# Abortion-clinic picketers. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 6, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935 "2011-05-06T05:57:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 108
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2141 "2011-05-23T16:35:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > What are we up to? I need to check if I’m gonna make quota at this rate. I mean, if we meet this quota, does she disappear? Is it like saying “biggie smalls” into the bathroom mirror 3 times? I can start a poll in IMHO to help tally the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2142 "2011-05-23T16:40:58Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Takes one to no one. For the last fucking time you don`t know what my username means. No one cares what your username means, it won’t change your retarded arguments into intelligent discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2143 "2011-05-23T16:43:52Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > He just stated that he supports people having abortions if they find out their baby will be gay. That is all. > > You’re the colander BTW. Wouldn’t homophobia only be indicated if he then didn’t support people having abortions if they find out their baby will be heterosexual? I don’t want to put words in the guy’s mouth, but by and large I would tend to think that from what they’ve written, heterosexuality would be no bar to abortion for them either. That’d be my stance, too; I’m not sure i’d go so far as to say I “support” that happening, since that tends to imply i’m actively pushing for it. But sure, if people want to abort their child because it will be gay, or because it will be straight, then I’d like them to have the right to do that. Far better than forcing people who would abort a fetus simply for in the future being gay to carry/birth/raise a gay child. I would imagine such a child would not have a particularly happy upbringing. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2144 "2011-05-23T16:43:53Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Takes one to no one. For the last fucking time you don`t know what my username means. Is there some other definition of the word “classy” of which I’m unaware? Because my point in that post was to say that you’re not acting very classy. Whether or not it’s part of your username doesn’t change the character of your actions here. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2145 "2011-05-23T17:05:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that’s not a promising start. Indeed, it’s not. > [@](#): > > The entire above paragraph, even if true, is only relevant to the abortion issue if one feels abortion is wrong. Since I’d rather debate abortion than prepositional logic, I’m just going to let this pass. You’re going to let what pass? The fact that I said now that you’ve agreed that your focusing on the effects redressing a wrong, if it is wrong, to be a red herring as it has no bearing on whether or not that action should be allowed? That? Sure, I’ll let it pass in hopes that you focus on the actual, important issue. > [@](#): > > I don’t remember making that claim, but as an atheist, I take it as a given that no evidence for an absolute moral standard is known to exist. I have no reason to take the word of anyone who claims to know what this absolute moral standard is, nor i they feel abortion is acceptable or unacceptable by that standard. > > So basically I’m stating for the record my indifference to all “absolute moral standard” arguments. Go back and read. No one was talking about “absolute moral standards” but “absolute moral wrongs”. There are, as you’ve attested to, such a thing. Rape and murder are two things which come to mind. > [@](#): > > Good - I think I’ve been asking for this for the last few days, though by “action” I’d like to specifically discuss abortion and not remote analogies for abortion. You don’t get to pick and choose when it’s okay to look at the consequences restricting an actions vs. allowing that action would have on those engaging in the actions and when it’s not. This argument is either applied uniformly to all things, or it isn’t. > [@](#): > > No, thievery and abortion are not sufficiently similar for an argument involving one to say anything definite about the other. They’re sufficiently similar to one another in the context of what we’re talking about. Both have negative effects on an outside party. Why should we ignore the effects one of those actions has on an outside party, but not the other? If we’re going to ignore the consequences of one, shouldn’t we ignore the consequences of both of them? > [@](#): > > Not quite - it’s okay for a woman to kill her “child” (I’ll use that term if you insist, but it in no way implies that I’m overlooking the distinction between a “child” before birth and a child afterward, although you have overlooked it repeatedly in what I assume is an effort to get me to say okay to gunning down a toddler, or something) if she wants to terminate a pregnancy, a biological process directly affecting her body. One this biological process ends, abortion access becomes moot and other options become available, including transferring custody of the child to a relative, an adoptive parent or the state. If, as you claimed, your argument is that a woman can kill her unborn child because she cannot transfer it to someone else, whereas it’s wrong for her to kill her born child because she can transfer it to someone else, then this argument would necessitate that it’s also okay for a woman to kill her born child if she can’t transfer it to someone else (by extension, it would also mean that a woman would be unable to kill her born child if she could transfer it to someone else). If, as you have, you want to argue from bodily autonomy, then the latter point becomes moot, and thusly you are burdened with explaining why her bodily autonomy is absolute in this instance regardless of the effect it has on another. I’m still waiting. > [@](#): > > Cop-out? Oh, I don’t think so. Sure, the loss of a newborn has little or no effect on the state, and I’m actually a touch sympathetic to the scared teenager who has kept her pregnancy and delivery secret and smothers her newborn. Since there’s no age line I’m aware of where the killing of a child goes from “non-state interest” to “state interest”, I figure birth will do. This doesn’t strike me as something I have to prove in order to be pro-choice. You’re burdened with “proving” what tangible effect a woman who has an abortion and a woman who kills her newborn right after its born have on the state. Or better yet, you’re going to be burdened with explaining how those two situations have a different effect on the