# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/141 "2006-05-30T14:58:16Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is bullshit Right back at you. You made an absolute statement, then was confronted by an exception, then added an irrelevant emotion-charged qualifier. What do you mean by “innocent”, anyway? If Hitman A is hired to kill a person he knows is a criminal, while Hitman B is hired to kill a person ho knows nothing about (and is not a criminal), is Hitman B’s victim more “innocent”? Is Hitman B subject to harsher sentencing upon conviction? Does the victim being “innocent” make the crime worse? ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/142 "2006-05-30T15:06:10Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Right back at you. You made an absolute statement, then was confronted by an exception, then added an irrelevant emotion-charged qualifier. What do you mean by “innocent”, anyway? If Hitman A is hired to kill a person he knows is a criminal, while Hitman B is hired to kill a person ho knows nothing about (and is not a criminal), is Hitman B’s victim more “innocent”? Is Hitman B subject to harsher sentencing upon conviction? Does the victim being “innocent” make the crime worse? Oh, come on…innocence is completely relevant here. We don’t execute people who haven’t committed murder or treason. People object to wars all the time based on the idea that the people being fought are innocent, especially if civilians are killed. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/143 "2006-05-30T15:29:29Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Oh, come on…innocence is completely relevant here. We don’t execute people who haven’t committed murder or treason. People object to wars all the time based on the idea that the people being fought are innocent, especially if civilians are killed. That amazingly misses my point which I though was straightforward enough; is the inviolable right to live modified by being innocent? Does a fetus or a child have more right to live than an adult, by virtue of being more “innocent”? In the first example I gave, regarding an assault with a baseball bat, consider if the assailant has stated clearly that he just wants to break your legs and leave you alive. If you have a gun, are you morally allowed to use it? After all, having your legs broken is a trifling inconvenience compared to the permanent fate that awaits him when you put a bullet in his heart. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/144 "2006-05-30T15:40:12Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > That amazingly misses my point which I though was straightforward enough; is the inviolable right to live modified by being innocent? Does a fetus or a child have more right to live than an adult, by virtue of being more “innocent”? In the first example I gave, regarding an assault with a baseball bat, consider if the assailant has stated clearly that he just wants to break your legs and leave you alive. If you have a gun, are you morally allowed to use it? After all, having your legs broken is a trifling inconvenience compared to the permanent fate that awaits him when you put a bullet in his heart. As I said: > [@](#): > > We don’t execute people who haven’t committed murder or treason. So…no, committing ANY crime is not worthy of the death penalty. But…we are talking about abortion. What crime has the baby committed that falls under “murder or treason?” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/145 "2006-05-30T16:54:58Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > As I said: So…no, committing ANY crime is not worthy of the death penalty. But…we are talking about abortion. What crime has the baby committed that falls under “murder or treason?” It’s not a death-penalty thread. Bringing it up is irrelevant. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/146 "2006-05-30T17:34:57Z")
It’s about as relevant as this: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Are you allowed to shoot someone who is hitting you with a baseball bat? Does that assailant’s right to live trump yours to maintain your bodily autonomy against being beaten to a pulp? If were going to involve hypotheticals, why not put aside the murky issue of fetal rights and analyze the conflicting needs and rights of two fully formed adults? The above paragraph suggests no-one’s life can be terminated by another, under any circumstances, or am I reading it incorrectly? I am attempting to answer this question, and in my answer, innocence is relevant. If you are being attacked, and have reason to believe that you are going to be killed, then, yes, you can use deadly force to prevent it. Other than that, in our society, there are very few crimes that we feel are grave enough to warrent killing a person for. Murder & treason, I believe, are the only ones. Whatever crime you feel a fetus is committing, it does not fall under either of these. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/147 "2006-05-30T18:18:21Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It’s about as relevant as this: Then we’ll have to disagree, since I see a difference between state action, often years after the thread has passed (i.e. after a defendant has been tried, convicted and imprisoned) and individual action (while the threat is present and ongoing). > [@](#): > > If you are being attacked, and have reason to believe that you are going to be killed, then, yes, you can use deadly force to prevent it. What if you only have reason to believe you’re going to be injured and possibly _might_ be killed? > [@](#): > > Other than that, in our society, there are very few crimes that we feel are grave enough to warrent killing a person for. Murder & treason, I believe, are the only ones. Whatever crime you feel a fetus is committing, it does not fall under either of these. I never said the fetus was committing a crime. You’re making a false and pointless analogy. Besides, I live in a country were _no_ crime is punished by the death penalty (which I won’t further discuss in this thread), and it has absolutely no bearing on my feelings toward abortion law (which I will). ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/148 "2006-05-30T18:21:58Z")
