# "Pro-lifers want to control women's bodies" - Okay, but........why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330 "2019-05-22T02:24:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/281 "2019-05-26T18:47:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > But I didn’t say that. If the woman’s life is at risk the doctor can perform the abortion. > > ~Max Who determines if the woman’s life is at risk? What are the criteria? 90%, 50%, 10%? If it is not her life, but only her health that is at risk, how much are we willing to make her suffer? Does the doctor need to worry about a panel of political appointees second guessing his decision, potentially stripping him of his license and maybe even jailing him because they do not think that the criteria were met? Does the doctor need to get back to her in a timely fashion, or can he just wait until it is too late, whether the spawn has gone on too long, or the woman is dead from complications? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/282 "2019-05-26T18:56:20Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Okay, and why do you think this a high bar? Depending on the jurisdiction and how conservative the population is, enough evidence to win could boil down to very little. If people in a town don’t like a woman because she has tattoos and a bad reputation, she has a target on her back if she makes one false move while pregnant and then miscarries. Gets caught smoking? Drinking? Eating sliced deli meat? God forbid she falls down the stairs while doing all three things. A jury of her peers could totally vote guilty in this situation. And then the case is appealed on timely objections and hopefully the innocent woman wins a retrial. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This could happen, sure. I don’t expect to worry about this happening very often in a society where abortion is legal and accessible, though. I also don’t expect the state to barge into my home uninvited in a society that treats my right to privacy as a protected concern, irrespective of what is growing in my uterus. Yes, but I would expect the police to barge into your home if a fetus has rights and abortion is illegal when medically necessary but legal and accessible when medically necessary. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Uh, yeah. Ruling that a fetus is a legal person is no small thing; it changes what is at stake in the eyes of the law. It means the difference between being charged with murder and being charged with something less severe. > > But you see, I don’t want my daughters to ever have to worry about whether their text messages will get them in trouble simply because they asked a friend about misoprostle or the morning after pill when their period is a month late. I would rather them get the help they need rather than be paralyzed by fear into inaction and silence. I don’t want them to be pulled into court to testify against a dear friend who got an abortion or had a suspicious miscarriage, and I don’t want that friend to go prison simply because she wasn’t mentally or emotionally prepared for a baby. I don’t want any of this madness to happen to any woman just because some man doesn’t see this nanny state madness as a big deal. And I want my daughters and sons to realize that having unprotected sex (or even protected sex) means you might become pregnant, and that abortion is killing a person, and unjustified unless her life is in danger. After conception or brainwaves or whatever criteria, it’s too late to back out. And if I took the position that non-procreative sex between fertile individuals is sinful, I would want my daughters and sons to know that too. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > We’ve been through this song and dance before, so we already know what happens when laws like the one you’re proposing occur. Your vision for the future may look neat, orderly, and fair in your mind, but all I’m seeing is dead women bleeding out alone and desperate in motel rooms. if you doubt me, go look link at that NSFW link that **monstro** shared earlier. Why you think we need to go back to that ugly time, I.Do.Not.Understand. Don’t equate my position with the status quo before _Roe v. Wade_. I make exceptions for medical necessity and possibly rape victims, and I am all for sex education and state funding and availability of abortions that meet those criteria, and support services and even Planned Parenthood. I would even prefer to support measures increasing the availability of contraceptives, either because I support it or as a compromise (sinful women are better than dead sinful women and dead innocent babies). I support culpability of the father, and if I believe making sexual promiscuity a sin this applies to men as well as women. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/283 "2019-05-26T18:57:29Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > And let’s not forget: what about the abortions that are WANTED pregnancies? > > You know, you’re all excited, and then you find out there are some severe abnormalities, which most likely makes the fetus incompatible with life, or will only survive a day or so? > > And we’re not talking Down Syndrome. I’m fine with those abortions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/284 "2019-05-26T19:02:12Z")
I’m glad to hear that. There are some that AREN’T. _shudder_ ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/285 "2019-05-26T19:07:10Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Let’s say a woman falls down the stairs and claims to have had a miscarriage. As stipulated in state code, the hospital takes blood and urine samples from her. That state law does not go far enough to protect the woman. You would need a complaint by the husband or credible testimony from a credible witness such as a mandatory reporter. > [@monstro](#): > > Her toxic screen comes up positive for a sedative and alcohol. The concentrations of both are low, but investigators find out from friends that the woman has been depressed lately and recently admitted to having unhappiness over her pregnancy. She told her mother and best friend she wasn’t interested in a baby shower. She didn’t let her coworkers even know she was pregnant. Her google searches include “How not to gain weight when pregnant”, “Myths about miscarriages”, and “Is it normal to hate being pregnant?” Her ex-boyfriend doesn’t have one good thing to say about that “selfish bitch”. They broke up before she knew she was pregnant. > > **Max S.