and (C) 99% of American women use contraceptives for at least some portion of their reproductive years. All right. I will bite at this. (A) Last I checked, 1/3 is less than half. Are you trying to make a compelling argument based on what less than half of women (of reproductive age) do? That seems rather… odd. (B) This is 100% false. Men and women do not hold fundamentally different attitudes regarding abortion, and less than 30% of the population supports abortion “under any circumstance” and have not for the better part of the last 36 or so years (go [here](http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/plenty-common-ground-found-abortion-debate.aspx) scroll all the way down to the bottom and click on the “View methodology, full question results, and trend data” link). (C) Has nothing to do with abortion, as the use of contraceptives does not mean you support abortion on demand. > [@](#): > > It is clear by _what we do_ that women in this culture have rejected the notions that biology is destiny or that pregnancy is both inevitable and inescapable. We have shown that we understand the importance of controlling our fertility, and the timing and spacing our of pregnancies for both the financial security of our families and our health and the health of our children. And what does that have to do with abortion? I’m having a hard time trying to understand what point you’re trying to make. > [@](#): > > Exactly what it says. The anti-choice position is built on nothing of civil merit and put into action directly leads to the oppression of women and subsequent harm and damage to their families. We see that in U.S. states with extreme restrictions on abortion access, we see that in other industrialized nations, like Ireland and Malta that continue to deny all access. I’d be quite curious is knowing how you came to the above conclusions 😛 ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/124 "2011-09-29T00:07:06Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > I agree that a good mother is one of the most admirable people that could ever be. > However, not every woman is cut out to be one, just as every man is not cut out to be a father. > That’s just the way it is. It doesn’t mean they don’t aspire to be greater than they are; they’re simply good at other things. > I’ve never had a burning desire to have kids–and now, at 46, I’m a bit past my prime for motherhood anyway. I don’t think of myself as defective for it. I never said that every woman is cut out to be a mother, but I do believe that a mother is the highest level any woman and perhaps any person could ever achieve. Within every woman is the life of all humanity contained within her and going further oneness with the life giving earth itself. It is this that women need to reclaim, that life of every human comes from her womb, and not some time later, if women want to take their place in society. If we try to define the beginning of live as some time after we diminish the role of women and invite all sorts of discrimination against women. It is acknowledging women for who they really are, the ones who bring forth life, that women must take their rightful place. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/125 "2011-09-29T00:10:32Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > And motherhood is not an honored position, not in this world, nor even in this country, and any value placed upon it is purely personal. That’s not a rationale for anything either. this is the problem caused by in part the devaluing of fetal life and abortion. We diminish the role of women and their children together, leaving men as the dominant while women believe their right to abort gives them freedom -while it gives them a inferior status. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/126 "2011-09-29T00:17:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Some unintentional truth here. **Der Trist** I believe religion is evil, but also the battle against religion. They are actually the same thing - designed to beat up each other instead of rising above. The same thing can be said but more easily seen with the political parties, both sides being caught up against each other. There is no difference, and when one side states a point the other side automatically dismisses it because it is not their religion. You are doing exactly that. I want woman to take their rightful place in society. I can’t see how if we devalue their nature by denying that they are the carrier of all human life - in denying that we just took their value and so diminished all women. Defining life at conception gives women their role of importance in humanity, other wise they are just walking wombs. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/127 "2011-09-29T00:20:37Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The point I am trying to make is that If any person wants to force another to do their bidding, then they should make as much a sacrifice as they expect others to do. I don’t think it is my right to make some one else do something because I believe differently. As far as I know, no person wants to be a slave, yet forcing a woman to use her body in some way, because another person thinks she should is wrong, and a kind of slavery to the beliefs of another. It is legal to have an abortion in this country up to a certain point, and to me the best solution to stop abortions is to see that the woman has proper birth control and/or the morning after pill. She should not be forces to bear a child she can’t care for or have a child for someone else, it should be her choice and with the advice of her doctor. > > If a woman wants to carry a child for 9 months it should be her choice, not mine or of someone else! > > And if a person is truly Pro-life then they should care about all people all over the world. They are already born and part of society! If I free a slave or a person being tortured, do I have to provide for all their lives? The guys in the underground railroad, those motherf…ers, they didn’t give jobs, houses, and money to the slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/128 "2011-09-29T00:53:03Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > …But I wouldn’t try to push you into doing something you thought was wrong ,nor to make you do something I thought you should do. I am not the steward of your life nor are you of mine!!!.. So, I believe my infant son should see none of the evil of this world, and thus poke his eyes out with my thumbs. You’re OK with this, I assume? Looking forward to your response, mmm ---
