# 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:** 9
**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 31, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/161 "2006-05-31T00:27:20Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > 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. You’re applying a very practical filter to human rights, I believe. Yes, I agree that a poisonous plant doesn’t violate the right to live, not in the sense I mean it. But I believe the right to live, unmolested by others (unless I do something to warrant attack) exists–well, it just exists. I have that right if I am alone in the room or on a desert island. The right is only a practical consideration if someone lands on my island, it’s true. But the right doesn’t suddenly crystallize at that point. It was my right before the boat touched shore. > [@](#): > > 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! I actually agree with you re: the second point. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/162 "2006-05-31T00:29:18Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > 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. Are you #$%#@\* kidding me, breathing takes a toll on health, how does pregancy impede liberty, if anything it is a expression of liberity, and again breathing threatens death?!?! Then agan abortion does take a toll on health, and does squash liberity and almost ensures death of the offspring. ---
**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 31, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/163 "2006-05-31T00:29:19Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > This is a false dichotomy. > > “Give me liberty or give me death.” “Live free or die.” You haven’t the right to live free if you haven’t the right to live. See? ---
**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, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/164 "2006-05-31T00:37:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You’re applying a very practical filter to human rights, I believe. Yes, I agree that a poisonous plant doesn’t violate the right to live, not in the sense I mean it. But I believe the right to live, unmolested by others (unless I do something to warrant attack) exists–well, it just exists. I have that right if I am alone in the room or on a desert island. The right is only a practical consideration if someone lands on my island, it’s true. But the right doesn’t suddenly crystallize at that point. It was my right before the boat touched shore.I actually agree with you re: the second point. So where do rights come from? Do you have the right to spit gum on the street in Singapore? How 'bout Seattle? How 'bout a desert island? What’s the difference? ---
**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 31, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/165 "2006-05-31T00:45:12Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > So where do rights come from? Our humanity confers certain rights upon us. Sorry, I realize that may not be a very satisfying explanation. But it is simply axiomatic to me. Is the counter axiomatic for you? > [@](#): > > Do you have the right to spit gum on the street in Singapore? How 'bout Seattle? How 'bout a desert island? What’s the difference? You seem to be focusing on legal rights. I’m not sure if I have the legal (or ethical, for that matter) right to spit gum on the street in Singapore. I do believe I have the right to walk down the street in Singapore, not bothering a soul, without being murdered. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/166 "2006-05-31T01:53:49Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You haven’t the right to live free if you haven’t the right to live. See? 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. 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, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/167 "2006-05-31T02:18:41Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > 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. > > r~ So, maybe we should have a Memorial Day, for all the babies who gave their lives for the noble cause of liberty? ---
**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 31, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/168 "2006-05-31T03:05:41Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > So, maybe we should have a Memorial Day, for all the babies who gave their lives for the noble cause of liberty? March 8th (International Woman’s Day) will suffice, marking the dramatic freedoms they’ve gained over their own lives. ---
**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, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/169 "2006-05-31T03:28:50Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > March 8th (International Woman’s Day) will suffice, marking the dramatic freedoms they’ve gained over their own lives. The biggest wrong turn modern feminism has taken, IMO, is the one that has told women that abortion is liberating. If there is one thing this debate has shown me, it is that the answer to the original question “Should abortion be based on morality, technology or something else?” is a tough one to answer…but that it is **imperative** that we find a compromise. The extremist positions are simply unacceptable in a civilized society…both are harmful to women and harmful to children. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/170 "2006-05-31T03:55:02Z")
Sarafeena, I agree with ya. The right to have an abortion is a necessary one. I may be biased, however, in thinking that the extreme Right will be MUCH harder to get to abandon their position than the extreme Left. Of course, it’d have to be worked out to be a mutual compromise, but I doubt the Right would do it, seeing as how they believe it’s a moral obligation to uphold their position. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/171 "2006-05-31T04:16:24Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > 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. > > r~ Even when that sacrifice was not made willingly? Even when they had no choice in the matter? That’s a rather odd concept of liberty. ---
