# What would REALLY happen if abortion was banned? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921 "2005-10-19T16:03:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/201 "2005-10-23T01:59:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Nope. Control over one’s own uterus means control over one’s uterus. But your ability to find unjustifiable meaning in someone else’s writings means you might have a bright future as a Supreme Court justice. 🙂 Of course A means A, but A does not imply B if you can have A without B. One can control one’s own uterus without having an abortion if it’s possible for the fetus to survive outside; therefore, “the state has no right to tell a woman what to do with her uterus” does not imply “the state has no right to regulate abortion”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/202 "2005-10-23T02:20:57Z")
Sorry, **2** , but **John-boy** got it right, that’s _was_ what I meant, I just didn’t say it very well. However, your interpretation hit on an aspect that I wish I _had_ meant, but didn’t. It is, indeed, the “babyness” that is the central issue. Not even the most ravening of choice people is going to suggest that it is appropriate, nor should it be legal, to “abort” a fetus so close to term in can reasonably be considered a baby. And the anti-choicers press this button at every opportunity, willfully conflating “fetus” with “baby”. Show me all the pictures you got, there is simply no way I will call that glob of tissue a baby. I’ve made babies, raised babies, that ain’t a baby. By the same token, no one could object to a reasonably written law making such a late-term abortion illegal. But who the hell is gonna do such a thing? The trouble, as always, is in the details: there is no way to reasonably and objectively define that point, if there even is such a point, where a fetus can be defined as a baby. Is it “quickening”? Six months? Three? If such a point were so clear and definite that it could provide a distinct point of reference for a law, we could compromise on this issue toot sweet. But there isn’t, so the anti-choice is forced to base its argument on an absurdity, that a fetus is a baby, when it clearly is not. By the same token, choicers are forced to argue against all restrictions on abortion, when clearly it is wrong to permit aborting a _baby_ (though I imagine the circumstances of a woman deciding to abort a viable baby is exceedingly rare, and would remain so whether or not it was illegal.) What the law cannot define, it cannot control. There’s the rub. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/203 "2005-10-23T03:02:08Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Whether or not it is human is irrelevant. What separates us from any other animal? Our sapience. It’s a core characteristic of humanity. And if sapience were the sole criterion, then we would be perfectly justified in killing newborn children. Newborns have not, after all, developed sapience… and there is nothing magical about emerging through the birth canal that would magically confer sapience on a fetus. So if we decide that anything non-sapient can be killed freely, then mothers should be allowed to kill their newborn children. Perhaps some of the people here would see nothing objectionable in that, but I do. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/204 "2005-10-23T03:34:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The real question is whether that new life is immediately considered to be a **fully developed person** , with all the individual rights that full persons have in our society. That question is not a matter of biology, but of opinion and law. > > It’s obvious that in many ways our society does **not** consider embryos and fetuses to have equal status with full persons, and not just in abortion law. They are not counted in census surveys, for example, and they don’t qualify for tax deductions. Once upon a time black people were considered 3/5 a freeperson. Opinion and law. Society did not consider blacks to have equal status with other persons. And not just slave law. The North did not want them to have Representation Hence the 3/5 clause. The fact of the matter is that the law does not consider the unborn citizens. They have stated in black and white that they need not go into when personhood begins. That does not answer the question. It just ignores it. So your attempt to define personhood with law is just a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/205 "2005-10-23T03:54:31Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > So if we decide that anything non-sapient can be killed freely, then mothers should be allowed to kill their newborn children. Perhaps some of the people here would see nothing objectionable in that, but I do. Indeed, perhaps they should. Is your objection something you can explain, or just a gut feeling? Do you feel the same way about newborn puppies, mice, and snakes? I really don’t see a significant difference between killing a newborn kitten and killing a newborn baby, except that one of them will someday be a person (probably) and the other never will. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/206 "2005-10-23T04:48:38Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I really don’t see a significant difference between killing a newborn kitten and killing a newborn baby, except that one of them will someday be a person (probably) and the other never will. When, exactly, do you think a newborn become a person? The difference is, one is murder under the law, and the other is not. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/207 "2005-10-23T05:11:17Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > When, exactly, do you think a newborn become a person? The difference is, one is murder under the law, and the other is not. Post-natal abortion is entirely illegal, as it should be. On this issue, you have my wholehearted support. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/208 "2005-10-23T05:59:51Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > When, exactly, do you think a newborn become a person? When it becomes sapient. I don’t have the medical knowledge to say when that is, so I’ll randomly guess 3-6 months. For the purpose of having a clear and conservative law, I wouldn’t mind drawing the line somewhat earlier, 2-4 weeks or so. > [@elucidator](#): > > Post-natal abortion is entirely illegal, as it should be. On this issue, you have my wholehearted support. Perhaps it should be illegal to kill post-natal puppies and kittens, too. Seems dumb to make a distinction between two equally nonsapient creatures simply because of their DNA. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/209 "2005-10-23T06:50:38Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > When it becomes sapient. I don’t have the medical knowledge to say when that is, so I’ll randomly guess 3-6 months. For the purpose of having a clear and conservative law, I wouldn’t mind drawing the line somewhat earlier, 2-4 weeks or so. > [@Mr2001](#): > > When it becomes sapient. I don’t have the medical knowledge to say when that is, so I’ll randomly guess 3-6 months. For the purpose of having a clear and conservative law, I wouldn’t mind drawing the line somewhat earlier, 2-4 weeks or so. You know you’re just pulling figures out of your ass right? Sapience is quantitive, and not all people have equal. Even animals are “self-aware”. It seems that the “consciousness” of the unborn has yet to be fully understood, and the more we have the technology to learn, the more it proves how we underestimate the capabilities of the unborn. Regardless, since the law has never quantified the definition of personhood, or citizenship, or rights, based upon the “sapience” of a human being, it’s ridiculous to want to extend that litmus test just to the unborn or newborn. Sure we treat those with less capacity different. Not because they are less human or deserve less protection, but because their capabilities are different. And yes, due process extends even to the most ignorant of us. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/210 "2005-10-23T07:01:32Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > You know you’re just pulling figures out of your ass right? I guess the words “I’ll randomly guess” must’ve tipped you off, huh? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Regardless, since the law has never quantified the definition of personhood, or citizenship, or rights, based upon the “sapience” of a human being Perhaps not in those words, but it certainly treats, say, braindead individuals differently than the rest of us. > [@](#): > > Sure we treat those with less capacity different. Not because they are less human or deserve less protection, but because their capabilities are different. Those capabilities are what **make** us human. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/211 "2005-10-23T11:11:05Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Probably not, for the moment, but we know the person he used to be. The rights that deserve protection belong to the person who used to inhabit that body, and may inhabit it again. We should protect the body just like we’d save the seat of someone at the theater who got up to use the bathroom - he claimed it earlier and may want it back. But if we know he isn’t coming back, or if the seat has never been claimed by a person, then we don’t have to save it for anyone. Then you would agree that the current existence of mental activity is not a prerequisite for assigning human rights, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/212 "2005-10-23T11:22:02Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Then you would agree that the current existence of mental activity is not a prerequisite for assigning human rights, correct? No, more accurate would be to say that the absence of mental activity is _one possible_ prerequisite for taking them away. Not even a requisite though, witnessing the existence of the death penalty. There have to be equally valid reasons to take those rights away as there have to be valid reasons to assign them. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2005, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/213 "2005-10-23T11:44:58Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > No, more accurate would be to say that the absence of mental activity is _one possible_ prerequisite for taking them away. Not even a requisite though, witnessing the existence of the death penalty. There have to be equally valid reasons to take those rights away as there have to be valid reasons to assign them. According to you. I was responding to the notion offered here that sapience (the bar changes from thread to thread) was the defining attribute for determining humanity. I offered an example where not only sapience was absent, there was _no_ mental activity present in the victim. Mr2001’s response is typical, IMO: Poster or posters define an axiomatic line of mental activity that defines personhood, then back off of that definition when it would permit an adult to be killed who happens to reside outside the sacred boundaries of someone’s uterus. I have yet to see a rationale for this apparent discrepancy that did not seem to me to be a qualifier that served only to permit abortion (“Absence of brain activity means no personhood, it is _the_ defining attribute, um, except when it isn’t…”) ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/214 "2005-10-23T12:28:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > According to you. No, not according to me. You have tried to falsify the definition of personhood by providing an example of where the definition doesn’t fully apply, yet we don’t want to kill someone in that position. But not in every case exception is falsification. Otherwise, the death penalty shouldn’t exist either, war would be illegal under all circumstances, and so on. > [@](#): > > I was responding to the notion offered here that sapience (the bar changes from thread to thread) I am starting to believe that for some, giving human rights from fertilised egg upwards, is a matter of intellectual laziness. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > … was the defining attribute for determining humanity. I offered an example where not only sapience was absent, there was _no_ mental activity present in the victim. Mr2001’s response is typical, IMO: Poster or posters define an axiomatic line of mental activity that defines personhood, then back off of that definition when it would permit an adult to be killed who happens to reside outside the sacred boundaries of someone’s uterus. Same with death penalty, war, and so on. But the fact of the matter is, we are discussing _the starting point_ from which we want to assign personhood, or human rights, and/or determine whether those rights supercede the rights a woman has over her own body, etc. If those criteria are never met, then such rights will never be awarded. The same criteria for assigning rights do not necessarily apply for taking them away. Certainly you will agree that the autonomy of the mother over her own body isn’t as much of a factor for determining the ending point as it is for determining the starting point. And what if, for instance, we _knew_ that the person from your example would be gone for precisely 30 years, but then wake up, be conscious for exactly one week, and then perish forever. Do those paying the bills have the right to make this decision? If the person in question had made a will saying that if any situation occurs in which treatment costs more than 100.000 dollar, he wants to have treatment ended immediately? I know people in the U.S. refrain from having a heart-transplant or other extensive kinds of surgery because they want to leave their off-spring with a little money before they go. Are those things relevant, or irrelevant to this discussion? All that depends, first and foremost, on whether or not you think the criteria for the starting point at which basic human rights are assigned to a person are the same for the ending point, or not. > [@](#): > > "Absence of brain activity means no personhood … " Brain activity doesn’t equal sapience. You probably know that, but just in case. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/215 "2005-10-23T13:03:44Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Then you would agree that the current existence of mental activity is not a prerequisite for assigning human rights, correct? Yup, I’d agree. Either current _or_ past sapience is required. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/216 "2005-10-23T15:06:57Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Indeed, perhaps they should. Is your objection something you can explain, or just a gut feeling? Do you feel the same way about newborn puppies, mice, and snakes? I really don’t see a significant difference between killing a newborn kitten and killing a newborn baby, except that one of them will someday be a person (probably) and the other never will. No, I don’t feel the same way about newborn puppies, mice or snakes. That’s precisely because THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. And if you truly don’t see any significiant difference between killing kittens and killing newborn babies, then that speaks volumes about you. What a horrible, abominable worldview you have. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/217 "2005-10-23T15:20:32Z")
> [@](#): > > …except that one of them will someday be a person (probably) and the other never will… You missed that part? In your understandable eagerness to trumpet your moral superiority? ---
**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:** [October 23, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/218 "2005-10-23T15:35:21Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > No, not according to me. You have tried to falsify the definition of personhood by providing an example of where the definition doesn’t fully apply, yet we don’t want to kill someone in that position. But not in every case exception is falsification. Otherwise, the death penalty shouldn’t exist either, war would be illegal under all circumstances, and so on. But it is absolutely apropos to the assertion that sapience is the boundary beyond which we assign human rights, short of which we don’t. It’s not that tough. “Sapience defines humanity,” or some variation is an unambiguous statement. It doesn’t imply that humanity means all rights are absolute; it only means that human rights aren’t even relevant conversation short of that boundary. > [@](#): > > I am starting to believe that for some, giving human rights from fertilised egg upwards, is a matter of intellectual laziness. :rolleyes: Have no idea why you think this response has anything to do with the quote you associated it with. Feel free to roll your eyes to your heart’s content. > [@](#): > > Same with death penalty, war, and so on. But the fact of the matter is, we are discussing _the starting point_ from which we want to assign personhood, or human rights, and/or determine whether those rights supercede the rights a woman has over her own body, etc. > > If those criteria are never met, then such rights will never be awarded. The same criteria for assigning rights do not necessarily apply for taking them away. If they do not, then it is wrong to say that sapience is the defining criteria for human rights. That’s the point I was examining, as much as you’d like to include other matters. > [@](#): > > Brain activity doesn’t equal sapience. You probably know that, but just in case. Um, do you think my words here imply I think sapience equals brain activity? > [@](#): > > I offered an example where not only sapience was absent, there was no mental activity present in the victim. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/219 "2005-10-23T15:40:13Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Yup, I’d agree. Either current _or_ past sapience is required. Care to explain why past sapience is relevant? Do you assign humanity to a brain dead individual who will not regain consciousness? At that moment he is identical to the fellow in our prior example. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/220 "2005-10-23T16:14:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You missed that part? In your understandable eagerness to trumpet your moral superiority? I did not miss that at all. Perhaps you missed the part were **Mr2001** himself advocated the killing of newborn humans up to the age of 3-6 months (or 2-4 weeks, to be conservative). This indicates that the “potential” for personhood is not a deciding factor, in his view. And the deliberate killing of newborn infants is truly abominable. (Not to mention that the whole “personhood” issue is a colossal red herring, for reasons that I will explain in upcoming posts.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=12)