# What is the point of abolishing abortion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 30, 2024, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471 "2024-08-30T16:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Sylvanz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Sylvanz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sylvanz)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/301 "2024-09-04T05:22:35Z")
I agree with Der\_Trihs. I might word it more diplomatically, and I think that a lot of the attitudes that Der\_Trihs and I see may well be unconcious. To me, the leaders of the anti-abortion movement know precisely what and why they’re doing what they’re doing. But many average people feel somewhere inside that women need to be controled, disiplined, and punished. However, they assuage thier guilt by focussing on the zygote/blstocyst/fetus/ “baby”. My owm hypothosis ymmv of course. ---
**Author:** ![fedman1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@fedman1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fedman1)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/302 "2024-09-04T17:22:07Z")
and the fact that in the US more women die from pre/post pregnancy than other Western countries ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2024, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/303 "2024-09-05T04:12:06Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > The Catholic Church has been very open about objecting to any sex that isn’t between a married woman and her husband. One of the doctors central to developing the modern birth control pill, John Rock, was a devout Catholic who hoped it would be accepted by the Catholic Church as an extension of the rhythm method they had recently okayed. There is no scientific reason it shouldn’t have been. But the bishops understood that without the risk of pregnancy, women would feel free to have sex without first marrying. And they reacted strongly against it. That response is not what I was asking about. You said most of the money and political power behind abortion bans is about preventing women from having sex without becoming attached to (and subservient to) a man. I asked you on what basis were you making that statement. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2024, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/304 "2024-09-05T04:28:01Z")
You cut out the part that most directly answered you: > [@puzzlegal](#): > > there is nothing consistent about the positions of most of them, except when you look at it through the lens of restricting female sexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2024, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/305 "2024-09-05T09:28:51Z")
Yes. When looking at their behavior as being about controlling and hurting women, their behavior _makes sense._ All these hypotheticals about nicer motives simply _don’t match their actions._ And I see no reason to bend over backwards attributing nice motives to one of the most horrible political movements around. It really is up there with asking “but what if the Nazis _really believed_ the Jews were a threat?” And yes, I _do_ consider that a fair comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2024, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/306 "2024-09-05T19:57:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes. When looking at their behavior as being about controlling and hurting women, their behavior _makes sense._ All these hypotheticals about nicer motives simply _don’t match their actions._ What about the virtually 100% overlap between being against abortion and being against gay marriage or homosexuality in general? That wouldn’t seem to be about controlling and hurting _women_. The common feature seems to be “non-traditional non-reproductive sex”. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2024, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/307 "2024-09-05T20:04:58Z")
The common feature, I think, is ‘people want to do something that I think is horrible!’ ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2024, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/308 "2024-09-05T20:08:30Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The common feature seems to be “non-traditional non-reproductive sex”. Another common feature is, “people rejecting traditional gender rolls.” Traditional gender rolls, of course, include women being completely subservient to men. So, they don’t like abortion because it helps women be independent from men, they don’t like lesbians for basically the same reason, and they don’t like gay men because gay men are “feminine” and that’s counter to how men are supposed to be. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/309 "2024-09-06T02:16:39Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > You cut out the part that most directly answered you: Yes but that doesn’t answer the question. Where are you getting this idea? Catholics don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the Pope thinks. They’re more interested with the issues of Priests sexually assaulting young boys. Keeping women subservient to men doesn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/310 "2024-09-06T02:23:09Z")
Ordinary Catholics aren’t the ones lobbying. Heck, most ordinary Catholics favor birth control, and many vote in favor of legalized abortion. That statement you questioned: > [@puzzlegal](#): > > most of the money and political power behind abortion bans is about preventing women from having sex without becoming attached to (and subservient to) a man. Ordinary Christians of any stripe aren’t responsible for “most of the money and political power behind abortion bans”. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/311 "2024-09-06T02:24:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Keeping women subservient to men doesn’t make sense. Of course it does, when your God and holy texts demand it. ---