** , if you were the lead detective in this case, what would be your next step? Do you find that there is insufficient evidence to charge her with a crime, do you try to nail her on something based on the facts you do have, or do you keep rooting around for more evidence? What if your boss tells you that there’s been an uptick in suspicious miscarriages over the past year, and _his_ boss thinks it’s about time the department start Sending A Message. What do you do? If I have the authority, I say the investigation lacked probable cause from the outset and all evidence gathered thus far is fruit of the poisonous tree, then drop the case. If I don’t have authority, I either threaten to resign (if I think she is innocent) or do my job as commanded and press charges, noting my objections in the record, and watch her win the trial. > [@monstro](#): > > You know what I worry about? I worry about the woman who miscarries before she’s told anyone she was even pregnant. And because she hasn’t told anyone, she has a choice not to report her miscarriage to the authorities and not go to the hospital. Why would she want to tell anyone? The police will ransack her home looking for evidence, and they may just find incriminating evidence in her blood and urine. Even if she doesn’t get charged with abortion, she may get charged with something based on what shows up in her tox screen. So she doesn’t go to the hospital. And then she winds up dead from an infection because no one told her that there can be lethal complications from a miscarriage. The mandatory screening is wrong to begin with, and I agree with you about that. > [@monstro](#): > > A parent can tell a friend that they could just “wring their kid’s neck” and their friend will understand that it was just a figure of speech. Chances are the kid isn’t going to wind up dead, so there wouldn’t even be any need for the friend to recall that conversation to the police. But a pregnant woman who says anything bad about her pregnancy, who then winds up losing that pregnancy, suddenly becomes prime suspect. An abortion ban silence pregnant women. They won’t be able to search the internet for blog posts that reflect their own feelings. They won’t be able to tell their friends, family, or mandated reporters (counselors) about the feelings they are going through. They will have to keep their sadness, regret, and anger to themselves, unless they want to become the prime suspect in the case of a miscarriage. Maybe you, **Max S.** , are bothered by that idea, but a lot of pro-lifers probably aren’t. After all, they are of the mind if you don’t love the Lord with all of your heart, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. So why wouldn’t they want to prosecute an unhappy pregnant woman for not “feeling” the right way? I am bothered by it, but the same thing happens when someone caring for an elderly relative gives the impression that they want the elder dead. If the elder then actually dies, yes, depending on the “tips” or complaints or a ton of reasons, there might be an investigation for a non-existent crime. I can’t speak for other pro-lifers, only myself, and even then only when I adopt their position. > [@monstro](#): > > This is the problem with formulating policy based on religious ideology. The crazy never stops. Maybe it is crazy, but it is only crazy at the root. Everything else follows naturally. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/286 "2019-05-26T19:12:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Who determines if the woman’s life is at risk? > > What are the criteria? 90%, 50%, 10%? > > If it is not her life, but only her health that is at risk, how much are we willing to make her suffer? > > Does the doctor need to worry about a panel of political appointees second guessing his decision, potentially stripping him of his license and maybe even jailing him because they do not think that the criteria were met? > > Does the doctor need to get back to her in a timely fashion, or can he just wait until it is too late, whether the spawn has gone on too long, or the woman is dead from complications? The doctor; it’s up to the doctor; also up to the doctor; yes; and yes it must be timely. I know I’m throwing a lot of responsibility on doctors. But that is their job! Doctors literally exist to make professional judgements with life-and-death consequences. This is the reason medical ethics are more important than personal morals. ETA: Doctors must also give heavy consideration to the mother’s wishes. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/287 "2019-05-26T19:17:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > And then the case is appealed on timely objections and hopefully the innocent woman wins a retrial. Heh, you said timely appeals. What an oxymoron. > [@](#): > > Yes, but I would expect the police to barge into your home if a fetus has rights and abortion is illegal when medically necessary but legal and accessible when medically necessary. They should probably kick down the door if she pours a glass of wine, or pulls out a cigarette, or starts doing laundry, or even stretches wrong. > [@](#): > > And I want my daughters and sons to realize that having unprotected sex (or even protected sex) means you might become pregnant, and that abortion is killing a person, and unjustified unless her life is in danger. After conception or brainwaves or whatever criteria, it’s too late to back out. > > And if I took the position that non-procreative sex between fertile individuals is sinful, I would want my daughters and sons to know that too. Great for you. Then teach that to your sons and daughters. Why do you need everyone else to follow your prefered morality in order to do so? > [@](#): > > Don’t equate my position with the status quo before _Roe v. Wade_. I make exceptions for medical necessity and possibly rape victims, and I am all for sex education and state funding and availability of abortions that meet those criteria, and support services and even Planned Parenthood. I would even prefer to support measures increasing the availability of contraceptives, either because I support it or as a compromise (sinful women are better than dead sinful women and dead innocent babies). I support culpability of the father, and if I believe making sexual promiscuity a sin this applies to men as well as women. > > ~Max I support all of those, and by supporting those, that doesn’t also preclude my support of a woman to have control over her body. I also do not try to get others to be forced into my morality, and would not consider someone to be doing something that I Don’t like to be sinning. In fact, bringing sin into it pretty much concedes that you have no actual secular position here, but only a religiously based one, and we are not a theocracy. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m fine with those abortions. > > ~Max Okay, so where is the limit? If the baby will live, but be severely mentally retarded, barely even conscious, is that a life to be kept? If it will live, but be a quadriplegic, or even just a paraplegic, does that baby need to come into being? I’ve been following a story of a baby born without skin. It looks like it will live a bit longer, a bit more time of excruciating pain, but it may survive, would you rule that that baby needs to be carried to completion? Unless you actually are willing to address these questions, then what you want is for women to be forced to bear babies as a consequence of them having sex, and any fig leaf that you actually care about the baby is shredded. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/288 "2019-05-26T19:26:43Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Then there are the mental aspects. That girl should be in school learning but instead she is stressed out over her pregnancy. The state has an interest in educating girls. As if being raped wasn’t bad enough, she has to deal with the social stigma of being pregnant and birthing a child. Not to mention trying to go back to school with fecal or urinary incontinence. There is a legitimate concern that the girl might develop a permanent psychological disorder, or attempt suicide. Why the hell do you think all of this is an issue only for children, or even only for raped people? Adult women have their own work to do, which might or might not be learning in school, but all of that nevertheless applies. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Indeed, I make an exception and allow abortions where the woman’s life is in danger. Given a choice between the woman’s life and the child, the woman should be saved, possibly unless she clearly waives her right to life. I didn’t say the woman’s right to life. I said the woman’s right to have a life: that is, as something other than an incubator, all of whose work, family responsibilites, and joy you want to subordinate to the needs of an eight-week fetus. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Ideally they wouldn’t be, but this is a concession made when society as a whole demands it, otherwise it _is_ immoral. It appears to be your position that society as a whole should not demand that women of childbearing age have any right to make their own decisions. I disagree with you about that. > [@Max\_S](#): > > It is not the fault of the fetus that they require support from the mother, that is a fact of life and a consequence of the mother having sex. Fault has nothing to do with it. > [@Max\_S](#): > > To make this relevant, it would have to be a scenario such as me stabbing you in the kidney then you asking the courts to force me to give you one of my kidneys. No, it would not have to be such a scenario. I was going to say ‘why should it’, but I suppose you’re going to say again that having sex is the same thing as consenting to pregnancy. I disagree with that one also, but even if we posit it: The law and the society do not require a person who did stab another in the kidney to donate a kidney in an attempt to make repairs. The law and the society do not require a willing parent to donate a kidney, even though that person agreed to help make the kidney that turned out to be faulty. > [@Max\_S](#): > > What if you pushed the victim in the river? Isn’t that a crime itself? Sometimes. If you push the victim in the river in order to stop that person from kidnapping you, I expect it’s self defense. Even if the person said they’d let you go again in nine months, though they were in no way guaranteeing to keep you in conditions that wouldn’t leave you seriously damaged for life. > [@Max\_S](#): > > If the billionaire caused those people’s problems, I would in fact demand that they pay for it. The concentration of wealth in the hands of billionaires arguably does help cause those people’s problems. The society’s willingness to encourage such concentration certainly affects the cost of test strips. But even if we grant that one, that doesn’t change the organ donation examples. Substitute instead that we don’t even require people to donate blood, which, unlike pregnancy, actually is only a trivial inconvenience. > [@Max\_S](#): > > What I am saying is that it when a fetus becomes a person is _the_ debate, not whether controlling a woman’s body is justified. You can’t debate the second point if the only disagreement is over the first point. You can’t make that true by saying it, even repeatedly. It’s not true. The only disagreement is not over the first point, and we most certainly can, and will, and have been debating the second point. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I do understand your outrage in a sense, but only if I deny the rights of the fetus. So it does not make sense to me for you to bring up outrage about pro-lifers controlling women’s bodies in the abortion debate, because in my opinion the abortion debate is about when the fetus acquires rights. Your opinion does not control the universe, or the country, or even this discussion. I do understand in a sense why you might find that annoying; but I don’t understand why you think you can pull off claiming that only your opinion matters. – fast moving thread. I might, or might not, tackle whatever’s come in since the portion I replied to above later. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/289 "2019-05-26T19:29:37Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That state law does not go far enough to protect the woman. You would need a complaint by the husband or credible testimony from a credible witness such as a mandatory reporter. So, I’m the boyfriend, and my GF has told me that she is pregnant, and has shown me the abortifancst that she is about to use, but I cannot report her, as we are not married and I am not a mandatory reporter? > [@](#): > > If I have the authority, I say the investigation lacked probable cause from the outset and all evidence gathered thus far is fruit of the poisonous tree, then drop the case. If I don’t have authority, I either threaten to resign (if I think she is innocent) or do my job as commanded and press charges, noting my objections in the record, and watch her win the trial. Great, so you resign and someone with more zealotry for babies and hatred for women takes over. > [@](#): > > The mandatory screening is wrong to begin with, and I agree with you about that. But how else would we know if these sinful people are having sex when they know that a miscarriage could be a consequence? > [@](#): > > I am bothered by it, but the same thing happens when someone caring for an elderly relative gives the impression that they want the elder dead. If the elder then actually dies, yes, depending on the “tips” or complaints or a ton of reasons, there might be an investigation for a non-existent crime. I can’t speak for other pro-lifers, only myself, and even then only when I adopt their position. Two big differences. The first is that the elderly person is actually probably going to die at some point in the not too distant future. That’s part of being elderly. The second is that a fetus is much smaller and is kinda hidden from easy view, so it is much harder to tell what exactly is going on there. > [@](#): > > Maybe it is crazy, but it is only crazy at the root. Everything else follows naturally. No, everything else is a bunch of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy as they attempt to implement theocratic rule is a country based on secularism. ~Max [/QUOTE] > [@Max\_S](#): > > The doctor; it’s up to the doctor; also up to the doctor; yes; and yes it must be timely. So, we have doctor that performs abortions on a regular basis. Anyone that goes to that doctor asking for an abortion gets one. Will there be any investigation into this doctor? > [@](#): > > I know I’m throwing a lot of responsibility on doctors. But that is their job! Doctors literally exist to make professional judgements with life-and-death consequences. This is the reason medical ethics are more important than personal morals. Right, which is more or less how it should be. It is people trying to get between the doctor and the patient that is the problem. > [@](#): > > ETA: Doctors must also give heavy consideration to the mother’s wishes. I agree, and that includes terminating an unwanted pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/290 "2019-05-26T19:50:01Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > And if I took the position that non-procreative sex between fertile individuals is sinful, I would want my daughters and sons to know that too.[. . .] I would even prefer to support measures increasing the availability of contraceptives, either because I support it or as a compromise (sinful women are better than dead sinful women and dead innocent babies). Ah. There we have it. You believe “that non-procreative sex between fertile individuals is sinful”, so you don’t think anybody should be having it. And you want to force this position on the entire population; most of whom, whether or not they’re religious, believe no such thing. You also think that the best way to force this position, which is a belief of certain religious sects, on the population as a whole, is to somehow convince everybody that the only topic which can properly be debated in relation to it is whether a fetus can be said to have rights. That doesn’t seem to be working very well over here. I wish you similar luck everywhere else that you try it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/291 "2019-05-26T19:56:34Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Ah. There we have it. > > You believe “that non-procreative sex between fertile individuals is sinful”, so you don’t think anybody should be having it. And you want to force this position on the entire population; most of whom, whether or not they’re religious, believe no such thing. As I mentioned earlier, itis not that they want to control women’s bodies, it is that controlling women’s bodies is part of what is necessary for them to impose their religion upon society to bring on an authoritarian theocratic rule. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/292 "2019-05-26T20:44:50Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That state law does not go far enough to protect the woman. You would need a complaint by the husband or credible testimony from a credible witness such as a mandatory reporter. And you’re saying this why? What makes you think the state won’t consider all lines of evidence? And why would the husband be more credible than anyone else? Maybe the husband was the one who put something in her drink. Maybe the husband isn’t even in the picture, but the ex-boyfriend is. > [@](#): > > If I have the authority, I say the investigation lacked probable cause from the outset and all evidence gathered thus far is fruit of the poisonous tree, then drop the case. If I don’t have authority, I either threaten to resign (if I think she is innocent) or do my job as commanded and press charges, noting my objections in the record, and watch her win the trial. You sound very naive here, sorry. Innocent people lose their court cases all the time. Good people bow down to political pressure _all the time_. If department policy directs staff to treat positive tox screens as probable cause, then you can grandstand all you want. It won’t change anything. I don’t know the image you have of the hypothetical woman who falls down the stairs. Maybe if she’s clearly an upstanding woman–conventionally attractive, middle class, no infractions with the law–then she can expect mercy. But you better believe an “imperfect” woman would have a much harder time. She tests positive for meth? She lives in filthy house? She has five kids in foster care? THROW THE BOOK AT HER. The criminal justice system is the biggest destroyer of life in the US. Banning abortion will just destroy more lives, and it will be the “imperfect” people who suffer the brunt of this destruction. > [@](#): > > The mandatory screening is wrong to begin with, and I agree with you about that. Why would mandatory screening be wrong? Wouldn’t it be the only way to empirically determine if an aborticant was used to cause a miscarriage? If you don’t have mandatory screening, then what stops women from giving themselves chemical-induced abortions? Aren’t