# The peculiar case of abortion of the unborn vs. capital punishment for murderers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379 "2015-03-30T23:46:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/81 "2015-04-02T00:17:57Z")
> [@Master\_Wang-Ka](#): > > Not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg is not a human. Some of us are indifferent to the whole label thing. Want to call a fetus human, a person, a being…? Whatever, I remain pro-choice. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/82 "2015-04-02T01:01:33Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > But as I said, the decision _is not about_ the personhood of someone else. > > It’s about whether or not killing that someone else constitutes murder or is, instead, a reasonable course of action. Or perhaps somewhere in-between. And what, therefore, ought to be done in that particular circumstance. My point still stands: it’s precisely because the mother stands to lose/gain a lot (depending on her point of view) if the baby is born, that makes her an unobjective observer who can’t be trusted to make a fair decision. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/83 "2015-04-02T02:46:59Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > In the first paragraph you say that you can cut away. In the second, you admit that those that are dangerous to themselves can be institutionalized. How do you reconcile those 2 statements? Most cutters aren’t a threat to themselves. Only a very few go deep enough to hit arteries…and those very, very few can be restrained for their own protection. > [@](#): > > And why do you draw a distinction for adults? Minors can have abortions without parental notification. (May vary from state to state) Because if a minor were involved in cutting, the city, county, or state should intervene. That’s a matter for child protective services. Meanwhile, if your kid disobeys you, you can send her to bed without supper…but you cannot compel her to have a baby. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/84 "2015-04-02T02:49:51Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > My point still stands: it’s precisely because the mother stands to lose/gain a lot (depending on her point of view) if the baby is born, that makes her an unobjective observer who can’t be trusted to make a fair decision. You have a certain set of religious beliefs. This, clearly, disqualifies you from being the best judge of those religious beliefs. I’m in a much better position to tell you what you ought to believe. Your lack of objectivity means you can’t be trusted to make a fair decision. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/85 "2015-04-02T04:20:54Z")
The poster named **Omg a Black Conservative** made an identical argument - the pregnant woman is too involved to be trusted. I tried to clarify his views on this, leading the following exchange back in 2011: [Quote=Bryan Ekers] What you’re basically arguing is that nobody should do anything without checking with some authority to see if it’s okay, because if it’s something you want to do, your own ability to evaluate if it’s okay is hopelessly compromised. [/quote] > [@Omg a Black Conservative](#): > > More or less, yup. I have to admit being taken aback by the honesty of his brinksmanship - in order to restrict abortion, he was basically arguing for the end of individual freedom as we know it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/86 "2015-04-02T04:32:47Z")
Well, as we all know, Freedom is Slavery. That’s what my big brother used to say, anyway… And, okay, in a real sense, yes, most of us are too close to some of our decisions. It really does make damn good sense to ask your friends and family for advice, especially before making a big, scary, permanent decision. I wouldn’t dream of getting married before asking my closest and most trusted friends, “Am I doing the right thing?” But the difference between that and having the government make such consultation compulsory, and with advisors I have no choice in selecting, is day and night! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/87 "2015-04-02T05:48:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I have to admit being taken aback by the honesty of his brinksmanship - in order to restrict abortion, he was basically arguing for the end of individual freedom as we know it. That’s exactly what’s going round again, with this kind of statement “it’s precisely because the mother stands to lose/gain a lot (depending on her point of view) if the baby is born, that makes her an unobjective observer who can’t be trusted to make a fair decision.” Translation: The mother inside whose body the fetus is growing, who will have endure it to term, to give birth to it and thereafter nurture it and be emotionally and financially responsible for every aspect of its existence for some indefinite future, **has no say in this matter**. Such a judgment must only be made by religious Holy Rollers making dogmatic pronouncements about the miracle of God-given life while pounding on Bibles and praising the Lord, and the pregnant woman and her doctors and the entire medical profession had better stay the hell out of it because **this is strictly between the Holy Rollers and their God**. The pregnant woman is just a go-between; she has no relevance and no rights, and needs to shut up and know her place as the simple Bearer of God’s Miracle. It seems that the liberalization of abortion laws has some kind of correlation with social progressivism and modern enlightenment in those jurisdictions. I just don’t see the connection. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/88 "2015-04-02T07:20:45Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > My point still stands: it’s precisely because the mother stands to lose/gain a lot (depending on her point of view) if the baby is born, that makes her an unobjective observer who can’t be trusted to make a fair decision. So, those directly affected by a decision that is necessarily subjective shouldn’t be allowed to make it? A man and a woman who might want to get married are going to directly benefit. Maybe we should take that decision out of their hands and let the government decide that one also. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/89 "2015-04-02T12:52:32Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Most cutters aren’t a threat to themselves. Only a very few go deep enough to hit arteries…and those very, very few can be restrained for their own protection. But if bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, they shouldn’t be right? You don’t want somebody else making that decision, do you? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/90 "2015-04-02T13:33:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Your raise the slavery analogy as an interesting argument to my assertion that the point at which a fetus should be considered a person, if any, is an irreconcilable subjective one. Let’s explore that further to understand why it’s so wrong. > > It’s certainly true that societal values are always changing. I don’t dispute that. But as with the other analogies with lynchings and such, there really are objective standards of morality to guide our actions (see for instance, the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant). We can make the objective case, for instance, that we all collectively benefit when we treat others the way that we would wish to be treated, and when we respect the rule of law and the principles of justice, and when we have empathy for our fellow humans. The abolition of slavery wasn’t some arbitrary or capricious change in attitude, but the recognition through gradual enlightenment that people with dark skin were people just like the rest of us and entitled to the same rights. > > No such clear moral imperative exists in the matter of abortion, except in the minds of the pro-lifers who anthropomorphize the fetus and grant it imaginary attributes that actual medical science cannot do and never will. This is not to say that any fetus should be treated with careless disdain and no one ever made that claim; it is, however, to say that it must be weighed against the interests and wishes of the mother, and the medical and socioeconomic factors and perhaps other factors that may figure into the child’s future well-being. > > This fundamental difference, and the fundamentally reason-based and empathetic nature of the pro-choice argument, is why the pro-lifers are on the losing side of history. No, the fact that the most progressive US states are the ones with the least restrictive abortion laws is not some “odd polarization” – it’s fundamentally correlated with the prevalence of a more educated knowledge-based workforce and electorate and more enlightened social attitudes. The same effect is seen throughout the world – much of the advanced industrialized world permits abortion at least in the earlier part of the term, backwards countries tend to largely prohibit or restrict it. > > It’s also seen in changes through time. In almost any country with liberal abortion laws, if you go back far enough you can generally find a time when abortion was restricted or banned. Then later it was liberalized, sometimes due to changing social mores, sometimes by direct court order. The trend is clear. The pro-lifers are on the wrong side of history. > > Someone mentioned Latin America. Yes, they have pretty restrictive abortion laws, and it’s not hard to see why. It’s an area dominated by Catholics, with their attitudes on the subject shaped by religious beliefs, and many of those countries are not exactly exemplars of progressive enlightenment, either. Even so, abortion is still possible in many circumstances, except in a few of those countries. Want to know which ones? Nicaragua and El Salvador ban abortion entirely, no exceptions. Not exactly centers of first-world enlightened progress. Meanwhile Sweden, Canada, and much of western Europe allow it in most circumstances, sometimes with no restrictions at all, at least within roughly the first half of the term. Again, the correlation with social progressivism is clear. > > . This is all just Whig Histiography, arrogance, and selective memory. Everything from the past you like you get to claim as progress and everything you don’t like you don’t. Progressives championed eugenics, forced sterilization, and prohibition. Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood was very explicit in her advocacy of abortion to keep the feeble minded and unfit from breeding. Most people now recoil from that reasoning in public, but that is a part of social progressivism. Which means no one can make the claim that I’m right because people with my label have always been right. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/91 "2015-04-02T13:44:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s exactly what’s going round again, with this kind of statement “it’s precisely because the mother stands to lose/gain a lot (depending on her point of view) if the baby is born, that makes her an unobjective observer who can’t be trusted to make a fair decision.” > > Translation: The mother inside whose body the fetus is growing, who will have endure it to term, to give birth to it and thereafter nurture it and be emotionally and financially responsible for every aspect of its existence for some indefinite future, **has no say in this matter**. Such a judgment must only be made by religious Holy Rollers making dogmatic pronouncements about the miracle of God-given life while pounding on Bibles and praising the Lord, and the pregnant woman and her doctors and the entire medical profession had better stay the hell out of it because **this is strictly between the Holy Rollers and their God**. The pregnant woman is just a go-between; she has no relevance and no rights, and needs to shut up and know her place as the simple Bearer of God’s Miracle. > > It seems that the liberalization of abortion laws has some kind of correlation with social progressivism and modern enlightenment in those jurisdictions. I just don’t see the connection. 😛 She has plenty of say over it. She can choose give it up for adoption. No one advocates for a ban on adoption, we don’t say you have to take care of it once born, only that you can’t kill it beforehand. The judgement is not between us Holy Rollers and God, it is also a part of society to have a judgement. Because it is not just a personal decision like getting a tattoo, cutting yourself, getting married, or getting a piercing. It involves another life, the baby. No one cares if you kick your car, but if you kick your kid you get arrested. It is not because us Holy Rollers and God want to decide if someone else gets to kick or not or because we want to control other people’s feet. It is because there is another person involved. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/92 "2015-04-02T13:52:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No such clear moral imperative exists in the matter of abortion, except in the minds of the pro-lifers who anthropomorphize the fetus and grant it imaginary attributes that actual medical science cannot do and never will. This is not to say that any fetus should be treated with careless disdain and no one ever made that claim; it is, however, to say that it must be weighed against the interests and wishes of the mother, and the medical and socioeconomic factors and perhaps other factors that may figure into the child’s future well-being. This is the central point of the debate. I don’t see how saying a mother can have her unborn baby killed for any reason at any time is treating the fetus with anything other than careless disdain. As far as weighing the life of the fetus against the interests and wishes of the mother, the fetus has eighty some years of life while the mother has eight months discomfort and then the emotional trauma of giving the baby up for adoption. How can those two things ever compare? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/93 "2015-04-02T13:54:05Z")
