# Should abortion law be based on morality, technology or something else? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259 "2006-05-25T23:47:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/261 "2006-06-03T20:24:38Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I’m glad that you aren’t still irritated with me…because I have another pretty good reason that my abilities to use logic may be compromised…I just found out I am pregnant! I think the hormones may already be making me squirrley. 😃 Yay!! Congratulations!!! ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/262 "2006-06-04T12:30:42Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, I get to object when I can see that a new argument is being shaped as a “gotcha” trap, rather than earlier points directly addressed. > I’m just amused that all your argument is via these “well, wait, what if…” arguments, rather than straightforward debate. I’ve very clearly said what I think - this Socratic stuff isn’t going to suddenly make me go “Aha, I had faulty premises all along! How could I have been so blind! I’m a cold-blooded murderer”, when you haven’t addressed the premises directly. The free will of a woman is more important than the life of her unborn foetus, and that’s got nothing to do with drugs, prostitution, or the lif of that same woman. I don’t see you attacking the notion that the woman has a right to choose. Then you’re not trying hard enough. Read the damn thread, why dontcha. > [@](#): > > I never said consequences didn’t matter. Cite where I said they didn’t? Certainly, by the way I’ve used trauma in refernece to the preganant woman, I’m talking about long-term effects. The consequences for the fetus are not relevant for you. Only the fact that the fetus’s trauma makes him the preferred victim. > [@](#): > > The “invalid comparison” comment was about all that sidetracking guff about drugs and prostitution. Stick to the issue. Again, you get to decide what issues get debated! I don’t think so. If you can’t see the relevancy of these comparisons when people invoke bodily autonomy as a reason why abortion must be permitted, you need to think a little more over the matter. It’s not that difficult. > [@](#): > > The equivalency is relevant because it points to whose suffering we believe carries more weight. > > Once again, someone’s got to suffer. You think it should be the woman, for the rest of her life. I don’t You think the possibility of her suffering is a greater concern than the destruction of a human life. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/263 "2006-06-04T12:36:47Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Yes, I think it is. I don’t think unwanted, abused children are good consequences of forced mothering. I don’t think mentally anguished bio mothers and angry adopted kids are good consequences of forced adoption. I don’t claim that every instance of forced mothering or adoption is painful or bad, but the possibilities are there, and I believe they are statistically greater than those traumatized by abortion. Regardless, the choice of taking each chance should be up to the parent, as is every choice in parenting. Unless I’m misunderstanding, this is a red herring as well. This logic supports the claim that parents can destroy their toddlers, for example. If this is where you repeat that fetuses “have not yet developed brain waves or reached the age of being able to live on its own or feel pain,” then my response would be that the reason for the abortion is irrelevant for you, it seems. The being simply has no rights and can be destroyed for any reason at all. Why invoke the trauma of “forced adoptions”? BTW, what makes “forced adoption” more traumatic than abortion? I’m curious. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/264 "2006-06-04T12:37:50Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I’m glad that you aren’t still irritated with me…because I have another pretty good reason that my abilities to use logic may be compromised…I just found out I am pregnant! I think the hormones may already be making me squirrley. 😃 Sarahfeena, congratulations! That’s wonderful news. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/265 "2006-06-04T13:05:42Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Sarahfeena, congratulations! That’s wonderful news. Thanks to you and MrDibble for your kind words! Cross your fingers that all goes well…this month is literally my last chance to have another baby before I turn 40 (Baby due in Feb, 40th Bday in March)! ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/266 "2006-06-04T13:10:38Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > BTW, what makes “forced adoption” more traumatic than abortion? I’m curious. Count me in as someone who doesn’t get how “forced adoption” makes for angry adopted children. I am adopted, and apparently, due to the fact that this took place in 1967, there are a lot of assumptions that my birth mother was “forced” into having me & giving me up for adoption. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t, but either way…I am not angry, I am more than grateful, especially if her preferred “choice” would have been to abort me. I pray every day that she is at peace with it, because it sure has been a blessing for me. Oh, and BTW, through adoptive groups my parents & I have belonged to over the years, I have known a lot of adopted people, and I don’t know any “angry” ones…could this be a myth, or in any case, at least highly exaggerated? Some people are just angry, and if they are adopted, use that to lay the blame on. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/267 "2006-06-04T13:37:55Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Thanks to you and MrDibble for your kind words! Cross your fingers that all goes well…this month is literally my last chance to have another baby before I turn 40 (Baby due in Feb, 40th Bday in March)! I’ll say a prayer for you today at mass. The fix will be in! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/268 "2006-06-04T13:43:59Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I’ll say a prayer for you today at mass. The fix will be in! 😉 That is JUST WHAT I NEED, thanks! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/269 "2006-06-04T13:47:02Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Unless I’m misunderstanding, this is a red herring as well. This logic supports the claim that parents can destroy their toddlers, for example. If this is where you repeat that fetuses “have not yet developed brain waves or reached the age of being able to live on its own or feel pain,” then my response would be that the reason for the abortion is irrelevant for you, it seems. The being simply has no rights and can be destroyed for any reason at all. Why invoke the trauma of “forced adoptions”? > > BTW, what makes “forced adoption” more traumatic than abortion? I’m curious. Well, yes, of course an early term fetus can be aborted for any reason at all. Have I ever said otherwise? I think you’re the one erecting a strawman here. I support abortion on demand until viability. There it is, plain as day. I think what you see as “red herrings” I see as “one further reason why we must protect a woman’s right to abortion.” I don’t base my beliefs on this issue on any one reason or line of logic. I agree with many reasons for the right to choose, and not many for no choice, and so arrive at my conclusion. Reasons I believe a woman and her doctor should be the only people to decide if an early term abortion is appropriate to her: 1. Abortion does no harm to any other sentient being. (See above re: lack of brain development, no pain sensation, etc.) 2. Being forced to medical treatment or condition by an outside force is absolutely causing harm to the woman. This holds whether the decision is pro or anti-abortion, whether the outside for is the gov’t, the church or her parents. 3. The medical choice to remove the life support of a child rests with the parent or guardian. I see no reason why this should be different when the life support system is her breath and body. 4. Legally, the state exists to protect the rights of its citizens. Citizens are people only, not other beings. A pre-viable fetus does not meet any legal definition of a person. While this can be changed, I have seen no good argument why it should. 5. The alternative to allowed abortions: forced parenthood or forced adoption, is abhorrhent and terrifying. One could logically expect abuse and early childhood abandonment and death to increase were this implemented. This is unacceptable to me. 6. The increase in unsafe medical and pharmaceutical abortions performed by non-medical professionals should we outlaw abortion will kill many women, along with their fetuses. At the very least, the number of people practicing medicine without a license will increase. I’m sure there’s others I’ve raised or agreed with in the thread, but you get the idea. There are lots of reasons, and as this discussion has wandered all over the landscape, I’ve found myself thinking about all of them, agreeing with some and disagreeing with others. (Honestly, I got lost and bored with the drugs and hookers conversation, so I didn’t follow that too closely, but the rest I’ve found fascinating.) My personal reasons range from the purely emotional (#5) to the very clinical (#1) to the logical (#3). None of them are red herrings in my personal decisions, or in a widely roving discussion on abortion rights. As for the forced adoption may be traumatic to mother and child claim, it’s based on my best friend, adopted, and her support group of adopted children looking to find their birth parents. There are some fucked up bunnies in that group, plauged with depression, anger management and other mental health issues that they believe stems from being “abandoned” by their biological parents. I hate that group, and I hate how they’re tearing apart their real (adoptive) families with their “quest”. On the other side of the equation is another friend who gave up her child for adoption at the demand of her parents, and has spent the last 30 August 5ths in tears and raving drunk. She’s been in therapy for years trying to get past her guilt and anger at her parents for forcing her into that spot. I’ll be the first to admit that this is not universal, and I’d hate to scare people away from adoption, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a negative experience some of the time. (Much like I hope your stories of women who feel terrible after having an abortion doesn’t scare people off of that decision.) Sure, maybe “Some people are just angry, and if they are adopted, use that to lay the blame on.” I can say the same thing about abortion. Some people are just depressed and miserable, and if they had an abortion, use that to lay the blame on. I think we get a null vote out of the potential long term suffering of the mother. Any decision - keeping the baby, adopting the baby, having an abortion - has the potential to lead to suffering. I think only the mother should choose which potential suffering to risk. See also [here](http://www.adoptionagencychecklist.com/page794.html) for an article (pro-adoption site, btw) which mentions several of the negative possibilities of adoption I haven’t, including adopting families who separate or divorce after adopting a child with disabilities they can’t handle and about the rampant fraud and coersion in international adoption.) **Sarahfeena** , congratulations! You know the rule about Doper Baby Pics, right? When the time comes, of course. I’ll offer to light a candle during meditation today, but if that’s not in line with your religious beliefs, I won’t intrude. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/270 "2006-06-04T14:05:07Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Well, yes, of course an early term fetus can be aborted for any reason at all. Have I ever said otherwise? I think you’re the one erecting a strawman here. I support abortion on demand until viability. There it is, plain as day. > > I think what you see as “red herrings” I see as “one further reason why we must protect a woman’s right to abortion.” I don’t base my beliefs on this issue on any one reason or line of logic. I agree with many reasons for the right to choose, and not many for no choice, and so arrive at my conclusion. > > Reasons I believe a woman and her doctor should be the only people to decide if an early term abortion is appropriate to her: > > 1. Abortion does no harm to any other sentient being. (See above re: lack of brain development, no pain sensation, etc.) > > 2. Being forced to medical treatment or condition by an outside force is absolutely causing harm to the woman. This holds whether the decision is pro or anti-abortion, whether the outside for is the gov’t, the church or her parents. > > 3. The medical choice to remove the life support of a child rests with the parent or guardian. I see no reason why this should be different when the life support system is her breath and body. > > 4. Legally, the state exists to protect the rights of its citizens. Citizens are people only, not other beings. A pre-viable fetus does not meet any legal definition of a person. While this can be changed, I have seen no good argument why it should. > > 5. The alternative to allowed abortions: forced parenthood or forced adoption, is abhorrhent and terrifying. One could logically expect abuse and early childhood abandonment and death to increase were this implemented. This is unacceptable to me. > > 6. The increase in unsafe medical and pharmaceutical abortions performed by non-medical professionals should we outlaw abortion will kill many women, along with their fetuses. At the very least, the number of people practicing medicine without a license will increase. > > I’m sure there’s others I’ve raised or agreed with in the thread, but you get the idea. There are lots of reasons, and as this discussion has wandered all over the landscape, I’ve found myself thinking about all of them, agreeing with some and disagreeing with others. (Honestly, I got lost and bored with the drugs and hookers conversation, so I didn’t follow that too closely, but the rest I’ve found fascinating.) My personal reasons range from the purely emotional (#5) to the very clinical (#1) to the logical (#3). None of them are red herrings in my personal decisions, or in a widely roving discussion on abortion rights. > > As for the forced adoption may be traumatic to mother and child claim, it’s based on my best friend, adopted, and her support group of adopted children looking to find their birth parents. There are some fucked up bunnies in that group, plauged with depression, anger management and other mental health issues that they believe stems from being “abandoned” by their biological parents. I hate that group, and I hate how they’re tearing apart their real (adoptive) families with their “quest”. On the other side of the equation is another friend who gave up her child for adoption at the demand of her parents, and has spent the last 30 August 5ths in tears and raving drunk. She’s been in therapy for years trying to get past her guilt and anger at her parents for forcing her into that spot. I’ll be the first to admit that this is not universal, and I’d hate to scare people away from adoption, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a negative experience some of the time. (Much like I hope your stories of women who feel terrible after having an abortion doesn’t scare people off of that decision.) Sure, maybe “Some people are just angry, and if they are adopted, use that to lay the blame on.” I can say the same thing about abortion. Some people are just depressed and miserable, and if they had an abortion, use that to lay the blame on. I think we get a null vote out of the potential long term suffering of the mother. Any decision - keeping the baby, adopting the baby, having an abortion - has the potential to lead to suffering. I think only the mother should choose which potential suffering to risk. See also [here](http://www.adoptionagencychecklist.com/page794.html) for an article (pro-adoption site, btw) which mentions several of the negative possibilities of adoption I haven’t, including adopting families who separate or divorce after adopting a child with disabilities they can’t handle and about the rampant fraud and coersion in international adoption.) > > **Sarahfeena** , congratulations! You know the rule about Doper Baby Pics, right? When the time comes, of course. I’ll offer to light a candle during meditation today, but if that’s not in line with your religious beliefs, I won’t intrude. I have found this discussion fascinating & educational, as well. Thank you all for it. Please do light that candle…I respect all religious tradtion, and believe that all good thoughts make a contribution. And thank you! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/271 "2006-06-04T16:19:29Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Then you’re not trying hard enough. Read the damn thread, why dontcha. Cute. I’ve read the damn thread, I don’t see anywhere where you unambiguously state “The woman should have no right to choose” > [@Stratocaster](#): > > The consequences for the fetus are not relevant for you. Only the fact that the fetus’s trauma makes him the preferred victim. Not “not relevant”, non-existant. There are no continued consequences for a dead foetus. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Again, you get to decide what issues get debated! I don’t think so. Excuse me for wanting to stick to the point in a thread that’s about, you know, abortion. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > If you can’t see the relevancy of these comparisons when people invoke bodily autonomy as a reason why abortion must be permitted, you need to think a little more over the matter. Not when I’ve already stated that I don’t agree with either of the laws you mentioned, yet you bring them up again. You bring up “oh, but we have laws against prostitution and drug use”, and I say “I don’t agree with those laws either” - where, exactly, does that leave you standing? > [@Stratocaster](#): > > You think the possibility of her suffering is a greater concern than the destruction of a human life. I don’t. I know this. But instead of giving me the reasons you think you’re right (you believe in a soul, you think the foetus suffers more than the woman, whatever), you make these bullshit analogies that don’t argue the point at all. It’s not just about bodily autonomy, it’s about consequent suffering for the woman too. You clearly think the life of the foetus outweighs this. Tell me why, don’t beat around the bush. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/272 "2006-06-04T16:43:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Not when I’ve already stated that I don’t agree with either of the laws you mentioned, yet you bring them up again. You bring up “oh, but we have laws against prostitution and drug use”, and I say “I don’t agree with those laws either” - where, exactly, does that leave you standing? What the hell are you talking about? scotandrsn and I had an ongoing exchange regarding how the law deals with bodily autonomy, since that notion was introduced in this thread as a kind of sacred boundary that could not / should not be crossed. Since _you_ had already expressed your opinion, that meant the rest of the world needed to move on? That’s pretty funny. > [@](#): > > I know this. But instead of giving me the reasons you think you’re right (you believe in a soul, you think the foetus suffers more than the woman, whatever), you make these bullshit analogies that don’t argue the point at all. > > It’s not just about bodily autonomy, it’s about consequent suffering for the woman too. You clearly think the life of the foetus outweighs this. Tell me why, don’t beat around the bush. Instead of giving _you_ reasons? Hey, I’ll say again, read the damn thread. If you’re looking for an example, here, let me help you: > [@Stratocaster](#): > > A question: Which is the more fundamental right, the right to bodily autonomy or the right to live? Can any right really exist if the right to live is not as inviolable a right as any right can be? I would posit that the right to life is the most fundamental right. No other right is meaningful if you haven’t the right to live. Feel free to disagree or to debate this. But please stop pretending that I haven’t offered a position or a rationale. It’s, well, dishonest at worst and sloppy at best. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/273 "2006-06-04T17:32:25Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > What the hell are you talking about? scotandrsn and I had an ongoing exchange regarding how the law deals with bodily autonomy, since that notion was introduced in this thread as a kind of sacred boundary that could not / should not be crossed. Since _you_ had already expressed your opinion, that meant the rest of the world needed to move on? Naah, I want you to stop bringing it up when you’re addressing _me_. You can have multiple conversations coming out the wazoo, but do try and keep track of who’s argued what. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > That’s pretty funny.Instead of giving _you_ reasons? Hey, I’ll say again, read the damn thread. If you’re looking for an example, here, let me help you:Feel free to disagree or to debate this. But please stop pretending that I haven’t offered a position or a rationale. It’s, well, dishonest at worst and sloppy at best. I didn’t say you hadn’t offered a rationale. I said you’d failed to address mine, instead bringing up “bodily autonomy” like it was some kind of gotcha - and I quote: > [@Stratocaster](#): > > What happened to “free consent is A-OK with me”? I’ve several times addressed why I believe the foetus doesn’t partake of the “right to live” because it falls outside of “Society” as I see it, and my belief that rights are not inherent, but derived. Haven’t seen you address that, you carry on arguing like rights are inherent - and I quote: > [@Stratocaster](#): > > please explain. Your axiom is that a fetus is not equivalent to an adult woman in terms of the right to live. What makes that axiom superior to one that states the counter? Answer in terms of inherent rights, not in the consequences of protecting those rights. Whose the one trying to specify how the other party argues there, wiseguy? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/274 "2006-06-04T17:36:50Z")
Oh, and this: > [@Stratocaster](#): > > A question: Which is the more fundamental right, the right to bodily autonomy or the right to live? Can any right really exist if the right to live is not as inviolable a right as any right can be? I would posit that the right to life is the most fundamental right. No other right is meaningful if you haven’t the right to live. isn’t a clear argument for why you believe the right to life is fundamental, just a statement that you think it is. That last sentence needs a lot more expansion before it’s a meaningful argument. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/275 "2006-06-04T17:52:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Naah, I want you to stop bringing it up when you’re addressing _me_. You can have multiple conversations coming out the wazoo, but do try and keep track of who’s argued what. Gee, that’s might white of ya. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say you hadn’t offered a rationale. See, this is what’s so great about communicating in a written medium. You can assert whatever nonsense you want, but you can’t change history. Here, let me help you again. You seem like you need it. You said this: > [@](#): > > I know this. But instead of giving me the reasons you think you’re right (you believe in a soul, you think the foetus suffers more than the woman, whatever), you make these bullshit analogies that don’t argue the point at all. That indeed more than suggests that I haven’t offered a rationale for my position. Come now, say, “I overstated my position.” You can do it. > [@](#): > > Whose the one trying to specify how the other party argues there, wiseguy? You’re a riot! Asking a question of clarification is not the same as saying, “Stop that line of argument! I forbid it by the power invested in me as MrDibble!” Not the same at all. Weak, brother. Just weak. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/276 "2006-06-04T17:55:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Oh, and this: > > isn’t a clear argument for why you believe the right to life is fundamental, just a statement that you think it is. That last sentence needs a lot more expansion before it’s a meaningful argument. It absolutely is! It states an unassailable point: no right can exist if the right to live does not. No right can be superior to the right to live. You can disagree with it, but it’s an argument. Come on, a big man would admit he was wrong. Give it a try. When you said I hadn’t offered an argument for my position, I showed you I did. Now you try the, “Well, it really isn’t much of an argument” bullshit counter. Again, weak, my brother. You’re desperately flailing to score a point that just not that important. Say, “Oh! My bad,” and move on. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/277 "2006-06-04T18:17:07Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Gee, that’s might white of ya. Not even close… > [@Stratocaster](#): > > See, this is what’s so great about communicating in a written medium. You can assert whatever nonsense you want, but you can’t change history. Here, let me help you again. You seem like you need it. You said this: > > > [@](#): > > > > I know this. But instead of giving me the reasons you think you’re right (you believe in a soul, you think the foetus suffers more than the woman, whatever), you make these bullshit analogies that don’t argue the point at all. > > That indeed more than suggests that I haven’t offered a rationale for my position. Come now, say, “I overstated my position.” Cute, but that quote doesn’t say you didn’t offer _any_ reasons, it says that the attempted reasons you offered were bullshit. Not the same thing at all. AndI think my next post adresses why I don’t think you’re giving your reasons for belief, but just amking statements of that belief. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > Asking a question of clarification is not the same as saying, “Stop that line of argument! I forbid it by the power invested in me as MrDibble!” Not the same at all. Weak, brother. Just weak. Oh, sure, you were just “asking a question of clarification” -_and telling me what terms to answer it in_. When I don’t play along, I’m the weak one? Real smooth, sister. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/278 "2006-06-04T18:20:03Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > It absolutely is! It states an unassailable point: no right can exist if the right to live does not. No right can be superior to the right to live. You can disagree with it, but it’s an argument. No, it isn’t. It’s a statement of one little premise, and it’s certainly not an _“unassailable”_ one, either. One premise does not an argument make. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/279 "2006-06-04T18:25:58Z")
I notice you still haven’t made the case for inherent rights, either. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/280 "2006-06-04T19:35:43Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > …No, a crime is a violation of the criminal code. …You have to stop repeating this as if this is some long-settled, indisputable human law that everybody keeps forgetting. I apologize for my (blunt?/sharp?) words in outlining our conflicting positions. As I said “WE hold these truths…” It is also a truth that tyrants and bullies do not; it is also clear that you do not. It is my understanding that it is the spirit of liberty and justice and equality for all (as described in the declaration of independence) that divides liberty from tyranny and gives legitimacy to government; especially to ours. Do you wish me to believe it does not simply because you say so? The question remains: On what should we base abortion law? I hold that legitimate governments and laws are based on the understanding that all are equal in peaceful pursuit. It is not a peaceful pursuit to take and use or even threaten another’s body. No one has just right to take from another’s body or health or liberty. Please show proof beyond reasonable doubt that inalienable rights are justly forfeit by reason of pregnancy. I expect it more likely that this denial of rights is just another given in your criminal code of law. Also please tell US where denial of peaceful pursuit by law finally does become crime and tyranny by your criminal code. r~ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259.md?page=15)