you making it awfully hard to enforce an abortion ban law? > [@](#): > > I am bothered by it, but the same thing happens when someone caring for an elderly relative gives the impression that they want the elder dead. If the elder then actually dies, yes, depending on the “tips” or complaints or a ton of reasons, there might be an investigation for a non-existent crime. I can’t speak for other pro-lifers, only myself, and even then only when I adopt their position. If I am caring for my elderly parent and someone overhears me say that I can’t wait for them to die and then my parent ends up dying, yes, there may be an investigation depending on the circumstances of that death. But that investigation will not require me to get a medical exam to determine if I did something damaging to my body. If I get wasted the night before my parent dies from a heart attack, that’s not going to raise any red flags. If I get wasted the night before my miscarriage, you better believe some sanctimonious person will have a problem with it and try to ruin my life over it. > [@](#): > > Maybe it is crazy, but it is only crazy at the root. Everything else follows naturally. A lot of things follow “naturally” from an abortion ban. And those things are much scarier and more destructive than some aborted fetuses. It’s well and good for you to only think of the best outcomes (more wonderful baybies!!). But the worst outcomes are what we need to keep at the forefront of our minds. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/293 "2019-05-26T20:49:59Z")
It really bothers me that the husband/boyfriend/ex would be a credible tip\* by default\*. When it comes down to a he said/she said situation here, of course the male voice is given this tremendous weight and value. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/294 "2019-05-26T21:20:03Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > > [@k9bfriender](#): > > > > > > So all it takes is a jealous or upset significant other to begin an investigation? > > > … > > > So, all it takes to get someone prosecuted is a tip or complaint? > > > > Yes (officially), no. See [POST=21663602]post #270[/POST]. > > Huh. um. huh? Yes, all it takes is a jealous or upset significant other to officially begin an investigation. The police are free to realize there is no reasonable basis and close the case. No, a tip or complaint is _not_ all it takes to get someone prosecuted. It’s not even enough to open a serious investigation, unless the complaintant is credible. The district attorney will need a strong case with evidence before prosecuting. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Are you saying that the garbage truck worker chose to die? I am saying the garbage truck worker should know the risks. The garbage truck worker can unionize or bargain for higher pay to compensate the risk of an accident. He can take out life insurance or petition laws ensuring a minimum of safeguards be in place. Intentional murder of the garbage truck worker is prosecutable. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > So you accept that being a fetus is a risky proposition, with many things that can go wrong and end its existence, but cannot abide that one of those things that could go wrong is that it is not wanted in this world? Correct. Not wanting a fetus is not enough for me to support its abortion. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > But she doesn’t want an all-expense paid sterilization, she wants a baby. So, do you mean entirlited, or required? I mean entitled, definitely _ **not** _ required. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Are you saying that if you have a health issue that lowers your chances of being able to bring a pregnancy to a healthy ending below some arbitrary threshold, you would force them to be sterilized, or prosecute them if they choose to have sex? That arbitrary threshold is “near-impossible”, or alternatively, that she has a “reasonable chance” of successful delivery. Whether a woman meets the threshold is up to her doctor, and the woman chooses the doctor. If a doctor says she has a reasonable chance and she doesn’t, and for whatever reason the state investigates the abortion (it must not be automatic), the doctor is on the hook and not the woman. I would only prosecute for 1) willful induced miscarriage, 2) medically unnecessary abortion, or 3) gross negligence resulting in medically necessary abortion. Yes, number three means I would prosecute for the act of sex if such an act constitutes gross negligence. That would be like drag racing on a public road and running over a pedestrian. Your comparison completely breaks down and is invalid. The environment benefits everyone. Who does that fetus benefit? Given the fictive process above, the environment of the future will not benefit anybody living today. But working to save it does disadvantage people here and now. Let me give you a better analogy. Let’s say you and your children are sick and in suffering. You can still function normally but life is uncomfortable. Doctors say you will all live but the suffering will not diminish. The devil visits and offers to cure you and your family and let everyone live a long and healthy life. In return, long after you and everybody you know are dead, he will kill some of your descendents and inflict the same disease upon the rest before making the offer again. I think this example is also comparable to the abortion debate, if you accept the premise that fetuses have rights. Legalizing abortion is like agreeing to the devil’s contract - untold numbers of persons will die but in return people can have sex without worrying about pregnancy or labor. Banning abortion is like refusing the devil’s contract - innocent people will not die to the devil but in turn sex has consequences. I’m not saying you are aligned with the devil, that wasn’t the purpose of the example. That’s why I used the environmental example first. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > And if that doesn’t work, try to convince legislators to pass bills that codify your desires into law? > > There is no convincing needed, I get that the disagreement is over the rights of the fetus. I believe that the fetus has the rights that the host mother chooses to grant to it, others believe that it has rights above and beyond that of her own. It is you that makes the assertion that the fetus _does_ have rights, and then goes from there, as opposed to trying to explain why exactly I should extend the rights of full personhood to a clump of cells residing in someone else’s body. Then you and I are on the same page in reference to the original topic - “Pro-lifers want to control women’s bodies” - Okay, but…why? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > That actually doesn’t answer any of the questions that I asked, and only demonstrates that you cannot answer those questions. I’m a random internet dude, not a doctor. There is no general rule as to when it is medically necessary to perform the abortion. It would probably depend on many factors I couldn’t possibly hope to understand. I can’t get any more specific than “if there is a reasonable chance that the mother will lose her life, she may request an abortion.” And I am nobody to say what percentage is a reasonable chance. Quality of life, if temporary, shouldn’t be an issue unless the doctor believes there will be permanent effects. I hesitate to force doctors to stand by while a woman in extreme discomfort requests an abortion, but if her life is safe and the fetus is safe I also have a feeling that she and her partner brought this upon herself (rape excepted). If it gets to the point where doctors fear she might develop a permanent physiologic or psychiatric disorder, that is, she just _cannot handle_ being pregnant, an abortion might be in order. But repeated abortions under these circumstances, and repeated sex leading to the same situation, constitute negligence unless she has a bona fide wish to deliver a child and works closely with the doctors to make it happen. At some point, even with a bona fide wish, if it’s not possible it’s not possible. I don’t think anyone will reach that point without some physiologic or psychiatric disorder being diagnosed. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/295 "2019-05-26T21:38:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Heh, you said timely appeals. What an oxymoron. I said timely objections, although strictly speaking the defense must also timely request an appeal. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > They should probably kick down the door if she pours a glass of wine, or pulls out a cigarette, or starts doing laundry, or even stretches wrong. No, the crime is gross negligence that _actually_ leads to death of the fetus. Another crime is willful self-induced abortion, which requires that the fetus to actually die. And this law is already on the books in most jurisdictions. Don’t get the theoretical anti-abortion law mixed up with negligence and self-induced abortion laws. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Great for you. Then teach that to your sons and daughters. Why do you need everyone else to follow your prefered morality in order to do so? Well, in my opinion as an anti-abortion advocate, abortion amounts to killing a person and the law should punish people who kill other people. The correct question is “when and why does the fetus acquire rights”? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I support all of those, and by supporting those, that doesn’t also preclude my support of a woman to have control over her body. > > I also do not try to get others to be forced into my morality, and would not consider someone to be doing something that I Don’t like to be sinning. In fact, bringing sin into it pretty much concedes that you have no actual secular position here, but only a religiously based one, and we are not a theocracy. The point is that anti-abortion/pro-life/whatever-you-call-them advocates are actually interested in the rights of the fetus, not controlling women’s bodies. They might have a religious basis, their argument might fall apart under scrutiny (I couldn’t say), but it is _not_ because they are actually misogynists. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Okay, so where is the limit? If the baby will live, but be severely mentally retarded, barely even conscious, is that a life to be kept? If it will live, but be a quadriplegic, or even just a paraplegic, does that baby need to come into being? > > I’ve been following a story of a baby born without skin. It looks like it will live a bit longer, a bit more time of excruciating pain, but it may survive, would you rule that that baby needs to be carried to completion? > > Unless you actually are willing to address these questions, then what you want is for women to be forced to bear babies as a consequence of them having sex, and any fig leaf that you actually care about the baby is shredded. They are difficult questions, and not actually being an abortion advocate, I cannot answer them to my own satisfaction. There are religious arguments, sure: if the baby lives long enough for baptism we can save its soul. The state has no interest if the baby won’t survive into adulthood, or will be so maimed as to be unable to participate in society. The hospital would prefer to let the mother decide, or rather, her insurance company. The doctors see these things all the time and quietly regret the unfortunate reality of life. I don’t know who is right. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/296 "2019-05-26T21:46:38Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes, all it takes is a jealous or upset significant other to officially begin an investigation. The police are free to realize there is no reasonable basis and close the case. > > No, a tip or complaint is _not_ all it takes to get someone prosecuted. It’s not even enough to open a serious investigation, unless the complaintant is credible. The district attorney will need a strong case with evidence before prosecuting. She was pregnant, now she’s not. Pretty open and shut case to me. Ask her if she wants to take a plea bargain, or face a jury or a bunch of religious fanatics. > [@](#): > > I am saying the garbage truck worker should know the risks. The garbage truck worker can unionize or bargain for higher pay to compensate the risk of an accident. He can take out life insurance or petition laws ensuring a minimum of safeguards be in place. And that matters how? He still dies due to someone else’s negligence. > [@](#): > > Intentional murder of the garbage truck worker is prosecutable. And so is unintentional homicide. > [@](#): > > Correct. Not wanting a fetus is not enough for me to support its abortion. So, it’s not about the fetus then, it is about limiting the control over a woman’s