# Why are pro-choice advocates so passionate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2004, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616 "2004-11-25T09:06:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/61 "2004-11-29T17:10:16Z")
Please provide evidence that most pro-life people would oppose abortion if the pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother. It is obviously true that if the mother dies the baby dies too. The catholic church is not opposed to abortion in these cases, or to medical treatment to save the life of the mother that would also have the side effect of killing her unborn child. If a pregnant woman has cancer that can be treated with chemotherapy, it would be moral for that woman to have treatment for the cancer even though the chemotherapy will kill the baby. This is a straw-man. Even if RvW were overturned and abortion became illegal in most states, abortion would still be legal if the mother’s life were threatened. Anyone who argues otherwise is being disingenous. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/62 "2004-11-29T17:48:51Z")
This is irrelevant to the OP, so I apologize for condoning the hijack, but I can’t let this one lie. Please skip it if y’all desire. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Please provide evidence that most pro-life people would oppose abortion if the pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother. > > It is obviously true that if the mother dies the baby dies too. The catholic church is not opposed to abortion in these cases, or to medical treatment to save the life of the mother that would also have the side effect of killing her unborn child. If a pregnant woman has cancer that can be treated with chemotherapy, it would be moral for that woman to have treatment for the cancer even though the chemotherapy will kill the baby. > > This is a straw-man. Even if RvW were overturned and abortion became illegal in most states, abortion would still be legal if the mother’s life were threatened. Anyone who argues otherwise is being disingenous. I don’t think \*\*most \*\*pro-life people would oppose abortion to save the life of the mother, but I do think \*\*some \*\*do. I also haven’t seen it posited that most do in this thread, although I may have missed that. I thought (and I’m very prepared to be wrong here) that the reason John Kerry wouldn’t sign the partial-birth abortion ban bill was that it did not contain an proviso allowing the procedure to save the life of the mother. Whoever wrote and endorsed that bill did not agree that abortion should be used to save the life of the mother. This turned around to bite him in the election when he was branded “pro-abortion” even though his record is actually pretty anti-abortion (except in cases of rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.) While this is by no means a bias-free cite, it is on an [anti-abortion site](http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm) , a site which one could assume was trying to portray anti-abortionists in a postive light. According to their own numbers, “**16% [of people] say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances**; [bolding mine] and 55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.” Even if this 16% number is high, as I suspect it is, there is evidence that \*\*some \*\*anti-abortionists take this stance, if only the writers of the website. According to [this site](http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/004/478dmhyz.asp) , a Pace University/Rock the Vote poll showed that 13% of those polled believe “all abortions should be made illegal”. Here’s a [pro-life site](http://sxws.com/charis/pro-life.htm) written by a person who believe the only time an abortion can be performed to save a mother’s life is in the case of an ectopic pregnancy - not cancer, not eclampsia, not any other life-threatening illness. \*Only \*ectopic. So, it’s not a straw man, except in how you chose to word it. Most anti-abortionists may not be against abortion to save the life of the mother, but some (13-16%) certainly are. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/63 "2004-11-29T19:46:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I thought (and I’m very prepared to be wrong here) that the reason John Kerry wouldn’t sign the partial-birth abortion ban bill was that it did not contain an proviso allowing the procedure to save the life of the mother. Whoever wrote and endorsed that bill did not agree that abortion should be used to save the life of the mother. ACtually, you’d have a hard time convincing me that they believed much of anything. Everyone knew that unless the ban provided an out for saving the mother, it would get struck down in court almost immediately. And that’s exactly what happened. The entire bill was an election-prep exercise, not based on a deeply held convinction that abortion is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/64 "2004-11-30T04:45:23Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I thought (and I’m very prepared to be wrong here) that the reason John Kerry wouldn’t sign the partial-birth abortion ban bill was that it did not contain an proviso allowing the procedure to save the life of the mother. Well, yes you are wrong. The bill did contain an exception for the life of the mother. > [@](#): > > **Q:** Do you support the ban on partial-birth abortions recently signed into law? > > **A:** I don’t support the President’s law because it doesn’t allow the exception for situations where the health of the woman is at risk. I believe this is a dangerous effort to undermine a woman’s right to choose, which is a constitutional amendment I will always fight to protect. _Source:_ Concord Monitor / [WashingtonPost.com](http://WashingtonPost.com) on-line Q&A November 7, 2003 ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/65 "2004-11-30T06:41:32Z")
