# 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:** 14
**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 24, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/261 "2005-10-24T14:41:39Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > You’ve never seen a pro choice person make that kind of statement? No, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone but a pro-life advocate call a fetus a person, but apparently [that view has some legal support behind it](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+viable+fetus+is+a+person%22). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/262 "2005-10-24T14:44:20Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, I have made no claims about personhood […] In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out that you folks are the ones who insist on making it a relevant distinction. What’s the difference between “personhood” and “humanity which is not limited to physical matters such as DNA”, which you earlier claimed to be the basis of your argument? > [@JThunder](#): > > Rather, I argued based on our humanity, which is by no means limited to physical matters such as DNA. Rather, it encompasses non-physical matters as well — such as the capacity (whether latent or existent) for conscious though, moral decision making and so forht. (Note that I emphasize that these capabilities can be latent, since newborns are likewise human.) > [@JThunder](#): > > If you’re going to claim that personhood is the relevant criterion, then you folks need to provide a previously accepted and established definition of personhood (as opposed to one which was concocted after the fact, to justify abortion). But the whole point of this concept of personhood is that it **isn’t** a fixed, binary quality that gets turned on like a switch at some arbitrary moment such as conception or birth. Rather, it develops during the process of gestation, and afterwards, and the associated individual rights develop with it. So separate sperm and ovum cells aren’t a person at all. A non-implanted fertilized egg is a new genetic individual but not really a person, and has no right to life (which is why there’s no legal issue with destroying leftover fertilized embryos from IVF processes). A developing fetus gains more and more rights of a person as it gets closer to being an independently functioning human. At some point in this development (certainly after viability), the fetus attains a right to life that overrides even the mother’s right to control her body. At birth, the baby becomes a legally recognized separate individual, but still without many of the rights of adult individuals. And so on, up to full autonomous individual personhood at legal adulthood (for mentally competent individuals, at least). Sure, these stages are to some extent arbitrary impositions of legal definitions on a fluid developmental process. But they’re no more arbitrary than your claim that “personhood” or “extra-physical humanity” or whatever you’re calling it is fully present from the moment of conception. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/263 "2005-10-24T14:47:23Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > No, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone but a pro-life advocate call a fetus a person, but apparently [that view has some legal support behind it](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+viable+fetus+is+a+person%22). Is a newborn baby a person? Is a fetus at the same gestational age (but still in utero) a person? If the answer to #1 is no…then infanticide is OK? If the answer to #1 is yes, but #2 is no…then please explain why. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/264 "2005-10-24T14:53:05Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > If you make the claim, then the burden of proof is yours. You say that the unborn is not a person, but the newborn is? Then prove it. > > One might not like the slavery example, but that’s simply beside the point. The example of slavery shows that somebody may _declare_ a class of humans to be non-persons, but that doesn’t make their claim valid. The concept of personhood must proceed from previously established criteria. Like, for instance, if you insist on playing the history game, as defined by birth? Because that was definitely one previously established criteria, or else you question the very definition of U.S. citizenship - “born in the U.S.” would then be a somewhat haphazard criterium. > [@](#): > > Just as the definition of personhood should not be selected to as to justify slavery, a definition should not be concocted with the specific intent of justifying abortion either. On the contrary, it required a special amendment to the _federal_ constitution to state that race could NOT be used as a reason for, say, witholding someone the right to vote that was then _enforced_ on the State level against the will of the states. ---
**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 24, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/265 "2005-10-24T14:58:59Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Is a newborn baby a person? > Is a fetus at the same gestational age (but still in utero) a person? I’m going to say no and no. > [@](#): > > If the answer to #1 is no…then infanticide is OK? I’m disturbed by this attitude from the pro-life side of the thread that it’s always OK to kill anything that isn’t a person. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/266 "2005-10-24T15:04:03Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I’m disturbed by this attitude from the pro-life side of the thread that it’s always OK to kill anything that isn’t a person. Quite the contrary. It’s the pro-choice side that insists on that view. This is evidenced by such statements as “It may be human, but it’s not a person!” If non-personhood is NOT sufficient grounds to kill something, then why keep insisting that the fetus is a non-person? That objection becomes simply irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/267 "2005-10-24T15:06:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What’s the difference between “personhood” and “humanity which is not limited to physical matters such as DNA”, which you earlier claimed to be the basis of your argument? Again, that’s your problem. I’m arguing based on the _humanity_ of the unborn, which is a scientific matter. As I’ve said before, if you insist that personhood is the proper distinguishing factor, then it’s up to you to demonstrate how this differs from humanity. > [@](#): > > But the whole point of this concept of personhood is that it **isn’t** a fixed, binary quality that gets turned on like a switch at some arbitrary moment such as conception or birth. Rather, it develops during the process of gestation, and afterwards, and the associated individual rights develop with it. So you claim. That’s why I ask for an established definition of personhood. Without such a definition, how can you claim that personhood is not some binary quality? You folks keep making assertions about personhood without articulating what constitutes that concept. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/268 "2005-10-24T15:12:29Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I’m going to say no and no. Wll thats a position I’ve rarely seen taken by anybody. Actually I haven’t seen any other pro choice person make that claim (at least in this thread) > [@](#): > > I’m disturbed by this attitude from the pro-life side of the thread that it’s always OK to kill anything that isn’t a person. Well if I had said that…you might have a point. I didn’t say that. Nice strawman. It’s a pro choice position…we can abort the fetus because it’s not yet a “person” (which I guess says, for someone who might take your position vis a vis when “personhood” arrives, that a newborn is game for killing, since it’s NOT a person) As I said earlier (perhaps you missed it), “personhood” is not a line of demarcation that has much relevance for me in these kinds of debates…it certainly IS important for many pro choice positions (read the thread for examples) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/269 "2005-10-24T15:19:37Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I’m arguing based on the humanity of the unborn, which is a scientific matter. Not really, according to the way you’ve described “humanity”. The fact that a zygote has human DNA is a scientific matter, sure. But your concept of “humanity” that “is not limited to physical matters such as DNA” but “encompasses non-physical matters as well” depends on a lot of extra-scientific factors. For example, you claim that “humanity” is partly defined by “the capacity for conscious thought”, even if that capacity is “latent”. Well, by that reasoning, a sperm cell also has the “latent capacity for conscious thought”: if it encounters and fertilizes an ovum, and other developmental requirements are met, then voila, it eventually turns into a human capable of conscious thought. Just as a fertilized ovum, if it encounters and attaches to endometrial cells, and other developmental requirements are met, eventually turns into a human capable of conscious thought. Your definition of “humanity” doesn’t indicate why the fertilized ovum should be considered to have a right to life but the sperm cell shouldn’t. ---
**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 24, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/270 "2005-10-24T15:44:33Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > If non-personhood is NOT sufficient grounds to kill something, then why keep insisting that the fetus is a non-person? That objection becomes simply irrelevant. > [@beagledave](#): > > It’s a pro choice position…we can abort the fetus because it’s not yet a “person” (which I guess says, for someone who might take your position vis a vis when “personhood” arrives, that a newborn is game for killing, since it’s NOT a person) I don’t want to explain it again, so pay attention this time: a person’s rights take precedence over a nonperson’s rights when they conflict. That doesn’t mean you can go around killing nonpersons when their presence _doesn’t_ interfere with your rights. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/271 "2005-10-24T15:48:21Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Quite the contrary. It’s the pro-choice side that insists on that view. This is evidenced by such statements as “It may be human, but it’s not a person!” Why is making that kind of distinction conceptually so different from saying “it may be a person, but it’s not a citizen?” > [@](#): > > If non-personhood is NOT sufficient grounds to kill something, then why keep insisting that the fetus is a non-person? That objection becomes simply irrelevant. It’s that personhood is considered sufficient grounds for not killing something. If you can’t grasp the difference, discussion is futile. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/272 "2005-10-24T15:53:26Z")
Sure. Here’s my prescripion of U486, which I’ve taken at 14 days of conception. Here’s my prescription of misoprostol, which I take 2 days later. I abort. I say it’s not a person, it’s mass of cells, which I’ve flushed from my body and it is. Is it human, the question is, why is it more human than the unfertilized egg or is it now “human” because it’s fertilized? I repeat the same procedure while my newborn sleeps in the crib, Opps he’s still here. I guess there’s a difference between a newborn and a 10 day old fertilized egg. As in what I do to my body effects what’s inside it; now at what point does the state get to interfere? Do you really believe the majority of people will allow the state to come into their homes at 6-10 of conception and tell them what to do, with claims of killing a person? Hell the government couldn’t do that with the slaveowners and they were killing people who were **actually** born…opps sorry, the history of slavery is besides the point. If the facts surrounding slavery and how we as a society came to recognize the evil of it, is besides the point, them perhaps you should stop referring to it. It seems to me, you miss the real lesson of slavery, of the holocaust, the trail of tears etc, if you only focus on the declaration of a human sub-class, without understanding how we evolved to end it, through science, the federal court and an evolving society. I’ll answer your crimson sardine. Please note, this is my opinion. First of all a “definition” in all but the basic sense is impossible, because we have “concocted” rules and laws to protect people and by people I mean born people. There was a time when women, children and other humans depending on who in charge were considered non-persons. So the answer to your question is really it depends on who’s making the rules. In this, it’s not YOU. Now answer me a question. If I have a undeveloped twin that’s absorbed into my body, but enough of it remains to “live”, is it a person? Is it any less a person than a 10 day fertilized egg? If it’s a fraternal with separate DNA and is still alive, growing, feeding, but no higher brain functions is it a person? If it’s benign, does it’s get protected? Clearly it’s human. What’s the difference between it and a fertilized egg at 10 days? Potential? What potential? you have no way of knowing whether or not I’m not miscarriage and if this stunted twin isn’t doing me any harm, why can’t it be protected? Why can I remove it, but not a clump of cells, that MAY become a baby? I’m assuming you will debate in good faith and allow me the slight liberties I’ve taken with this case: [Pregnant with twin](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2987963.stm) You keep demanding a line in the sand, well I’m trying to see if we can start, instead of the usual circles. Is this mass human? If it’s human does it get protected? Does it’s protection depend on it’s ‘potential’ to become self-aware or just that it has separate and unique DNA? Does self-awareness determine humanity? BTW: You do realize that all of society is a concoction don’t you? That had you been born 20 years earlier or a continent or two away, whatever rights you seem to believe you have, may not exist? Your “personhood” is solely the gift of the powers that be and you are fortunate to live in a part of the world, where there are enough like minded people to guarantee those rights. Take nothing for granted. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/273 "2005-10-24T16:00:40Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > You also said I was wrong when I said some hormonal methods have lower failure rates than sterilization. Go back and read exactly what you wrote. You did not say hormonal methods have lower failure rates than sterilization. And I did not say you were wrong. > [@Siege](#): > > As for your doubts about whether illegal abortions were performed Please get your facts straight. Not only did I never claim that, I repeatedly said the **opposite**. Repeatedly. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/274 "2005-10-24T16:37:18Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I don’t want to explain it again, so pay attention this time: a person’s rights take precedence over a nonperson’s rights when they conflict. That doesn’t mean you can go around killing nonpersons when their presence _doesn’t_ interfere with your rights. And so if a newborn is a non-person, and you decide that your rights trump those of the newborn, you may as well go ahead and kill it. That is why your statements logically imply that we can go ahead and kill newborn childrens if we so desire. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/275 "2005-10-24T16:41:33Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Why is making that kind of distinction conceptually so different from saying “it may be a person, but it’s not a citizen?” Because there is no dispute that certain non-citizens are indeed persons. Otherwise, there are an awful lot of Silicon Valley engineers and New York City cab drivers who are non-persons. In contrast, nobody has yet to offer any legitimate criteria by which human beings can be considered non-persons. > [@](#): > > It’s that personhood is considered sufficient grounds for not killing something. If you can’t grasp the difference, discussion is futile. But your arguments go far beyond merely saying that persons should not be killed. Rather, various pro-choicers here have adamantly asserted that abortion is justified because the unborn is NOT a person. Such logic is only valid if there is no protection for non-persons. For that reason, it is disingenous to say “But we’re only saying that persons should be protected. That’s all!” ---