**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, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/172 "2006-05-31T04:16:29Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > Sarafeena, I agree with ya. The right to have an abortion is a necessary one. I may be biased, however, in thinking that the extreme Right will be MUCH harder to get to abandon their position than the extreme Left. > > Of course, it’d have to be worked out to be a mutual compromise, but I doubt the Right would do it, seeing as how they believe it’s a moral obligation to uphold their position. You know, up until a couple of days ago, I would have agreed with you here. Because of my moral position that abortion is murder, it took a while for me to come to the conclusion that it is probably best for it to remain legal, although only in the 1st trimester. However, now that I have participated in this debate, I realize how zealous some folks are on the other side, and consider it just as much a moral imperative. Forgive me if I am wrong, I am trying to remember back to the whole thread…but I believe that not one pro-lifer who posted (and I admit, there were fewer of us that pro-choicers), took the typical pro-life extremist position of “no abortion ever under any circumstances.” On the other hand, there must have been at least 4 pro-choicers who argued in support of the “abortion until natural delivery” position, one or two even taking the position that a baby up to 2 months isn’t even really different, and taking its life may be justified under some circumstances. And not only was there an extremist position taken, but also, no acknowledgment that the opposite POV had any merit whatsoever, even from a moral standpoint. I think there are very compelling reasons to think that not having access to abortion will create inequities for the poor. I think there are equally compelling reasons to think that a casual attitude towards abortion erodes respect for life in general, and leads to a casual attitude towards infanticide, euthanasia, etc. Because of this, I feel the only answer is compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/173 "2006-05-31T04:27:14Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > On the other hand, there must have been at least 4 pro-choicers who argued in support of the “abortion until natural delivery” position, one or two even taking the position that a baby up to 2 months isn’t even really different, and taking its life may be justified under some circumstances. And not only was there an extremist position taken, but also, no acknowledgment that the opposite POV had any merit whatsoever, even from a moral standpoint. I’ll tell you that the views your seeing here are likely not the majority views of pro-choicers. I think the vast majority would agree that third trimester abortions should remain illegal. Some might argue against illegalizing such abortions for fear of a slippery slope though. But, as I’ve said, even though I’m pro-choice, I find your pro-life position more morally defensible than the opinion that abortion is fine up until you can see the head coming out. ---
**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 31, 2006, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/174 "2006-05-31T06:16:04Z")
> [@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… No. The foetus _is_ innocent, in the sense that I understand you to mean. I just don’t agree that its innocence should have more weight than the woman’s right to be free of it. Now, to address these recent posts - I may have given the impression that I’m arguing from an immovable position here. I am not. I’ve been arguing what I see as the morally right one (to answer the OP, finally), but I’m all about the compromise. If the general concensus is that 5-6 months is a good cutoff, you won’t see me picketing anyone. If it’s only first trimester, I’d certainly be working to change the legislation. And conception/implantation is just unacceptable. ---
**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 31, 2006, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/175 "2006-05-31T06:22:31Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I think there are equally compelling reasons to think that a casual attitude towards abortion erodes respect for life in general, and leads to a casual attitude towards infanticide, euthanasia, etc. Could you expand on these compelling reasons, please? Also, what’s wrong with euthenasia (perhaps that should go in a seperate thread, but might help me see where you’re coming from better in this one) ---
**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 31, 2006, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/176 "2006-05-31T06:33:00Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > 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! **inter** -act - I’m not convinced foetuses take part in Society, but am willing to be convinced. I see the responding to sense input as strictly stimulus-response, personally (I’ve been there, less than 2 years ago, with my own daughter). But that very stimulus-response is why, in the other thread, I said **my personal cutoff** , if I was a woman, would be around quickening. Please do elaborate on why you see it as societal interaction that includes the foetus as social actor. I see the social interaction that arises as the equivalent of people watching TV or something, they are are interacting with each other (“Ooh, feel that, she kicked!”) not the foetus. I can sort of start to see where you might be coming from with this, though. If you expand, or let me know your own thoughts, I’d be grateful. ---
**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 31, 2006, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/177 "2006-05-31T09:32:42Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > 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. > > r~ Are you suggesting that liberty is only associated with having bodily autonomy? ---
**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 31, 2006, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/178 "2006-05-31T10:24:00Z")
Google Ad: > [@](#): > > Abortion turns children into the shadows of strangers we will never know. A Pro-life novel What the hell is that purple prose supposed to mean? ---