body. > [@](#): > > I mean entitled, definitely _ **not** _ required. So you are fine with her miscarrying half a dozen babies before she finally delivers a live one? > [@](#): > > That arbitrary threshold is “near-impossible”, or alternatively, that she has a “reasonable chance” of successful delivery. Whether a woman meets the threshold is up to her doctor, and the woman chooses the doctor. If a doctor says she has a reasonable chance and she doesn’t, and for whatever reason the state investigates the abortion (it must not be automatic), the doctor is on the hook and not the woman. There is no doctor in the world that is going to approve such an action. They are on the hook. If they have 100 patients, and each of them have a 90% chance of delivering their baby, that mean that the state is going to be going after them for the 10 that turned out to not be “:reasonable chances”. > [@](#): > > I would only prosecute for 1) willful induced miscarriage, 2) medically unnecessary abortion, or 3) gross negligence resulting in medically necessary abortion. > > Yes, number three means I would prosecute for the act of sex if such an act constitutes gross negligence. That would be like drag racing on a public road and running over a pedestrian. So you would prosecute a woman for getting pregnant if she really wanted a baby but had a high chance of miscarriage. Make up your mind. > [@](#): > > Given the fictive process above, the environment of the future will not benefit anybody living today. But working to save it does disadvantage people here and now. To some extent, sure, but we are talking about, once again, something that effects every, vs a fetus. > [@](#): > > Let me give you a better analogy. Let’s say you and your children are sick and in suffering. You can still function normally but life is uncomfortable. Doctors say you will all live but the suffering will not diminish. The devil visits and offers to cure you and your family and let everyone live a long and healthy life. In return, long after you and everybody you know are dead, he will kill some of your descendents and inflict the same disease upon the rest before making the offer again. That would be a terrible deal that should not be taken. > [@](#): > > I think this example is also comparable to the abortion debate, if you accept the premise that fetuses have rights. Legalizing abortion is like agreeing to the devil’s contract - untold numbers of persons will die but in return people can have sex without worrying about pregnancy or labor. Banning abortion is like refusing the devil’s contract - innocent people will not die to the devil but in turn sex has consequences. That’s a terrible analogy. How exactly is legalizing abortion like visiting death and injury upon the future? No really, I’ve seen bad analogies, and that is one of the worst. It doesn’t actually have any connection to the topic, and neither it’s premise nor conclusion follow in any logical fashion, and to top it off, it is predicated upon me condeding the entire argument and accepting the a fetus has rights, which is what the debate is actually about. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying you are aligned with the devil, that wasn’t the purpose of the example. That’s why I used the environmental example first. No, you are saying that non-procreative sex is a sin, and therefore, pro-choicers are enabling sin. Not all that much better, really. These are your opinions, and you wish to impose your opinions on others, even if they don’t share those opinions. > [@](#): > > Then you and I are on the same page in reference to the original topic - “Pro-lifers want to control women’s bodies” - Okay, but…why? Because they want more than just control over women’s bodies, they want control over society. They want to institute a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship, where they justify their whims by saying that they got them from the sky god. They want to shut down debate about the secular benefits of policies by declaring those policies to be or to enable sin in the eyes of their religion. Just look at how much privacy and intrusion you are willing to impose upon society in order to get your way in regards to a bunch of clumps of cells. The point isn’t the cells, the point is the disruption of society. > [@](#): > > I’m a random internet dude, not a doctor. There is no general rule as to when it is medically necessary to perform the abortion. It would probably depend on many factors I couldn’t possibly hope to understand. I can’t get any more specific than “if there is a reasonable chance that the mother will lose her life, she may request an abortion.” And I am nobody to say what percentage is a reasonable chance. If you cannot answer these questions, then you shouldn’t be imposing your will upon others. > [@](#): > > Quality of life, if temporary, shouldn’t be an issue unless the doctor believes there will be permanent effects. I hesitate to force doctors to stand by while a woman in extreme discomfort requests an abortion, but if her life is safe and the fetus is safe I also have a feeling that she and her partner brought this upon herself (rape excepted). If it gets to the point where doctors fear she might develop a permanent physiologic or psychiatric disorder, that is, she just _cannot handle_ being pregnant, an abortion might be in order. But repeated abortions under these circumstances, and repeated sex leading to the same situation, constitute negligence unless she has a bona fide wish to deliver a child and works closely with the doctors to make it happen. At some point, even with a bona fide wish, if it’s not possible it’s not possible. I don’t think anyone will reach that point without some physiologic or psychiatric disorder being diagnosed. > > ~Max So, torture is fine for you if it imposes your will on society. I disagree. As you said, you are considering it from the perspective that the fetus is a person, have you ever tried considering that the woman is a person too? Try thinking of it from that perspective for a change. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/297 "2019-05-26T21:52:52Z")