**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 24, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/276 "2005-10-24T16:42:29Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > And so if a newborn is a non-person, and you decide that your rights trump those of the newborn, you may as well go ahead and kill it. What, you think just anyone can make that decision? What a bizarre thing to say. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/277 "2005-10-24T16:56:35Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > In contrast, nobody has yet to offer any legitimate criteria by which human beings can be considered non-persons. Depends what you consider “legitimate”, which is a matter of opinion. Sure, the “spectrum” concept of personhood, according to which a fertilized egg starts off as a non-person and gradually acquires full personhood status during development, is essentially an arbitrary definition. But then, so is the “binary” concept of personhood (or “not-just-physical humanity”, or whatever you want to call it) at conception, according to which the sperm and egg cells are not a person (or not “fully human”, or whatever), but the fertilized egg all of a sudden is. So is the binary concept of personhood-at-birth, according to which the fetus all of a sudden becomes a person at the moment of birth. Fetal rights and abortion rights are determined in law according to which of those concepts of “personhood” (or “not-just-physical humanity”) we choose to use. None of them is _a priori_ mandated by the scientific facts of human biology. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/278 "2005-10-24T18:24:18Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Because there is no dispute that certain non-citizens are indeed persons. Otherwise, there are an awful lot of Silicon Valley engineers and New York City cab drivers who are non-persons. So, since you recognise that difference between persons and citizens, I ask you, what makes birth so special that it can make that difference? > [@](#): > > In contrast, nobody has yet to offer any legitimate criteria by which human beings can be considered non-persons. Or vice versa. Though it depends on your definition of legitimate. Looking at the law, I think the conclusion that was presented by Blackmun stands. > [@](#): > > But your arguments go far beyond merely saying that persons should not be killed. Oh yes. They go much farther, I agree. But your arguments on the other hand go nowhere at all. > [@](#): > > Rather, various pro-choicers here have adamantly asserted that abortion is justified because the unborn is NOT a person. Such logic is only valid if there is no protection for non-persons. For that reason, it is disingenous to say “But we’re only saying that persons should be protected. That’s all!” I don’t follow. You’re saying that human beings are persons per definition and from birth, and that all persons should be protected at all costs bar, sometimes, the life of the mother, or if rape was involved, etc. So far, we’ve been giving plenty of reasons why abortion should remain legal. There is the issue of a mother being in charge of her own body, the mother being someone who’s personhood and legal status is not really in question. There is the point of viability, before which the fetus is fully dependent on the mother’s body and dies without it. There is the point at which the fetus attains the capacity to process sensory input. There is the point at which a fetus starts to exhibit alpha-brainwaves akin to those produced by a dreaming adult. There is a point at which a child or fetus becomes conscious. There is a point at which a child comes into the world. There is a point at which a child takes its first breath. There is a point at which the child starts to develop an ego-centric world-view. There is a point at which the child starts to develop a concept of self in relation to others. What about the universal declaration of human rights, first article?: **All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.** (I suppose this item doesn’t comply with your quest for a widely accepted definition of personhood … ) You, by stating that an individual member of the human species starts at conception and so deserves protection from that point onward, state either that all of the above is irrelevant, or subordinate to the ‘proven fact’ that life starts at conception. You don’t have to deal with any of the above points. Yet the concept of conception being the starting point of a life that deserves full legal protection (including citizenship or not?) is new. So, we would like to see a little bit more than just that statement of fact: life begins at conception, ergo, protecting the life of a zygote precedes any rights of the mother beyond self-preservation. What I would also like to know is if you really believe this, how far would you go in protecting this life? How much will the mother have to say over the life of her zygote? Can the state or the father sue her if she eats a hamburger? Smokes a cigarette? Drinks a glass of whiskey? Runs down the stairs? Doesn’t tie her shoelaces causing her to fall from the stairs? Doesn’t give up her bid for an olympic medal in long-distance