**Author:** ![Rebo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rebo/32/13005_2.png) [@Rebo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rebo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/312 "2024-09-06T14:06:06Z")
OP here. This thread blew up! Not surprising, given the topic. I wanted y’all to know I didn’t abandon the thread. I appreciate all the discussion. I’m still reading and trying to catch up. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/313 "2024-09-06T15:39:32Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > The common feature, I think, is ‘people want to do something that I think is horrible _… that does not affect **me** _’. > [@Magiver](#): > > Keeping women subservient to men doesn’t make sense. Always remember, women control the candy. They can deny it to the men, and that makes men angry, so they want to enslave the women in order to have free access to it any time they want. Men have fragile egos and need to feel like they are in control or they can become dangerous. (Not all men are like this, but there seem to be enough to drive patriarchy.) ---
**Author:** ![Sylvanz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Sylvanz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sylvanz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/314 "2024-09-06T16:22:56Z")
Along with women who agree. The patriarchy couldn’t survive without these sorts of women. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/315 "2024-09-06T18:44:27Z")
> [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](#): > > There are sound biological reasons for considering a fetus a distinct (living) human being from the mother. And it follows that if it is a distinct living human, the ending of its existence is a killing of a human. But in practice, very few people who claim to hold such principles actually follow them consistently. Consider, for example, the classic “fire in a fertility clinic” thought experiment, where the hypothetical rescuer is able to save from the fire either a case containing a thousand fertilized ova, or a single six-month-old baby at the other end of the building, but not both. How many people will really stand up for rescuing the one thousand embryonic “human beings”, rather than the single indisputably born human being? There are zillions of parallel situations, like the comparative indifference of “pro-life” activists to fetal deaths due to natural causes, compared to how they feel about deaths of born children due to natural causes. If, for example, there were some epidemic claiming the lives of literally half of all two-year-olds every year, pro-life activists (and everybody else) would be yelling blue murder for world-war-mobilization levels of medical intervention and research to ameliorate this catastrophic suffering. But the fact that about half of all fertilized ova are spontaneously aborted due to natural causes gets a collective yawn from society as a whole, including those parts of it that identify as “pro-life”. (See also: nonexistence of fetal tax credits.) Thinking of a pre-viable embryo or fetus as a fully human person in its own right, whose life must be considered equally important and deserving of protection as the life of any born person, is not a consistent principle among anti-abortion supporters. Mind you, I’m sure that most of them don’t consciously realize their fundamental hypocrisy on the subject. But in fact the vast majority of them demand that fetuses be considered fully human persons only in the context of opposing abortion. They don’t really think or care about applying that position consistently in contexts other than abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/316 "2024-09-06T18:47:42Z")
> [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](#): > > There are sound biological reasons for considering a fetus a distinct (living) human being from the mother. At what point? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/317 "2024-09-06T19:01:54Z")
And to what point? There are sound biological reasons that the famous unconscious violinist (_fuv_) is a distinct, living, human being from the person that finds themselves attached to the _fuv_. But that in no way changes the question of whether said _fuv_ has any right to use anyone else’s body as a life support system for nine seconds let alone nine months. ---
**Author:** ![We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/We_re_wolves_not_werewolves)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/318 "2024-09-06T20:11:08Z")
of course it does. Society has an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. The Supreme Court itself recognized the compelling interest of the State to protect human life (and potential human life) in Roe. So if a fetus is a human being, and the State has an interest in protecting that life, then it can legally prevent someone taking actions to cause the death of that fetus. The Court in Roe balanced that State interest against the rights of a woman and ended up with a compromise that the State’s interest was only sufficient to overcome a woman’s personal autonomy over her own body after viability of the fetus. But whether you agree with that ruling or not, it was kind of an arbitrary line to draw by the court. It could have just as easily stated that the State’s compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus extended to conception. But if the fetus is not considered a living human being, there would be no basis (or at least no compelling basis) for the State to be able to prevent abortion. The outlawing of abortion could not stand legal muster without at least that implicit acknowledgement. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/319 "2024-09-06T20:14:42Z")
Again I ask: At what point do you consider the embryo to be an actual human being and separate from the mother? “Some say…” is probably not acceptable, btw. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2024, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471/320 "2024-09-06T20:24:56Z")
> [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](#): > > of course it does. Society has an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. The Supreme Court itself recognized the compelling interest of the State to protect human life (and potential human life) in Roe. So if a fetus is a human being Interesting, this, between the notification and the first sentence, appears to be a response to me. And no, the Supreme Court itself did not recognized the compelling interest of the State to protect human life in Roe that would allow the state to compel a born human being to be a biological dialysis ‘machine’ to another born human being. Are you ever going to address _Thomson’s Violinist_? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-abolishing-abortion/1006471.md?page=17)