# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/141 "2005-10-21T11:32:12Z")
I did not know that either side of the abortion debate particularly concerned itself with _homo erectus_ :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/142 "2005-10-21T11:48:57Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > So if the occasional hypocrisy of some isolated pro-lifers totally ruins the pro-life cause, what does the systematic and formalized hypocrisy of the pro-choice leadership do? I totally agree with you that is a weak argument. Hypocricy doesn’t necessarily reflect on whether one side or the other is right, only that the person involved were hypocrites. My point, however, remains that a lot of people hold an opinion on abortion without due consideration of the real issues affecting someone who is faced with such a decision, or even the slightest regard or interest for that someone. Catsix just provided some famous real-life examples. I myself brought the topic up because of personal experience with the matter - since I talk to girls a lot, I have had numerous conversations with women who had to face such a tough decision. And personally, I have been as close to such a decision as you can get without actually being a woman. The anti-choice camp aims to take away a woman’s sovereignty over her body based on a single argument - that human life is sacred, and as soon as a sperm lands the DNA of its owner in a woman’s cell, this life deserves protection as much as a human being at any other stage of development. Some of the anti-choice are willing to make certain exceptions to this rule, for instance for rape, or if at any stage of the development the life and health of a woman is threatened directly by the pregnancy. These exceptions come from confrontation with ugly reality. They are obvious examples of the harsh effects of a stance that is based on principle, faced with the harsh reality of the consequences held by such a strict position. The reverse happens too - if someone sees a picture of a fetus that has developed into something which on an enlarged picture displays many human characteristics, this may evoke very strong emotions leading to a reconsideration of that person’s principles. But emotions aren’t the best guides to making such fundamental decisions. What is needed is a method that can be used to answer these fundamental questions: what are the laws we have in place to protect members of society from harm meant to achieve, why, and for whom? Anyone who willfully ignores the complexity and far reaching effects of anti-choice has no right making decisions that affect the lives of others so rigorously. I will concede that this goes equally for either side - the anti-choice camp, will, after all, feel that a woman has no right to decide over the life that grows within her, as strongly as the pro-choice side feels that same life has no right over the woman it is growing in. The difference of opinion boils down to fundamental disagreement over at what stage the life can be considered a person that deserves a legally guaranteed right to life, and at what point that right to life supercedes the right of a person over his or her (obviously in this case and for now still mostly her) own body. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/143 "2005-10-21T11:53:37Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > I did not know that either side of the abortion debate particularly concerned itself with _homo erectus_ :dubious: _Ugh_ Make that _sapiens_ … :rolleyes: (suddenly regrets comments on Edit button) (goes off wondering if there is any specific cause why I forgot we already evolved from _erectus_ to _sapiens_) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/144 "2005-10-21T12:43:48Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Who brought marriage into this? We were debating unwanted pregnancy. At least I was - is this another example of you using words to mean something other than what the rest of us mean? If so, perhaps you could flag it when you do that. Something like [some nonsense or other I pulled out of my ass]blah blah[/some nonsense or other I pulled out of my ass]. Thanks in advance > [@Arwin](#): > > Once they become legal, they also become known. But obviously, it is not the only factor. The website you linked to below gives enough info on that. But, perhaps your problem with reading lies in reading what you want to see? Not sure what you are talking about here. Are you saying that the pregnancy rates as discussed have not changed at all? If so, please provide a cite. > [@Arwin](#): > > I cannot believe that anyone with half a brain can read that page and still not understand anything on the relation between abortion and teen-pregnancies. > > _(snip of a long passage of hand-waving, refusal to engage the argument, and general back peddling)_ > > You couldn’t be much further wrong if you tried. Since it seems to be a more serious problem then I thought, maybe inquiring for a Remedial Teaching class in comprehensive reading wouldn’t be a bad idea. Soooo - did you have any response besides bluster? You’ve made an assertion, it’s been shot down. Wanna try again? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/145 "2005-10-21T13:08:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Calling the veracity of a biased cite is perfectly acceptable behavior, taunting someone when it turns out you were right makes you look like a child. The cite itself did not, by any means, have a pro-life bias. It appeared on a pro-life website, but it originated from a respected medical journal, not from any pro-life author. If anything, one would expect it to have a pro-CHOICE bias, since the author was a internationally renowned abortion advocate. Additionally, **Scott Plaid** didn’t just wonder if the “biased” cite was accurate. Rather, he expressed severe doubt that the Calderone uttered anything of the sort – without the tiniest shred of evidence, I might add. That makes it an entirely different animal. And, as I said, it was a cite from a well-known medical journal, easily subject to verification. Only a complete idiot would willfully fabricate a quote that can be readily disproven. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW abd other pro-choice individuals and organizations have had decades to refute this quote, but nobody stepped forward. Under the circumstances, anyone who still says “I suspect that the quote says nothing of the kind” (or words to that effect) – without any fragment of evidence – is practically humiliating himself. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that this is the type of forum where unsubstantiated pro-choice claims get a pass – and are often even applauded – whereas pro-choicers demand outrageous burdens of proof when it comes to pro-life evidence. These demands for burdens of proof go far beyond what even a scientific journal would expect, and even defy common sense. This goes to show how far some pro-choicers will go, as they hold on to outrageous claims that are completely unsupported by the evidence at hand. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/146 "2005-10-21T13:22:01Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Really? You see, I thought that meiosis and mitosis were, like life, **ongoing processes** which were not “scientifically” subject to arbitrary thresholding, None of that is relevant to the subject at hand. Conception has nothing to do with meiosis or mitosis. If anything, it occurs well before the zygote starts to divide. In another thread, **beagledave** pointed out that a certain pro-choice challenge betrayed a certain ignorance of embryology. Similarly, the “ongoing” nature of meiosis and mitosis has absolutely no bearing on the question of life beginning at conception. This should be obvious to anyone who undrstands the distinctions between these terms. > [@](#): > > …and that one might as well say that a sperm and egg were “human life” in that they comprised human cells (\*ie.] autopoietic, water based, lipid-protein bound, carbon metabolic, nucleic acid replicated, protein readout systems). Don’t be silly. We are not talking about individual living human cells here. Rather, we are talking about when a new human individual – a distinct _organism_ – comes into being. This is a criticial distinction. No reasonable person, whether pro-life or pro-choice, would complain about a mere cell being killed. However, people express righteous outrage when an innocent human _organism_ is marked for death, and rightfully so. I hope that everyone understands the distinction between an ordinary cell and a new living organism. Sadly, this distinction remains lost on a great many pro-choice advocates. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/147 "2005-10-21T13:57:57Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Don’t be silly. We are not talking about individual living human cells here. Rather, we are talking about when a new human individual – a distinct _organism_ – comes into being. This is a criticial distinction. No reasonable person, whether pro-life or pro-choice, would complain about a mere cell being killed. However, people express righteous outrage when an innocent human _organism_ is marked for death, and rightfully so. > > I hope that everyone understands the distinction between an ordinary cell and a new living organism. Sadly, this distinction remains lost on a great many pro-choice advocates. OK, quick biology experiment. Take a fertililzed, dividing egg cell. This cluster of cells has undergone fertilization, and is therefore a human organism. Now, tease one of the cells of the zygote off. You have twins now. The cell that you’ve removed can grow and develop exactly as your original zygote did. But, this cell is just a cell and not an innocent human organism, yes? Because if it is an organism, then what happens when you re-introduce it back into the zygote? If it’s seperate, then it can develop into a person. If it’s not, then it can’t. In order to get from fertilized egg cell to baby, uncountable numbers of potential human lives are lost. If each of these divided cells has equivalent moral worth to the original, then gestation is murder. If not, then I hope you have a way to distinguish between two identical cells and determine which one is a person and which one isn’t. Also, you’d need to determine which of a set of identical twins was the actual person and which one was the mere collection of cells. Or, maybe there’s more to it then conception. Your choice. ---
**Author:** ![CartesianDaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@CartesianDaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CartesianDaemon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/148 "2005-10-21T14:13:15Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > In order to get from fertilized egg cell to baby, uncountable numbers of potential human lives are lost. If each of these divided cells has equivalent moral worth to the original, then gestation is murder. If not, then I hope you have a way to distinguish between two identical cells and determine which one is a person and which one isn’t. Also, you’d need to determine which of a set of identical twins was the actual person and which one was the mere collection of cells. Ooh, I love this argument! 🙂 Can I borrow it? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/149 "2005-10-21T14:24:12Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Conception has nothing to do with meiosis or mitosis. Really? How do we end up with a diploid cell once the outer wall has fused? > [@](#): > > No reasonable person, whether pro-life or pro-choice, would complain about a mere cell being killed. And what if the organism **is** a mere cell? You would then be complaining about its **potential** to become a multicellular individual: a potential which is shared by the _separate_ sperm and egg. It is you who are being silly in assigning different rights to different types of cell. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/150 "2005-10-21T14:30:34Z")
> [@CartesianDaemon](#): > > Ooh, I love this argument! 🙂 Can I borrow it? By all means. I got the original from an old GD argument. Feel free to borrow, modify, upgrade, etc. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/151 "2005-10-21T14:36:09Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > OK, quick biology experiment. Take a fertililzed, dividing egg cell. This cluster of cells has undergone fertilization, and is therefore a human organism. > > Now, tease one of the cells of the zygote off. You have twins now. The cell that you’ve removed can grow and develop exactly as your original zygote did. For the sake of argument, let us assume that your claim is correct – that twins would definitely result, as opposed to, say, an irreparably ruined blastocyst. There remain other problems with your scenario, as well shall see. > [@](#): > > But, this cell is just a cell and not an innocent human organism, yes? You are ASSUMING that this twinned zygote is indeed “just a cell” rather than a distinct human organism. In other words, your argument ASSUMES the very conclusion that it purports to draw. One could just as easily say that two new organisms result where there used to be just one. (Dr. Francis Beckwith discusses this scenario, and a host of others, in his text, _Politically Correct Death_.) So right away, we see that your argument is circular and self-defeating… but let’s proceed anyway, shall we? > [@](#): > > Because if it is an organism, then what happens when you re-introduce it back into the zygote? If it’s seperate, then it can develop into a person. If it’s not, then it can’t. Again, have you actually conducted such an experiment? Or do you know anyone who has? It seems to me that you’re assuming certain outcomes would result, which is NOT the way science should be conducted. Until you can demonstrate what actually happens, your objection remains irrelevant. > [@](#): > > In order to get from fertilized egg cell to baby, uncountable numbers of potential human lives are lost. If each of these divided cells has equivalent moral worth to the original, then gestation is murder. And if each of those divided cells were identical to the zygote, then you would have a point – but they’re not. You have yet to demonstrate that these “uncountable numbers” of divided cells are functionally identical to a zygote. In fact, [cell differentiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation) occurs [after just a few days of embryological development](http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week2_11.htm) – and if it did not occur, then one could not have skin, bones, hands or any bodily organs whatsoever. So much for the claim that these “uncountable numbers” of cells can simply be “teased off” to produce a new human organism. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/152 "2005-10-21T14:38:41Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Really? How do we end up with a diploid cell once the outer wall has fused? Irrelevant. You’re saying that cell division occurs after conception. Well, guess what? Nobody contests that. Cell division may be an “ongoing” process, but that doesn’t mean that conception is. They are two entirely different events. > [@](#): > > And what if the organism **is** a mere cell? What if pigs could fly? If it’s a human organism, then it’s not a _mere_ cell. It is a cell, but not just any cell. And so your argument remains irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/153 "2005-10-21T14:42:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We were debating unwanted pregnancy. At least I was - is this another example of you using words to mean something other than what the rest of us mean? While I admit it was a typo and I could have guessed that (I admit I didn’t), you did actually type \*\*unwed \*\* pregnancies in that post. Let’s make a deal: you reread the sentence and realise your mistake, and I will ignore the stuff you wrote next. > [@](#): > > Not sure what you are talking about here. Are you saying that the pregnancy rates as discussed have not changed at all? If so, please provide a cite. I am saying that legalised abortion has nothing to do with rising pregnancy rates, and specifically nothing with the problems of teen-pregnancy, since teen-pregnancies wouldn’t be a problem if teens got abortions. But only (just under) 1/3rd of them do in fact get an abortion. From the cite: > [@](#): > > 95% of the 1 million teenage pregnancies are unintended and almost one third end in abortions. Then read the following two quotes from that same page: > [@](#): > > Teen Births Drop to Lowest Rate in 60 Years Teens are more terrified than ever of sexually transmitted diseases, and they are putting off starting families to take jobs with good pay available in the booming economy . Their birth rates are the lowest in at least 60 years **and both religious groups that push abstinence and advocates for contraceptives and sex education in schools are taking the credit**. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that the birth rate for teenagers has fallen 20% in the last 10 years. Among girls ages 15 to 17, the rate fell 6% from 1998 to 28.7 births per 1,000 today. Among black teens, the rate dropped a dramatic 38% from 1991 to 1999. Clinton consequently urged Congress to approve $25 million for what are being called “second-chance homes,” where teen parents can live and get job counseling and learn parenting skills. August 9, 2000 AP Though as I emphasised, both groups are taking the credit, if you can add it up with this quote, you’ll see which one has more reason to do so. > [@](#): > > Sex education does not increase promiscuity Of 68 studies on family life and sex education in a scientific review 65 found no associated increases in sexual behavior. Of the 53 studies that evaluated specific interventions, 21 found that young people taking part in such programs had higher levels of abstinence, later start of sexual activity, higher use of contraceptives, fewer sexual partners and/or reduced rates of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. (3) Also, compare the table that I pointed to before, with figures from the U.S. and the Netherlands, the latter being a country where abortion has been legal similarly (although limited to the 13th week I think), but sexual education is obligatory in school for everyone: ```auto Women 15-19 | Age at first intercourse | Live births per 1,000 | Abortion rates per 1,000 United States | 15.8 | 54.4 | 17.0 Netherlands | 17.7 | 6.9 | 5.2 ``` (table probably looks crap, but the original is here: [WOA!! World Ovepopulation Awareness](http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html) ) I will be the first to admit though that education and poverty rates also play an important factor. But all that adds up to the same thing. There are a great number of other issues to be solved before you should even consider making abortion illegal, if ever. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/154 "2005-10-21T14:49:53Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Cell division may be an “ongoing” process, but that doesn’t mean that conception is. I’m saying that cell division **is** conception - the cells in question being the sperm and egg. Could you tell me the exact point at which conception occurs without reference to an utterly arbitrary threshold in an ongoing process? If you can’t, then my arbitrary point of 18 weeks or whatever is _just as arbitrary as yours_. > [@](#): > > If it’s a human organism, then it’s not a _mere_ cell. It is a cell, but not just any cell. And the basis on which you are distinguishing them is one of potentiality. A separate sperm and egg are every bit as much a potential human as that cell is. And so I do not understand the complaint about the destruction of that one which does not apply to the other two. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/155 "2005-10-21T15:30:26Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > While I admit it was a typo and I could have guessed that (I admit I didn’t), you did actually type \*\*unwed \*\* pregnancies in that post. Let’s make a deal: you reread the sentence and realise your mistake, and I will ignore the stuff you wrote next. What was a typo? “Unwed” is a subset of “unwanted”. “Teen age unwed” is a subset of “particularly unwanted”. > [@Arwin](#): > > I am saying that legalised abortion has nothing to do with rising pregnancy rates, and specifically nothing with the problems of teen-pregnancy, since teen-pregnancies wouldn’t be a problem if teens got abortions. Ah, the light dawns. You were retracting your earlier claim, since it had been disproven. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/156 "2005-10-21T15:39:23Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > For the sake of argument, let us assume that your claim is correct – that twins would definitely result, as opposed to, say, an irreparably ruined blastocyst. There remain other problems with your scenario, as well shall see. You may well. On the other hand, an un-meddled-with embryo can and often does spontaneously abort. We’re dealing with what can and might happen, not with what always happens. > [@JThunder](#): > > You are ASSUMING that this twinned zygote is indeed “just a cell” rather than a distinct human organism. In other words, your argument ASSUMES the very conclusion that it purports to draw. One could just as easily say that two new organisms result where there used to be just one. (Dr. Francis Beckwith discusses this scenario, and a host of others, in his text, _Politically Correct Death_.) > So right away, we see that your argument is circular and self-defeating… but let’s proceed anyway, shall we? If you assume that there are two organisms, then conception obviously can’t be the clear and shining line of personhood, because only one conception happened. Did a twin who has not yet divided from the main conceptus also begin life at conception? How can you tell? And if this hypothetical twin becomes an actual twin but then promptly is reabsorbed by his sibling, producing a [chimera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28animal%29), what then? > [@JThunder](#): > > Again, have you actually conducted such an experiment? Or do you know anyone who has? It seems to me that you’re assuming certain outcomes would result, which is NOT the way science should be conducted. > > Until you can demonstrate what actually happens, your objection remains irrelevant. Not personally. Is there any reason you think that twins can’t be induced in this manner? > [@JThunder](#): > > And if each of those divided cells were identical to the zygote, then you would have a point – but they’re not. You have yet to demonstrate that these “uncountable numbers” of divided cells are functionally identical to a zygote. > In fact, [cell differentiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation) occurs [after just a few days of embryological development](http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week2_11.htm) – and if it did not occur, then one could not have skin, bones, hands or any bodily organs whatsoever. So much for the claim that these “uncountable numbers” of cells can simply be “teased off” to produce a new human organism. Let’s take these in reverse order. First, you can get a twinning very late in the pregnancy. However, this vastly increases the odds of cojoined twins and other complications. Let’s err on the side of caution. After a few divisions, you have a morula, or a ball of completely undifferentiated cells. This structure hasn’t even started to form into a blastocyst yet. This is a cluster of undifferentiated cells. We agree on this, yes? Because we can pull off one of these cells, and get two morulas. Until the cell line dies, we can repeat this process. (Look into stem cell and cancer research to see how long cell lines can live like this.) This is what I meant by an uncountable number of cells. Of course, even the two cells after the first division of the zygote have the same problem. And finally, if there is even one cell identical to the original fertilized egg, then I do have a point, albeit a less dramatic one. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/157 "2005-10-22T02:28:32Z")
A couple of points, if I may. The rhetorical ammunition spent on whether or not certain “leaders” of the pro-choice faction exaggerated the gravity of the situation obscures one question and begs the other. Even if we accept the notion that such a wide spectrum of opinions as “pro-choice” may can be “led” in any meaningful sense, it is specious to represent that the hypocrisy of individual persons has any bearing on the validity of their case. Senator Frist may argue against vivisection of cute, fuzzy kittens and be entirely correct, regardless of his own personal history. As to how many septic abortions resulted in deaths in the dark years, and how exaggerated a given figure may be, one is moved to ask precisely what number of such deaths is acceptable? 100? 1,000? Personally, I incline towards zero. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/158 "2005-10-22T03:30:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A couple of points, if I may. > > The rhetorical ammunition spent on whether or not certain “leaders” of the pro-choice faction exaggerated the gravity of the situation obscures one question and begs the other. Even if we accept the notion that such a wide spectrum of opinions as “pro-choice” may can be “led” in any meaningful sense, it is specious to represent that the hypocrisy of individual persons has any bearing on the validity of their case. And yet you had one pro-choicer here repeatedly insisting that the hypocrisy of a few isolated pro-lifers invalidates the entire pro-life stance. Strangely enough, I don’t see you denouncing his statements. The thing is, I’m sure that NONE of the pro-lifers here would disagree with what you said. We’re not the ones who claimed that the hypocrisy of certain individuals invalidates the entire movement. That claim came entirely from the pro-choice camp. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/159 "2005-10-22T03:40:53Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > For the sake of argument, let us assume that your claim is correct – that twins would definitely result, as opposed to, say, an irreparably ruined blastocyst. There remain other problems with your scenario, as well shall see. > > You may well. On the other hand, an un-meddled-with embryo can and often does spontaneously abort. We’re dealing with what can and might happen, not with what always happens. You’re jumping from one point to another. We’re not talkign about spontaneous abortions (a.k.a. miscarriages) or other such rot. We were talking about a very specific scenario that you painted. If you want to be taken seriously, then please don’t change the subject. [QUOTE] If you assume that there are two organisms, then conception obviously can’t be the clear and shining line of personhood, because only one conception happened. Did a twin who has not yet divided from the main conceptus also begin life at conception? How can you tell?]QUOTE] Irrelevant. Those would, at best, be _exceptions_ to the rule. To accommodate your exception, one could just as easily claim that life ordinarily begins at conception, but can also begin at the twinning stage. This is consistent with everyday language, wherein statements are often taken to describe a normative state (e.g. “Dogs have four legs”) while allowing for exceptional ones (e.g. “In rare instances, some dogs may have three or five”). > [@](#): > > And if this hypothetical twin becomes an actual twin but then promptly is reabsorbed by his sibling, producing a [chimera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28animal%29), what then? Beckwith discusses that as well. One could just as easily content that one of the organisms ceases to exist. No big mystery there. **roberliguori** , NOTHING that you’ve said disproves the notion that life begins at conception. At best, you’ve merely illustrated that _in certain exceptional cases_, life may begin at other stages as well, e.g. zygote twinning. This does not disprove the statements provided by _numerous_ experts in genetics and embryology, who testified that conception marks the beginning of a new and distinct human individual. You remind me of the fellow who was asked if motorists need to observe traffic laws. He retorted, “Of course not! What if there’s a medical emergency? This proves that drivers don’t have to obey the law!” This fellow failed to distinguish between normative circumstances and exceptional ones – and your example fails to do that as well. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/160 "2005-10-22T03:44:27Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I’m saying that cell division **is** conception - the cells in question being the sperm and egg. Then you’re using the term incorrectly. [Conception is the fusion of the sperm and the egg cell.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilization) It has nothing to do with cell division. And this is why your objection is irrelevant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=9)