**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:** [September 29, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/129 "2011-09-29T01:07:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If I free a slave or a person being tortured, do I have to provide for all their lives? If you are responsible for them being a slave or for being tortured then yes you owe them quite a lot in recompense. If you want to use that as a metaphor for being anti-choice, then the proper metaphor is someone who enslaves someone, discards them without means of support when they are of no further use, and makes self righteous speeches about how enslaving the the victim was an act ordained by God, they don’t owe the ex-slave anything and the ex0-slave’s misfortunes are all _their_ fault. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/130 "2011-09-29T01:40:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If you are responsible for them being a slave or for being tortured then yes you owe them quite a lot in recompense. If you want to use that as a metaphor for being anti-choice, then the proper metaphor is someone who enslaves someone, discards them without means of support when they are of no further use, and makes self righteous speeches about how enslaving the the victim was an act ordained by God, they don’t owe the ex-slave anything and the ex0-slave’s misfortunes are all _their_ fault. I don’t care what you think the proper metaphor is since this is not a metaphor competition. You simply cannot give a normal answer. I see a slave. I freea slave. Do I have to support the now-former-slave? Care to answer the question? ---
**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:** [September 29, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/131 "2011-09-29T01:56:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I don’t care what you think the proper metaphor is since this is not a metaphor competition. > You simply cannot give a normal answer. > I see a slave. I freea slave. Do I have to support the now-former-slave? > Care to answer the question? No, because it has nothing to do with abortion. It’s an attempt on your part to make opposing abortion look noble instead of an act of malice, and an attempt to deny responsibility. If you forbid a woman abortion, then you are responsible for all the negative results of your act. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/132 "2011-09-29T02:21:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If you forbid a woman abortion, then you are responsible for all the negative results of your act. And if you allow it, then you are responsible for all of those negative results. I am clear as to which ‘negative results’ I’d rather bear responsibility for. mmm ---
**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:** [September 29, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/133 "2011-09-29T02:59:53Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > And if you allow it, then you are responsible for all of those negative results. An analogy that only makes sense if the reason she’s pregnant is because you raped her and/or you’ve forced her into getting an abortion. When you oppose an abortion, you are fully responsible; any problems that occur are problems that you forced on her; without you, there’d _be_ no problems. So for you to be equally responsible for her getting an abortion you’d have to be forcing _that_ on her. > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I am clear as to which ‘negative results’ I’d rather bear responsibility for. Of course. The point of opposing abortion is to oppress, torment and kill women; and allowing them to get abortions doesn’t do that. So naturally you favor the option that _does_ hurt them, since that’s the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/134 "2011-09-29T03:44:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, because it has nothing to do with abortion. It’s an attempt on your part to make opposing abortion look noble instead of an act of malice, and an attempt to deny responsibility. If you forbid a woman abortion, then you are responsible for all the negative results of your act. Still no answer. Since the thread is not about abortion per se but rather the costs of not having one and the obligation of the person demanding/suggestion not to abort, I think it is perfectly acceptable, because it isalso about bearing the costs of an action you believe to be good. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/135 "2011-09-29T03:48:32Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > this is the problem caused by in part the devaluing of fetal life and abortion. We diminish the role of women and their children together, leaving men as the dominant while women believe their right to abort gives them freedom -while it gives them a inferior status. Surely by saying that you suggest that some of a woman’s worth is inherently tied into motherhood (and biological motherhood, at that). ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/136 "2011-09-29T03:55:30Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I don’t care what you think the proper metaphor is since this is not a metaphor competition. > You simply cannot give a normal answer. > I see a slave. I freea slave. Do I have to support the now-former-slave? > Care to answer the question? I’ll answer it; yes, in part, you do. The most important difference to my mind is that the freed slave (assuming an adult) is capable of working for themselves. But let’s assume the slave you’ve freed is a young child (it’s still an imperfect analogy, but it works a bit better). I would say that your moral obligation would be to assure that child of an upbringing - the most obvious way would be your personal adoption, but otherwise by calling the authorities to ensure that the child can find a place in an orphanage or adoption agency or suchlike, in which case the cost of upbringing will be moved to society at large, either through government money or a charity. But that’s acceptable in terms of accepted “liability” given that a charity would be voluntary and government money would come through the whole “will of the people” thing. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/137 "2011-09-29T04:07:37Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’ll answer it; yes, in part, you do. The most important difference to my mind is that the freed slave (assuming an adult) is capable of working for themselves. But let’s assume the slave you’ve freed is a young child (it’s still an imperfect analogy, but it works a bit better). I would say that your moral obligation would be to assure that child of an upbringing - the most obvious way would be your personal adoption, but otherwise by calling the authorities to ensure that the child can find a place in an orphanage or adoption agency or suchlike, in which case the cost of upbringing will be moved to society at large, either through government money or a charity. But that’s acceptable in terms of accepted “liability” given that a charity would be voluntary and government money would come through the whole “will of the people” thing. In the case of a child I agree that I have still responsibility after the liberation itself, if not it would be incomplete. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/138 "2011-09-29T04:12:00Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > In the case of a child I agree that I have still responsibility after the liberation itself, if not it would be incomplete. I agree. Moving someone from slavery to destitution isn’t necessarily a morally upright action, which does analogise somewhat decently to the abortion costs problem. ---
**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:** [September 29, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/139 "2011-09-29T05:26:37Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Still no answer. Because its a rhetorical trap and I’m not interested in playing along. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Since the thread is not about abortion per se but rather the costs of not having one and the obligation of the person demanding/suggestion not to abort, I think it is perfectly acceptable, because it isalso about bearing the costs of an action you believe to be good. People engaging in acts of malice that financially harm others normally are required to pay their victims money. Usually more than they cost their victim. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/140 "2011-09-29T12:43:11Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That isn’t much of a point. Imagine that my next door neighbor has a newborn and wants to throw him or her into a river. Would me wanting to stop her from doing so be conditional on me providing her financial support to be able to take care of that child. > > So do you agree that people should be allowed to engage in child sacrifice according to their own religious beliefs? If not, then the above quoted statement is meaningless fluff. > > You can’t force someone into the naturally deriving consequent of an action they willfully engaged in. That would be akin to me deciding to charge up hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card fees and then when my bill comes, argue that I’m being forced to pay up against my will. > > Which is why states along the west coast and northeast have lower abortion rates than those states in the midwest and South. In case you didn’t quite catch the underlying meaning there, they don’t, and some states along the west coast and in the northeast have an abortion rate two to three times higher than the national average. It’d be nice if you weighed rhetoric against reality. > > I’d ask why it should be her choice, and you’d probably tell me because it’s her body. I’d ask why it being her body is important, and you’d probably tell me because pregnancy is “dangerous” and, as a result, she should have the right to accept that risk. I’d ask you what accepting that risk has to do with the majority of abortions and, as you have, you’ll ignore it or just repeat the “Her body, her choice!” mantra. > > Returning to this “point”, of which it really is not, doesn’t help your argument. Cutting past all the flowery language and extreme obfuscation, when you get right down to it and [look at the reasons why women have abortions](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf) (Table 2 and 3), you’ll quickly notice that the majority of abortions are done for a reason independent of the fact that it the woman’s body which literally have **nothing** to do with the fact that it’s the woman’s body. Saying she should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body is a meaningless statement, since the only part her body plays in deciding to abort is that she has the ability to abort. What you’re really saying when you say abortion is ‘okay’ is that the woman is having an abortion for an acceptable reason. And if, for example, you think having an abortion because a woman cannot afford to care for a child and doesn’t want to give that child up for adoption is a perfectly valid reason to kill her unborn child (or fetus or whatever you want to call it), then why does the same not hold true, say, in the case of a born child? Her reasons for killing her born would be the same as the reasons for killing her unborn child, and both would have the same effect on her. > > …That is, of course, your argument really isn’t about “her body” so much as the unborn not having reached some stage of development to which you ascribe some kind of moral worth. I’d be willing to bet that’s what it really is, given how few pro-choicers actively believe a woman should have an an unfettered right to an abortion throughout all of their pregnancy, seeing as how the woman’s body is always involved in pregnancy. > > Just about as much as being pro-choice means you have to support every choice an individual can make, amirite? The law allows abortions up to a certain point,except in the case of the woman’s life, she has a right to life as well. If you choose to use your arguments to justify your claim that is your problem not mine! A woman should have the right as to what she does with her own body. If she has agreed to let the fertile egg get to the stage where it is a child, then it is not legal to abort. She then has had time to decide unless it would mean her own life is in jepordy. If she has other children then her life is even more important because they would be losing a mother. I would like to see a woman have good preventatve method of birth control so the problem of a unwanted pregnancy would be unessasary. I don’t think any one else except the woman or her mate, has any right to invade a person’s bedroom or life, because their religion doesn’t think it should be. THat is the case with the Right to (so called) Life people in many cases. It is so easy to try to decide what someone else should be doing. I guess that is why Jesus despised the Pharisee’s so much, they spent their time trying to show how wonderful they were instead of living the spirit of the law they spent it trying to push the letter not caring about others. Like the woman in adultry, Jesus told them who was with out sin to cast the first stone. To me he meant..Let the God you believe in handle the wrongs of others. Of course I can see that all laws are of human origin and were made to help the human race as a whole, some justify war or self defense, but would take that same right away from a woman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597.md?page=8)