**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, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/179 "2006-05-31T13:20:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > **inter** -act - I’m not convinced foetuses take part in Society, but am willing to be convinced. I see the responding to sense input as strictly stimulus-response, personally (I’ve been there, less than 2 years ago, with my own daughter). > > But that very stimulus-response is why, in the other thread, I said **my personal cutoff** , if I was a woman, would be around quickening. > > Please do elaborate on why you see it as societal interaction that includes the foetus as social actor. I see the social interaction that arises as the equivalent of people watching TV or something, they are are interacting with each other (“Ooh, feel that, she kicked!”) not the foetus. I can sort of start to see where you might be coming from with this, though. If you expand, or let me know your own thoughts, I’d be grateful. I think it’s a bit more than stimulus response by late pregnancy. Having a late-term (and I’ll continue to use that qualifier) fetus in the room makes people act differently. They interact differently with the mother (“don’t lift that! Come sit down! Do you need a drink?”) and they attempt to get a response from the fetus - poking, tickling, stroking, talking through the belly. Yes, it’s rough communication. But as the fetus kicks, rolls, jumps, even “plays” with the other person, the beginnings of social interaction and bonding occur. My son, for instance, used to drag his ankle across my belly and stick it out so far that his father could grab it through my skin. the fetus would then snatch his foot away and wriggle. A moment later, out would come the foot again. Lather, rinse, repeat. The interesting thing was that he’d do this with no one else but his father. That, to me, indicated that this was their private, personalized interaction, and not a simple stimulus/response reaction. It remained a favorite game of theirs until he was a toddler, but he didn’t like anyone else touching his feet. Granted, it ain’t a game of chess. The interaction is very limited, as the brain of the fetus is very rudimentary still. But newborns respond to voices and recorded music they heard in the womb differently than they do to new sounds, so it’s obvious they have some sort of awareness and memory. They begin eye contact “conversations” immediately after birth. I don’t think there’s compelling evidence that these abilities are gained at the moment of birth. Certainly preemies start interacting a bit with their caregivers before their due dates, so the ability must be present at some time in utero. There’s just a bunch of skin and muscle in their way until that moment. If there was scientific evidence that all this was stimulus-response, I’d accept it without too much struggle, as I do the evidence that previable fetuses don’t “scream” or feel pain when aborted. ---
**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, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259/180 "2006-05-31T15:06:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Could you expand on these compelling reasons, please? Also, what’s wrong with euthenasia (perhaps that should go in a seperate thread, but might help me see where you’re coming from better in this one) I don’t think it would be a big surprise to anyone that I have big, big problems with euthanasia. I am pro-life. I am against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty. I believe that human life is precious, and should be preserved at all costs. I believe that even the lowliest of us deserve to have their life protected by those who are more powerful. By this I mean ALL human life. I accept the realities of things like 1st trimester abortions, and war, and even executing murderers (which, of course, I hasten to add, they do in the US, but in many other countries, they do not). I accept these things, because I understand that sometimes society’s troubles have to be solved in ways that I don’t necessarily like. As far as my compelling reasons, I give you **1010011010’s** post: > [@](#): > > If were going to talk about where we draw the line that a fetus/baby passes into “personhood”-- I, me, myself, personally, would draw that line a couple of months after birth. I’m not going to argue that infanticide is acceptable, though, because at that point it is simply too easy for an accidental mother to hand the newborn to someone else and be done with it. That last bit, ease of transferrablility, is the reason a newborn is “so different” from a 40wk fetus. I’m not much on “slippery slope” arguments, but this post to me is frightening. I believe that this type of statement shows to what degree we have fostered such a casual attitude towards life in modern society. A fetus is no different from a newborn, who is really not that much different from a 6-month old, who is really not that much different from a 1-year-old, a 2-year-old, and down the line. Maybe society shouldn’t place any value on children under, say, 12, which I think is about the youngest that you could reasonably expect the kid to take care of itself, without any support from a parent or society. I mean, up until it can support itself, it’s really just a parasite, isn’t it? There are well-respected (by some) ethicists in the world who feel that infanticide can be justified. In what direction will this type of philosophy evolve? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-abortion-law-be-based-on-morality-technology-or-something-else/358259.md?page=10)