A lot of us are passionate because, well, the idea of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy isn’t just some pie-in-the-sky mental exercise for us. It’s a real and present threat to our finances, our physical health, our emotional well-being, our _lives_. How can we not be passionate about something that has the power to affect us so greatly? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/66 "2004-11-30T13:34:25Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > > [@WhyNot](#): > > > > I thought (and I’m very prepared to be wrong here) that the reason John Kerry wouldn’t sign the partial-birth abortion ban bill was that it did not contain an proviso allowing the procedure to save the life of the mother. > > Well, yes you are wrong. **The bill did contain an exception for the life of the mother.** > > > [@](#): > > > > Q: Do you support the ban on partial-birth abortions recently signed into law? > > > > A: I don’t support the President’s law because **it doesn’t allow the exception for situations where the health of the woman is at risk**. I believe this is a dangerous effort to undermine a woman’s right to choose, which is a constitutional amendment I will always fight to protect. > > Source: Concord Monitor / [WashingtonPost.com](http://WashingtonPost.com) on-line Q&A November 7, 2003 (bolding mine) huh? Does not compute. You say it contained an exception and then posted a quote which says it did NOT contain an exception. Which is it? Even given this example (which I admitted when I posted might be incorrect, but I don’t see that you’ve demonstrated it was incorrect), the other examples do indeed provide citations that some anti-abortion people are against abortion even to save the life of the mother, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/67 "2004-11-30T15:16:52Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > huh? Does not compute. You say it contained an exception and then posted a quote which says it did NOT contain an exception. Which is it? My guess is that “life of the mother” is considered a different matter than “health of the mother”, the latter being less tangible and thus offeing more wiggle room (i.e. health includes mental health and since the mother claims having a baby at this time will impose massive psychological stress, a therapeutic abortion is called for). Personally, I say it should be legal at any time during the pregnancy. I’m somewhat indifferent to debates on whether or not a fetus is a person, human, alive, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/68 "2004-11-30T23:51:42Z")
As **Bryan Ekers** said. I suspected that if I posted that, someone would not read it carefully, and not notice the difference between “life of the mother” and “health of the mother”. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/69 "2004-12-01T00:07:43Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > As **Bryan Ekers** said. I suspected that if I posted that, someone would not read it carefully, and not notice the difference between “life of the mother” and “health of the mother”. hai rs ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/70 "2004-12-01T15:52:50Z")
When such a distinction is what causes senators to vote against the bill, and for state and U.S. courts to overturn the law, it’s not splitting hairs. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/71 "2004-12-01T17:01:22Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I agree, natural parents can suck just as much, if not more. But you’re missing my point. My point is that, someone who chooses to abort because she feels herself to be unable to support and raise a child cannot be assured that the child would recieve better care from foster or adoptive parents. She can gamble, she can trust. She can fervently hope that everyone within the system is as concientious, as hard-working and as wonderful a person as you are, but all she has to do is pick up a paper to discover that that simply isn’t true. People suck. Parents suck - natural and adoptive and case-workers. Children fall through the cracks and are found brutalized or dead every week. Whether or not this is done by natural parents as well as adoptive parents is irrelevant. If the young mother has just cause to believe it could happen to her child if she kept it (ie. the natural parents raised it) then she shouldn’t keep it. If she has reason to believe it could happen with adoptive parents, then what is she to do? > > And if she’s a young black mother who gives birth to a young black boy, what are the chances he’ll find a good home? Chances are he’ll be bounced from one foster family to another until he’s old enough for jail. > > There’s a big difference between an imperfect childhood and being locked in a closet, beaten and starved or burned in a pot of boiling water. Maybe I hear more of these stories than the average bear, since I’m in Chicago, where we have a notoriously awful DCFS. > > I feel like I’m coming off here an adoption opponent, and that’s not at all true. I’m simply saying that it’s not a perfect solution as it exists today, nor does it meet the needs of every woman who chooses to have an abortion. I may be mistaken but it seems like you are rolling adoption of newborns and foster care and adoption of non-newborns together. I have not yet heard of a horror story involving the adoption of a newborn. As there are LONG waiting lines they can afford to be very selective of the homes they choose to take a child. The same does not hold true of the adoption or foster care of older children. In fact, I do not believe they have foster care of newborns, and as newborns are what we are considering when talking about abortion it is highly misleading to bring foster care into the discussion. True, it can be harder to find adoptive parents of a special needs child, and in some cases minority children but I have not seen statistics on how much of a problem it is. I will try to look them up. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616/72 "2004-12-01T18:08:33Z")
> [@flight](#): > > I may be mistaken but it seems like you are rolling adoption of newborns and foster care and adoption of non-newborns together. I have not yet heard of a horror story involving the adoption of a newborn. As there are LONG waiting lines they can afford to be very selective of the homes they choose to take a child. The same does not hold true of the adoption or foster care of older children. In fact, I do not believe they have foster care of newborns, and as newborns are what we are considering when talking about abortion it is highly misleading to bring foster care into the discussion. > > True, it can be harder to find adoptive parents of a special needs child, and in some cases minority children but I have not seen statistics on how much of a problem it is. I will try to look them up. But the point is, it’s not anyone else’s choice to make a woman go through nine months of pregnancy and several hours of labor, plus the post partum recovery, to have a baby she does not want in order to give it to someone else to raise. Yes, those options are open. And they’re good options. But it seems to me you are asking a woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally (no matter how it may happen) to put the thoughts and feelings of people she’s never even met before her health, future, and financial well being and that of her family. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-pro-choice-advocates-so-passionate/276616.md?page=3)