And it wouldn’t really matter if the Holy Rollers were basing their decisions based upon what they thought their God believed. They each get one vote just like everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/94 "2015-04-02T14:00:49Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is all just Whig Histiography, arrogance, and selective memory. Everything from the past you like you get to claim as progress and everything you don’t like you don’t. Progressives championed eugenics, forced sterilization, and prohibition. > Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood was very explicit in her advocacy of abortion to keep the feeble minded and unfit from breeding. Most people now recoil from that reasoning in public, but that is a part of social progressivism. Which means no one can make the claim that I’m right because people with my label have always been right. Margaret Sanger opposed abortion, I believe, though she of course strongly supported contraception. Your broader point is of course well taken though. Abortion is a particularly bad issue to make arguments about whiggish history, of course, because there are many times and places where abortion laws/attitudes have gotten more stringent over time. Abortion was fairly common in pre-Christian Greece and Rome, after all, and only became viewed as murder after those areas were Christianized. More recently, abortion laws became more stringent in the 19th century in America (I believe). Abortion laws have gotten more stringent in a number of eastern and central European countries after the fall of communism, and have gotten stricter in some Latin American countries as well. In America, there’s little reason to think attitudes towards abortion are going to swing more pro-choice in future. Unlike gay marriage, this is not an area where the electorate seems to be liberalizing over time. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/95 "2015-04-02T14:08:08Z")
The rest of the world should aspire to the utopic liberty of Canada, which has no abortion laws. If they don’t, they’re just dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/96 "2015-04-02T16:46:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Nope; exactly the opposite. No such evidence exists. Unless you are confusing “evidence” with “conclusive proof” you are mistaken. [Cite](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/97 "2015-04-02T20:28:56Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > But if bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, they shouldn’t be right? You don’t want somebody else making that decision, do you? Yes, actually, I do, in some cases. What’s your point here? For example, I actually favor legalization of suicide…but I want it regulated so that the person must demonstrate mental soundness. I want to protect severely depressed people from doing very fatal harm to themselves. Are you stuck with some kind of sound-bite morality where everything is all one way or all the other, lacking any nuance? Morals are complicated, and there are many special considerations we have to balance. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/98 "2015-04-02T20:53:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Yes, actually, I do, in some cases. What’s your point here? My point is that any discussion of abortion is ultimately pointless. For every analogy that the pro-life side comes up with, the pro-choice side will say “That’s different. Abortion is a unique case.” Both sides have made up their minds. And yes, when it comes to liberty, I try to remove nuance wherever possible. I actually favor strong bodily autonomy. Want to have an abortion? Knock yourself out. Feel like cutting? I can’t relate but it’s not my deal. Tired of life? It’s not my business to make you keep living. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/99 "2015-04-02T21:06:07Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > My point is that any discussion of abortion is ultimately pointless. For every analogy that the pro-life side comes up with, the pro-choice side will say “That’s different. Abortion is a unique case.” Both sides have made up their minds. That’s what choice is about. If we could agree to disagree, the debate would be over. > [@](#): > > And yes, when it comes to liberty, I try to remove nuance wherever possible. I actually favor strong bodily autonomy. Want to have an abortion? Knock yourself out. Feel like cutting? I can’t relate but it’s not my deal. Tired of life? It’s not my business to make you keep living. Since you are talking about cutting (generic you) - much debate on choice assumes that the person making the choice is able to make a reasonably rational one. For abortion that is true no matter what choice is made. But for cutting? Banning cutting seems stupid, making sure that people who cut get some sort of assistance is not. We’ve gone from throwing anyone a bit odd into an asylum to thinking that doing something about the guy living on the street and howling every night is violating his rights. That is how abortion and cutting are different. This philosophy might help keep people from flying planes into mountains also. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379/100 "2015-04-02T22:15:18Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > My point is that any discussion of abortion is ultimately pointless. For every analogy that the pro-life side comes up with, the pro-choice side will say “That’s different. Abortion is a unique case.” Both sides have made up their minds. I said pretty much the same thing earlier in this thread. Abortion discussions are indeed terribly pointless. > [@](#): > > And yes, when it comes to liberty, I try to remove nuance wherever possible. I actually favor strong bodily autonomy. Want to have an abortion? Knock yourself out. Feel like cutting? I can’t relate but it’s not my deal. Tired of life? It’s not my business to make you keep living. There, though, we differ, as I believe nuance is at the heart and soul of good morality. The context can make all the difference in the world. Break the windows of a guy’s car. Bad! Except…to save the toddler inside who is baking to death in summery heat. Good! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-peculiar-case-of-abortion-of-the-unborn-vs-capital-punishment-for-murderers/716379.md?page=6)