# 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:** 8
**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, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/141 "2011-09-29T12:47:21Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > 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. Once a child is born it is now a member of society and that is no longer the woman’s choice, she has alredy made it, that is a big difference than a not formed human person. ---
**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, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/142 "2011-09-29T13:01:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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. That is a totally differnent situation, and by freeing a slave (ususally) an adult you are freeing them to get a better life and many did. They did find jobs. Yes, there were and still are bigots who look at a person’s skin color or something else and don’t hire them because of that, and society does step in to help them. since Martin Luther King had the courage (and backing) to step up to the challange of equal rights for all people,as it should, many have made a big improvement in many lives. There are still bigots who like to call them selves Christian that send me emails putting down our president and his wife,and are angry that a man with black skin won the election they spend a great deal of time looking for things to critize him for, and were acting so from the day he won the election! ---
**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, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/143 "2011-09-29T13:08:30Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > 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 What an obsurb response. You are talking about a member of society already born, now with it’s own legal rights. You however are responsible to see to his safety,his care,education etc. for at least 18 years. The mother of your child has already made the choice to have a child for you. Your duty now is to see that it is cared for and raised in a good manner so it can grow to a good adult, and part of society! ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/144 "2011-09-29T14:23:28Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > 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? > [@monavis](#): > > What an obsurb response. You are talking about a member of society already born, now with it’s own legal rights. You however are responsible to see to his safety,his care,education etc. for at least 18 years. The mother of your child has already made the choice to have a child for you. Your duty now is to see that it is cared for and raised in a good manner so it can grow to a good adult, and part of society! Well, monavis, it was you who said you > [@](#): > > “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!!!” Extrapolating on this, isn’t it wrong for you to force me to keep my thumbs out of junior’s eyes? Remember, I _am_ his guardian, I _am_ his ‘steward’ (and you are _not_ mine). And by the way, that’s an absurd way to spell absurd. mmm ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/145 "2011-09-29T18:15:33Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > No, it’s not. > > You would do well to read [this](http://www.michelepolak.com/200fall10/Weekly_Schedule_files/Strickler.pdf). It’s not on point. It’s not even coherent. > [@](#): > > 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. Age and age cohort? Are you suggesting that younger women are _less_ pro-choice? That requires a great big heaping helping of _ **CITE** _. > [@](#): > > “Wantedness” is not adequate grounds to deprive another human of his or her life. And that is not an answer to the question. I will state it again and give you another opportunity to answer it. What is the \*scientific \*support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies? See, the important word in that sentence is scientific. Not religious, not rhetorical, not political, _scientific_. This is the point at which, if you’re going to provide some kind of quote it needs to come from an actual scientific text, not some pro-life piffle. Something peer-reviewed would be best, because that’s how actual science is done. > [@](#): > > I find that ensuring no human is arbitrarily deprived of his or her life is a pretty good reason. And when fetuses are persons, with a right to life that supersedes the rights of all other people, then that would be meaningful. Until that day, however it’s just more rhetorical wankery. It’s opinion, it’s not fact, it means nothing. > [@](#): > > (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. That 1 in 3 women have abortions when you consider the numbers involved there are extremely significant. And more importantly, that number is where it is in no small part to the fact that 99% of women use contraceptives. In combination both absolutely speak to an overwhelming belief that we should determine for ourselves when we do or do not become and remain pregnant. > [@](#): > > (B) This is 100% false. Men and women do not hold fundamentally different attitudes regarding abortion, Again: _ **CITE** _. A _reputable_ study, because I’ve got my own ready to go. > [@](#): > > and less than 30% of the population supports abortion “under any circumstance” You’re the one who introduced the concept of “under any circumstance” which a poorly framed phrase for polling to begin with. That you cannot, or will not, understand how removal of abortion access is oppressive and harmful is your own problem. You might want to sit and cogitate on it for a little. Maybe a sliver of light will penetrate the density, though I won’t hold my breath. ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/146 "2011-09-29T22:24:45Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Surely by saying that you suggest that some of a woman’s worth is inherently tied into motherhood (and biological motherhood, at that). It is the qualities of motherhood inherent in the person being expressed that is the highest calling, not necessarily the having physical children, though having such a child would be a ideal use of such a gifting. The qualities of motherhood are to me the qualities of angel-hood, as they (the angels) care for humanity, so does a mother care for, perhaps a smaller segment of humanity, but it is the same. It is a level of spiritual evolution to a higher level. ---
**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 29, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/147 "2011-09-29T23:23:47Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > It’s not on point. It’s not even coherent. This is a non-answer. There’s no point in me giving you cites if you’re simply going to refuse to read and/or acknowledge them. > [@](#): > > Age and age cohort? Are you suggesting that younger women are _less_ pro-choice? That requires a great big heaping helping of _ **CITE** _. Yes, that’s precisely what I’m “suggesting”, though it’s really not a suggestion as an established fact. Does the phrase “menopausal militia” mean anything to you? It should. > [@](#): > > The effect of age on attitudes toward abortion shows an interesting pattern. While bivariate analysis suggests that older people are less likely than younger people to approve of abortion rights (Ladd and Bowman, 1997), multivariate analysis reveals that this pattern is reversed after controlling for other socioeconomic and attitudinal variables (Kenny, 1993). In fact, _ceteris paribus_, older people are more accepting of abortion than their younger counterparts. > > …With the exception of the period from 1982 to 1985, where older people are more opposed to abortion than younger people in Model 1, age is significant only in the full model, and is consistently positive in its association with abortion approval, indicating that after controlling for other factors, older people are more approving of abortion than younger people. [Cite (you ignored this one before, though)](http://www.michelepolak.com/200fall10/Weekly_Schedule_files/Strickler.pdf) > [@](#): > > **Americans Aged 18 to 29 Trending More Anti-Abortion** > > The analysis above focused on public support for the “legal under any circumstances” option in Gallup’s abortion question. There is a somewhat different pattern in the trends by age for those choosing the “illegal in all circumstances” position. > > Two important changes are apparent. One is a significant drop in the percentage of seniors saying all abortions should be illegal. This fell from 32% in the earliest years of the trend to 16% in the first half of the 1990s, but has since rebounded somewhat to 21%. This long-term 11-point decline among seniors compares with a 9-point increase – from 14% to 23% – in support for the “illegal in all circumstances” position among 18- to 29-year-olds since the early 1990s. > > As a result, 18- to 29-year-olds are now roughly tied with seniors as the most likely of all age groups to hold this position on abortion – although all four groups are fairly close in their views. This is a sharp change from the late 1970s, when seniors were substantially more likely than younger age groups to want abortion to be illegal. [Cite](http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx) > [@](#): > > On the question of legality, when controlling for other factors, Millenials are surprisingly 1.3x more likely than older Americans to say that abortion should illegal in all or most cases. [Cite](http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Millenials-Abortion-and-Religion-Survey-Report.pdf) (Let it be known, I don’t really like that cite, because it aggregates from different sources and comes to some weird conclusions-- like watching ‘16 and Pregnant’ makes one more likely to support abortion-- but it’s still helpful nonetheless.) I think that will suffice for the moment. > [@](#): > > And that is not an answer to the question. I will state it again and give you another opportunity to answer it. > > What is the \*scientific \*support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies? Indeed, it was an answer to your question. If the unborn are humans-- and they are-- much like any other human, they should not be arbitrarily deprived of their lives. > [@](#): > > See, the important word in that sentence is scientific. Not religious, not rhetorical, not political, _scientific_. This is the point at which, if you’re going to provide some kind of quote it needs to come from an actual scientific text, not some pro-life piffle. Something peer-reviewed would be best, because that’s how actual science is done. For what? To know that the unborn are humans? It’s 6th grade biology. Why should I waste my time looking up something for you which is-- and has been-- common knowledge for at least 150 years? …Actually, never mind. [Knock yourself out](http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28), though it probably won’t make a lick of difference. > [@](#): > > And when fetuses are persons, with a right to life that supersedes the rights of all other people, then that would be meaningful. Until that day, however it’s just more rhetorical wankery. It’s opinion, it’s not fact, it means nothing. I find this ironic. You’re the one engaging in, as you put it, rhetorical wankery, for you have yet to define, explain or even qualify personhood. Not that I’d imagine you’re really aching to do so, but it’s worth pointing out nevertheless. > [@](#): > > That 1 in 3 women have abortions when you consider the numbers involved there are extremely significant. Is it any more significant than the 67% of women who _ **DON’T** _ have abortions? > [@](#): > > And more importantly, that number is where it is in no small part to the fact that 99% of women use contraceptives. In combination both absolutely speak to an overwhelming belief that we should determine for ourselves when we do or do not become and remain pregnant. All right, look. You’re not making any sense. 