As I said, I was only working off of the example you gave. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/149 "2006-05-30T19:01:33Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > As I said, I was only working off of the example you gave. If you made a jump from self-defense to capital punishment, you must be working overtime. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/150 "2006-05-30T19:58:40Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > If you made a jump from self-defense to capital punishment, you must be working overtime. I was merely trying to give examples that demonstrate the rare conditions that must be met in Western society to put another to death. That’s all. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/151 "2006-05-30T20:54:47Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I was merely trying to give examples that demonstrate the rare conditions that must be met in Western society to put another to death. That’s all. Woah there with that easy generalisation. _Very few_ parts of “Western society” condone the putting to death of people for crimes. Just because _America_ has state-sanctioned murder of criminals, doesn’t make it a hallmark of current Western civilization. And anyway, I haven’t seen anyone in this thread suggest that foetuses are being aborted _ **as punishment for anything** _. So that’s a complete emotional sidetrack you have there. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/152 "2006-05-30T21:16:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Woah there with that easy generalisation. _Very few_ parts of “Western society” condone the putting to death of people for crimes. Just because _America_ has state-sanctioned murder of criminals, doesn’t make it a hallmark of current Western civilization. I wasn’t necessarily referring to “current” Western Civ…and the death penalty **is** historically part of that culture. You are right…of course, currently, all of Western society does not do this…meaning there are even FEWER circumstances in which it is **acceptable to kill someone**. > [@](#): > > And anyway, I haven’t seen anyone in this thread suggest that foetuses are being aborted _ **as punishment for anything** _. So that’s a complete emotional sidetrack you have there. Call it what you want, my point is that abortion is **killing a being** who is **completely innocent** not only of any wrongdoing, but of even **putting itself in the position for which it is being terminated**. **Bryan Ekers** wanted to know how innocence is relevant…and this is why I think it is relevant. Although I am personally against the death penalty, I find it amusing that you are outraged even at the implication that your culture might condone it (what are you, barbarians?), yet aborting a 9+ month-gestation baby, well, that’s just fine. ---
**Author:** ![onlyjaymoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7bcc69/32.png) [@onlyjaymoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/onlyjaymoo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/153 "2006-05-30T21:34:09Z")
So, what I have always wondered is… If we knew before the fact, as _even sven_ so eloquently put it: > [@](#): > > If I went over to someone’s house, and they held me prisoner while they beat me, gave me involuntary cosmetic and pysical surgery, and induced life-long health problems, and then promised to emotionally haunt me for the rest of my days, I think it would be within my right to shoot the guy- \ Then why would you go to that someone’s house in the first place? I completely agree that pregnancy is a big deal. We may disagree on why pregnancy is a big deal, but we can agree on its tremendous impact on the pregnant. Aside from the obvious questions of forced pregnancy (rape/incest), in what cases would the “getting pregnant” part not have been an initial choice of the pregnant? This question is only relevant in the case where we agree there’s a conflict of rights – again, no rights = no problem. Because I think there is an argument for supporting the rights of the unborn if the perdicament that pregnant finds herself is by her own choosing and doing. Please let us not go down the road of, “I choose to drink alcohol. I didn’t choose to get drunk or have liver damage.” ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/154 "2006-05-30T22:08:46Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I wasn’t necessarily referring to “current” Western Civ…and the death penalty **is** historically part of that culture. _Historically_, infanticide was A-OK with parts of that culture too. Doesn’t make it OK for us. And\* **historically** \*, the death bpenalty was applied for more than just murder and treason. Anything from stealing to heresy to escaping slavery to witchcraft could get you killed, perfectly legally. So which is it? Only “murder and treason” (the “current” situation), or the _historic_ one, where running away from Massa or stealing a horse could get you murdered by the State? > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > You are right…of course, currently, all of Western society does not do this…meaning there are even FEWER circumstances in which it is **acceptable to kill someone**. …when that someone is a person. Most of those Western countries don’t define life as starting at conception, either. Do you really think they bolster your case? > [@](#): > > Call it what you want, my point is that abortion is **killing a being** who is **completely innocent** not only of any wrongdoing, but of even **putting itself in the position for which it is being terminated**. And I’ve said its innocence is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > **Bryan Ekers** wanted to know how innocence is relevant…and this is why I think it is relevant. All you’re doing is repeating that “It’s _innocent_. That’s why it’s innocence is relevant.” That still doesn’t say why its innocence comes into it. Innocence is only a factor in a court of law, where a crime is being discussed. The foetus is not being accused of a crime, it’s just being disposed of. > [@](#): > > Although I am personally against the death penalty, I find it amusing that you are outraged even at the implication that your culture might condone it (what are you, barbarians?), yet aborting a 9+ month-gestation baby, well, that’s just fine. I’m amused that you’re amused. One is killing a person, the other is killing a foetus. Despite what you might think, I’m not “just fine” with the latter, but it’s preferable to the alternative. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/155 "2006-05-30T23:45:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I dopn’t assert it as a given, I assert it as the basis for my stance. You are free to argue with the premises, rather than stand there going “circular argument” like that means what you think it means. Once again: > Rights arise out of social interaction, they don’t exist in abstract. > Foetuses do not interact socially. > Show me where you disagree, and then we’ll be debating. I don’t think those first two phrases contradict each other in the way you think they do. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. For you, social interaction is a prerequisite for human rights, and that’s simply axiomatic for you. I disagree. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/156 "2006-05-30T23:54:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > All you’re doing is repeating that “It’s _innocent_. That’s why it’s innocence is relevant.” That still doesn’t say why its innocence comes into it. Innocence is only a factor in a court of law, where a crime is being discussed. The foetus is not being accused of a crime, it’s just being disposed of. Are you asserting the fetus is an entity incapable of innocence, in that he lacks “personhood”? If so, I’m sure it’s quite clear that Sarahfeena disagrees with that axiom, as do I. And innocence is a factor in much more than law, and it’s a bit ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Try taking an ethics course some time and see if “innocence” is contemplated in matters outside of law. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/157 "2006-05-30T23:55:20Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > The problem with this debate is that you & I agree on the equal right of liberty and justice. The problem is, your last statement there only applies if you don’t see the fetus as a person. I do. So, IMO, that fetus ALSO has the rights of liberty and justice. So…whose rights reign supreme? I believe the right to life trumps all others. By the same token, if being pregnant and/or delivery will threaten the mother’s life, then I believe abortion is justified. While the question of the nature of the fetus is mute, there is no question that any pregnancy takes a toll on health, impedes liberty, and even threatens death. In any other situation, one is justified to expel a person that has overstayed a welcome. If a guest threatens health or liberty, use of whatever force necessary is justified. In any other situation, the caregiver of another person has the just right and responsibility to choose if and when to remove life support. If anything that right is even greater if the caregiver supports life at risk to health, denial of liberty and threat of death. > [@Stratocaster](#): > > What is the more fundamental liberty, the right to live or the right to bodily autonomy? The right to bodily autonomy doesn’t exist without the right to live. This is a false dichotomy. “Give me liberty or give me death.” “Live free or die.” I accept and understand that these words do not have the same meaning for some as they do for me. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all…” I accept and understand that most of US see these words as irrelevant as the basis of our nation and constitution and laws; they would make specific exceptions. That is why I honor those that understand that liberty for all is more important than any specific life. That is why I especially honor those that have made that ultimate sacrifice for the liberty of others. Justice requires there be no exceptions to all. r~ ---
**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:** [May 31, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/158 "2006-05-31T00:11:47Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] > [@](#): > > One is killing a person, the other is killing a foetus. No, one is killing a person, and the other is killing a person. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/159 "2006-05-31T00:11:52Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t think those first two phrases contradict each other in the way you think they do. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. For you, social interaction is a prerequisite for human rights, and that’s simply axiomatic for you. I disagree. How is the concept of “human rights” meaningful for an individual in isolation? A lone person on a desert island doesn’t have the right to life, or liberty or the pursuit of anything. He has a life, but there’s no one to try to take it away, and no one to protect his “right to life” from someone who might try to take it away. If a large carnivore, or a poisonous plant killed him, it would not be violating his rights in any way, because he doesn’t have the right to life against anything not human. When a person is killed by a train, his rights have not been violated. Only when humans do things to other humans to we consider “rights” and work to protect those rights through law or social construct. FTR, I agree with the axiom that “rights arise out of social interaction, they don’t exist in abstract.” I don’t agree with the second point: that fetuses do not interact socially at the later stages of pregnancy. They hear and respond to voices, light and touch, which in turn makes people interact with them. Just look in any Pit thread about strangers touching pregnant ladies’ bellies and try to tell me people don’t try to interact with late-stage fetuses! ---
**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:** [May 31, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/160 "2006-05-31T00:13:04Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Are you asserting the fetus is an entity incapable of innocence, in that he lacks “personhood”? If so, I’m sure it’s quite clear that Sarahfeena disagrees with that axiom, as do I. Exactly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259.md?page=9)