What if I have a child who needs regular blood transfusions, and a parent is the only one whose blood type matches. For that child to stay alive, the parent has to go through painful blood draws several times a week–enough blood loss to make them feel sick and woozy and unable to really work or function. Can the state compel the parent to make those donations? For how long? Till the child is 18? Until the parent dies of old age? If the parent resists, can they be physically compelled–held in jail–or just prosecuted after the child dies? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/298 "2019-05-26T21:58:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I said timely objections, although strictly speaking the defense must also timely request an appeal. You are right, that is not what you said, but you did imply that the appeals would be answered in a timely way. Of course they need to be filed in a timely fashion, but you know what kind of backlog our justice system has right now? Try adding in the hundreds of thousands of cases of abortion to it, and see if “timely” is an adjective that has any relevance. > [@](#): > > No, the crime is gross negligence that _actually_ leads to death of the fetus. Another crime is willful self-induced abortion, which requires that the fetus to actually die. And this law is already on the books in most jurisdictions. You were saying that the cops could bust the door down if they suspected that she was doing something harmful to the baby, not that she was successful. And, you’ve made this claim a few times that willful self induced abortion is a crime. Can you cite this, because that makes abortifacient drugs illegal, doesn’t it? And they’re not, at least not in most places. > [@](#): > > Don’t get the theoretical anti-abortion law mixed up with negligence and self-induced abortion laws. I’m not. I’m just trying to see if you have a consistent position in regards to the life of the fetus over the rights of anyone else. So far, not so much. > [@](#): > > Well, in my opinion as an anti-abortion advocate, abortion amounts to killing a person and the law should punish people who kill other people. > > The correct question is “when and why does the fetus acquire rights”? And you will impose your opinions of those subject upon others through legislative means. > [@](#): > > The point is that anti-abortion/pro-life/whatever-you-call-them advocates are actually interested in the rights of the fetus, not controlling women’s bodies. They might have a religious basis, their argument might fall apart under scrutiny (I couldn’t say), but it is _not_ because they are actually misogynists. Well, you do have to admit that at least [some of them are.](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mississippi-lawmaker-punched-wife-in-face-for-not-undressing-quickly-enough-for-sex_n_5ce53e05e4b0547bd130004a) I don’t think that many of them hate women, most of them just don’t give two shits about women as long as they are able to control them. > [@](#): > > They are difficult questions, and not actually being an abortion advocate, I cannot answer them to my own satisfaction. There are religious arguments, sure: if the baby lives long enough for baptism we can save its soul. The state has no interest if the baby won’t survive into adulthood, or will be so maimed as to be unable to participate in society. The hospital would prefer to let the mother decide, or rather, her insurance company. The doctors see these things all the time and quietly regret the unfortunate reality of life. I don’t know who is right. Religious arguments do not belong in legislative debates. We chose to leave that shit behind a couple hundred years ago. There are countries with religious based governments, and they are mostly pretty shitt yplaces to live, especially for women, and I have no interest in allowing that sort of thing to happen here. I don’t know who is right either, which is why I do not presume to make the decision for others, and leave the decision to the person most invested and impacted by the decision, the mother. If the decision is to be made by anyone else, then you have to answer all of the questions that I have posed, and more, if you want to continue to pretend that this is a balancing of rights, vs just a complete and naked desire to control the morality of other people. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/299 "2019-05-26T22:43:12Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > And I want my daughters and sons to realize that having unprotected sex (or even protected sex) means you might become pregnant, and that abortion is killing a person, and unjustified unless her life is in danger. After conception or brainwaves or whatever criteria, it’s too late to back out. Teach them that, then. Seriously. No one is forcing you not to impart this message to your kids. The messages mine will hear are: - Having sex means you might become pregnant, even if you have protected sex, so unless you are prepared to handle that risk, dont do it. - In the event that you make a mistake and think you might be pregnant, don’t freak out and panic and feel like it’s end of the world; you can come to me and I will help you figure out what to do. I will not shame you. - If it’s only a few days after you had sex, you can take plan B. This isn’t something that you want to dawdle with, though; time is of the essence. - If you’ve already missed your period, abortion is an option and I will support you in getting one if you’re still in the first trimester. - If you want to keep it, that’s an option too. We already know what happens when you beat society over the head with “it’s too late to do anything if you get pregnant!” That kind of black and white messaging causes people to have children they can’t take care of. It causes people to become trapped in shot gun marriages that make everyone miserable. It causes women to kill themselves either through suicide or backalley abortions. What it doesn’t cause is an increase in responsible conduct high enough to offset the harms listed above. Humanity has a bad track record with abstinence. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2019, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/300 "2019-05-26T22:57:59Z")
[Wanders into thread] Sometimes I think humanity would be better off if we were an egg laying species. My position is that abortion is a woman’s right, based on the right of bodily autonomy. I also believe that access to reproductive health care–including but not limited to abortion–is a social positive. However I realize it is impossible to convince anyone of this if they don’t already believe it. [wanders far far away from thread] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330.md?page=16)