99% of women use contraceptives. That does not mean that 99% of women believe that women should be able to decide whether or not they want to become pregnant if and when they become pregnant. Rather, it means that 99% of women believe that women should be able to decide when and if they become pregnant; not whether or not they remain pregnant once they are pregnant. > [@](#): > > Again: _ **CITE** _. A _reputable_ study, because I’ve got my own ready to go. If that’s the case, you would wonder _why_ you didn’t post them in the first place. In any case: > [@](#): > > While we might expect women to hold more positive attitudes toward abortion than men since legalized abortion provides women the right to control their own bodies, much research finds no significant gender differences in abortion attitudes (Cook, Jelen & Wilcox, 1992; Ebaugh & Haney, 1980; Granberg & Granberg, 1985; Strickler & Danigelis, 2002; Walzer, 1994). Where gender difference is found, men tend to report slightly more support for abortion than women (Craig & O’Brien, 1993), particularly among samples who are single (Hertel & Russell, 1999), young adults (Misra & Hohman, 2000) and college students (Carlton, Nelson & Coleman, 2000). However, female college students appear more likely than males to support abortions after the first trimester (Carlton, Nelson, & Coleman, 2000). In addition, Hertel and Russell (1999) found women to be more pro-choice than men after workforce participation was controlled. [Cite](http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jsr/article/view/156/116) I’d love to see where you’re getting your information from. > [@](#): > > You’re the one who introduced the concept of “under any circumstance” which a poorly framed phrase for polling to begin with. “Legal under any circumstance” is a lot less nebulous than “on demand”. Of course, that doesn’t really matter anyway, as your claim that 3/5 of women support abortion on demand is _prima facie_ false since (1) 60% of women in the U.S. don’t support abortions at any period of time throughout pregnancy and (2) some restrictions on abortion garner more than 60% approval from women. > [@](#): > > That you cannot, or will not, understand how removal of abortion access is oppressive and harmful is your own problem. You might want to sit and cogitate on it for a little. Maybe a sliver of light will penetrate the density, though I won’t hold my breath. That’s a non-answer if I ever did read one. I’m going to take it, then, that you don’t actually have any real reasoning as to how you came to such a-- dare I say?-- absurd conclusion. ---
**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 30, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/148 "2011-09-30T00:41:31Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > And that is not an answer to the question. I will state it again and give you another opportunity to answer it. > > What is the \*scientific \*support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies? > > See, the important word in that sentence is scientific. Not religious, not rhetorical, not political, _scientific_. This is the point at which, if you’re going to provide some kind of quote it needs to come from an actual scientific text, not some pro-life piffle. Something peer-reviewed would be best, because that’s how actual science is done. I don’t want to speak for OMGABC, but I will certainly answer this from my own perspective. I do not care whether there is scientific support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. My opposition to abortion is neither scientific, religious nor political; it is moral. mmm ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/149 "2011-09-30T11:16:15Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Well, monavis, it was you who said you > > Extrapolating on this, isn’t it wrong for you to force me to keep my thumbs out of junior’s eyes? Remember, I _am_ his guardian, I _am_ his ‘steward’ (and you are _not_ mine). > > And by the way, that’s an absurd way to spell absurd. > mmm Yes, I realized I had mis-spelled absurd but it was too late to correct. looking for the speck are you? I am sure you are smart enough to know that I was making the distinction between an already born person (or persons for that matter). Laws protect the already born. If you were so crazy as to poke out the eye of your child you would be punished by the laws on the books for child abuse, that is a whole different thing. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/150 "2011-09-30T11:21:05Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I don’t want to speak for OMGABC, but I will certainly answer this from my own perspective. > > I do not care whether there is scientific support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. My opposition to abortion is neither scientific, religious nor political; it is moral. > mmm That is your idea of what is moral or not,it doesn’t mean it is moral for others! ---
**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 30, 2011, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/151 "2011-09-30T12:08:00Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I do not care whether there is scientific support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. My opposition to abortion is neither scientific, religious nor political; it is moral. The “punish the sluts” motivation, in other words. ---
**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 30, 2011, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/152 "2011-09-30T13:16:13Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I do not care whether there is scientific support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. My opposition to abortion is neither scientific, religious nor political; it is moral. Well, you have a right to your opinion, but the law cannot be based on opinion. It is based on facts. I believe in obeying the law, and working to change it if you think it’s wrong. I do not and will not ever support harassing people who obey the law. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/153 "2011-09-30T13:30:54Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Well, you have a right to your opinion, but the law cannot be based on opinion. It is based on facts. While laws of nature can be stated as based on fact, laws of man are certainly not, but opinions of lawmakers influenced by politicians (opinions), lobbying groups (more opinions) and interpretations (even more opinions) of statistics. ---
**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 30, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/154 "2011-09-30T13:34:14Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > While laws of nature can be stated as based on fact, laws of man are certainly not, but opinions of lawmakers influenced by politicians (opinions), lobbying groups (more opinions) and interpretations (even more opinions) of statistics. No; quite a lot of the law and morality are based on fact. In this case, the fact that a woman is a fully aware and intelligent being, while a fetus is not. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/155 "2011-09-30T15:52:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; quite a lot of the law and morality are based on fact. In this case, the fact that a woman is a fully aware and intelligent being, **while a fetus is not.** Besides getting into issues about people in comas and locked in syndrome and people with dementia etc., this (in bold) is a opinion, not a fact, it is a belief that you are free to believe in but has no basis in fact. We do not understand the human brain enough to make such a statement as you made, and things like organ transplant memories from the donors stand in contrast that we understand how the brain works when it comes consciousness. 😉 ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/156 "2011-09-30T16:05:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The “punish the sluts” motivation, in other words. I’ve never quite understood this argument. Presumably, such a line stems from the idea that sex isn’t a content to parenthood and that just because you’re having sex doesn’t mean you’re agreeing to be a parent or provide any kind of assistance to that which results from it. Unfortunately, you seldom to never (usually never) see the people who use the above line come out and rail against “forcing” a guy to pay child support for a kid he didn’t want when he was only consenting to sex. In fact, if a guy were ever to argue that he was just consenting to sex and nothing more, he would probably be called irresponsible, a deadbeat and all other less than flattering names by the same people talking about “slut punishment”. Which, by the way, is about as laughable a straw man as you could ever hope to set up. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; quite a lot of the law and morality are based on fact. In this case, the fact that a woman is a fully aware and intelligent being, while a fetus is not. That is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It’d be like arguing the following: “Well, the law is based on the fact that he’s White and he’s Black” in order to rationalize slavery. That is, the “fact”-- and, really, what you typed out is about as far removed from a fact as you can get-- is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/157 "2011-09-30T16:20:16Z")
To the OP and costs, this is putting the cart before the horse. It is addressing a symptom instead of the problem and therefore doesn’t have a answer. We need to reestablish (or establish if you prefer) the role and importance of woman in society, to this extent it would be needed to reestablish the role and importance of children in society, in short the role and importance of every person of humanity in society, or to use the OP’s wording the sacred nature of life. By diminishing the role of the baby/fetus you automatically diminish the role of women, the two are not separable. Our society treats children as a burden, and as being to be factory farmed in schools until they may be productive when they are grown up enough to no longer be a child. For women to gain their point of prominence children must be viewed as a valuable and contributing member of society. The earlier we value the life of a child, and if we can do that into the womb, the role of women is greatly elevated for who she is naturally, which is what we want, a natural acceptance for who a person is. This will cause a great change in socially structure where we can start to address the cost issues if they still exist as expressed in the OP. ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/158 "2011-09-30T16:24:51Z")
Shit, the Supreme Court of Tennesee has ruled that a guy who helped create frozen embryos cannot be forced into fatherhood. [Davis v. Davis](http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/cloning/davis_v_davis.htm). > [@](#): > > In summary, we hold that disputes involving the Disposition of preembryos produced by in vitro fertilization should be resolved, first, by looking to the preferences of the progenitors. If their wishes cannot be ascertained, or if there is dispute, then their prior agreement concerning Disposition should be carried out. If no prior agreement exists, then the relative interests of the parties in using or not using the preembryos must be weighed. Ordinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail, assuming that the other party has a reasonable possibility of achieving parenthood by means other than use of the preembryos in question. If no other reasonable alternatives exist, then the argument in favor of using the preembryos to achieve pregnancy should be considered. However, if the party seeking control of the preembryos intends merely to donate them to another couple, the objecting party obviously has the greater interest and should prevail. If life begins at conception, these embryos were “preborn babies.” The mother wanted them implanted in her or another woman’s womb. The father, now that he and the mother had split up, said “No.” ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/159 "2011-09-30T16:45:32Z")
I want to know whether or not you’re looking for a serious response. Because I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or facetious. ---
**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 30, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597/160 "2011-09-30T19:41:15Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It is the qualities of motherhood inherent in the person being expressed that is the highest calling, not necessarily the having physical children, though having such a child would be a ideal use of such a gifting. > > The qualities of motherhood are to me the qualities of angel-hood, as they (the angels) care for humanity, so does a mother care for, perhaps a smaller segment of humanity, but it is the same. It is a level of spiritual evolution to a higher level. Then surely those qualities aren’t harmed by abortion? Just as an actual mother could well exhibit no motherliness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-pregnancy-medical-costs/596597.md?page=9)