running? : sigh : ---
**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 24, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/279 "2005-10-24T19:02:20Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > What I would also like to know is if you really believe this, how far would you go in protecting this life? How much will the mother have to say over the life of her zygote? Can the state or the father sue her if she eats a hamburger? Smokes a cigarette? Drinks a glass of whiskey? Runs down the stairs? Doesn’t tie her shoelaces causing her to fall from the stairs? Doesn’t give up her bid for an olympic medal in long-distance running? And what happens when she, or someone else, has to choose between the zygote and a person who actually lives outside her body? Suppose your wife is pregnant with twins, but she has a rare illness: to sustain the pregnancy, she has to take a certain medication several times a day. One day, your house catches on fire. She escapes, but trapped behind the flames are the last bottle of pills and a one year old neighborhood child you’ve never met–at opposite ends of the house. You heroically rush into the burning home, but there’s only time to save one or the other. Two fertilized eggs with your DNA, or a stranger’s child that breathes air and doesn’t occupy anyone’s body. Do you seriously consider going for the pills? I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/280 "2005-10-25T10:27:25Z")
**Walloon** , I stand (technically sit) corrected. On a brief re-reading, you did not express doubts about whether illegal abortions happened. It serves me right for posting on Monday based on what I roughly remembered from Friday night and Saturday morning. I apologize. As for my responses to what I think you believe and have posted about the efficacy of birth control, I will grant that you posted this [on page 3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340464&page=3&pp=50): > [@](#): > > The failure rate probability for tubal ligations over a \*\*ten-year \*\* period is 1.8%. The ten-year failure rate of other contraceptives: > > Implant: 0.5% > Injectible: 3.0% > I.U.D.: 20% > Pill: 50% > Diaphragm: 100% > Male condom: 100% > Spermicides: 100% > Withdrawal: 100% > Periodic abstinence: 100% > > The pregnancy rates reflected here with each method do not reflect the inherent efficacy of methods when used correctly and consistently, but rather reflect typical or imperfect use. The thing is, you’ve also said repeatedly that if a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant, she shouldn’t let a man ejaculate inside of her. You also suggested that, if I didn’t want to become pregnant, I should have myself sterilized. I called you out because the birth control method I use, an injectible one, has a higher efficacy rate short term, as did the implant I’ve used. These methods also have a large advantage over female sterlization – they’re reversible. Frankly, if I do married and we decide not to have children, I will choose to have myself sterilized, not just because of its low failure rate, but because it only needs to be done once, rather than once every three months. At this point, I’m throwing in the towel. I’m tired of this hijack. I’d appreciate it if you’d retract your assertion that if a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she shouldn’t let a man ejaculate inside her, but I don’t really expect you to. At this point, I doubt there’s anything you or I could say to each other in this thread which would improve our opinions of each other. Better luck next thread, eh? Getting back to the OP, and I swear I _did_ read it, it’s hard for me to speculate about the consequences of abortion being made illegal without speculating about the social forces behind it. I’ve read that when abortion was illegal, doctors were penalized for performing abortions, not women for having them, but the law I read about in Ohio which would make it illegal for a woman to travel out of state to have an abortion seems more directed at the woman than the doctor. How could Ohio press charges against a doctor in Pennsylvania or Kentucky for performing a procedure which was legal in those states? An ex-boss of mine used to regularly commute from Ohio to Pennsylvania. Now, I doubt he’s likely to have an abortion, but what if a woman in his position decided to have an abortion done in Pennsylvania at a doctor’s office near where she worked? Also, what provisions would be made for unwanted pregnancies? We have the Family and Medical Leave Act, but that only provides for unpaid leave. I don’t know about you folks, but I wouldn’t want to lose two weeks salary, and that’s assuming things go well and the baby’s adopted immediately after birth. A pregnant woman who’s made the news here recently is having her wages made up for and her medical expenses paid for by the couple who are adopting her child, but I’ve no idea whether that’s the norm. Would something also be done about the cases which were common a few years ago where a woman placed her child up for adoption and then she or the father of the child had a change of heart and wanted the child back? I’d love to see adoption encouraged more as an alternative to abortion or having children one can’t support, but I don’t see much of that from either side of the abortion debate. **Walloon** , again, please accept my apologies for what I said about illegal abortions. The fault is entirely mine. CJ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=13)