state. > [@](#): > > I guess I’ll have to google Pete Singer later, but I don’t see the rationalization you’re claiming (though I suppose if it exists, one might assume I either wouldn’t recognize it or would refuse to recognize it). Anyway, I realize transferring custody of a child is not an instant process. Neither is getting a divorce. The point, though, is that if she (we’re using “she” generically, I trust - a custodial parent or guardian could be of either sex) finds her situation intolerable, _a legal remedy does exist_ even if it is (usually) not instant. The only remedies for pregnancy, however, are either waiting it out or terminating it. I don’t see why the choice to do either should belong to anyone but the woman. And again I ask, what if she can’t transfer custody to anyone else, or even not for an extended period of time. Can she therefore kill that child? > [@](#): > > Sure, you can create various scenarios of varying plausibility in which a custodian cannot quickly transfer off custody, i.e. she’s… at sea? You mean, like, marooned or something, or on a sailboat? Well, then we get into the issues of “positive duty” and “duress”, depending on how you want to flesh out the scenario. For more likely (i.e. land-based) situations, it should be possible to _temporarily_ transfer off custody while a permanent transfer is pending. Babysitters, day-care, nursery schools… I honestly don’t know how common this sort of thing is nowadays - a parent seeking to relinquish parental rights - though I’ve heard stories of parents turning their kids over to orphanages during the Great Depression and I assume modern equivalent mechanisms exist. See, now you’re just looking for the proverbial way out. It doesn’t really matter what the situation is which prevents her from signing over custody of that child to someone else is. It’s not important to the question. The simple fact that you refuse to provide an answer to the question (which itself is not a trick question) is testament to the fact that you simply can’t answer the question without coming off as a hypocrite in some way, shape or form. > [@](#): > > Anyway, after all this analysis, I’m still at “abortion okay, killing children not okay”, which is exactly where I’ve always been. The deciding factor isn’t and has never been the age, status or economic value of the “child”, but its location. And therefore your arguments about her being able to sign over custody of that child to someone else is moot. > [@](#): > > It’s better than any _other_ factor I’m aware of. You can try invoking the “best interests of the fetus” or “absolute moral code” or whatever if you think that’ll be more convincing. And here goes another self-evident statement made without any kind of requisite information. Just because you _think_ it’s better than any other factor doesn’t mean it is. > [@](#): > > It’s her body, she wants an unwanted object removed. I don’t see that it’s more complicated than that. sure the object in question happens to be a developing human, but overall I find I is better for her to have the choice that the choice be denied her and whatever rights the developing human has should not over-ride hers, much as the right of a trespasser does not over-ride those of a homeowner, a much more accurate analogy than your rape suggestion and one which you did not address, but to try to slather on additional hypothetical elements about scientists in labs. Here. Let me simplify it for you. Does the right to bodily autonomy include the right to violate someone else’s right to bodily autonomy? If it doesn’t, then abortion should be illegal because abortion involves forcing death upon another individual, thus violating their right to bodily autonomy (unless you don’t think causing one death isn’t a violation of their bodily autonomy). If it does, then why isn’t rape legal? Since we’d all agree that rape violates one’s bodily autonomy, and if I had the right to violate one’s bodily autonomy by virtue of having bodily autonomy, then rape is permissible. It’s not complicated in the least. Those are your only two options here, unless you want to deem the unborn as non-persons and bother explaining why that is or why one should accept your definition of personhood. > [@](#): > > No, and for reasons that are (or at least should be) too obvious to need explaining. And that’s yet another self-evident statement. Do you ever get tired of making them? > [@](#): > > I mean, seriously, being pro-choice must mean I’m pro-rape? You repeatedly and falsely accuse me of using strawmen arguments, well… I present your paragraph as a truly classic example. Yeah, because I said to be pro-choice you had to be pro-rape. …Oh wait. No, I didn’t. What I said was that if you’re going to argue that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to violate someone else’s bodily autonomy, that rape therefore is also permissible based on the same rationale. Just because you can ignore a point or take offense to a point made, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a point made. > [@](#): > > Heck, location has _always_ been a major element in applying law. Perform an action on one side of a border and you’re fine. Move five feet to the left, perform the same action, and you’re a criminal. Wave a fake gun at someone on a stage during a performance - no problem. Do the same in a convenience store - that’s assault. If you’re inside a woman’s uterus, your continued stay is at her pleasure. If you’re not, you get the protection of the state. > > Do you need more examples? And in the same vein, if you shoot someone standing on the corner, that’s attempted murder. If you shoot someone sitting on your couch, that’s fine. …Oh, wait. It isn’t. I liked how you tried to (again) slyly change the argument to your actions relative to your location vs. your actions relative to the location of another. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll need a more detailed description of the circumstances in which she “can’t” accomplish this. I’ll wager the necessary hypothetical ends up contrived and unlikely. Heck, if the hypothetical is sufficiently extreme (i.e. a desperate case of survival, or her child had a weapon and was threatening to kill her or someone else), perhaps she _can_ kill her child, though I expect she’d have to explain her actions to authorities afterward. It doesn’t matter what the situation is. It’s a question, aimed to test how willing you are to be consistent-- a question, mind you, which still stands. If a woman, for whatever reason, is unable to give that child to someone else or if someone else is unable to take care of that child, then you’d agree that she should be able to kill that child, correct? > [@](#): > > I’m being perfectly consistent: inside the uterus, okay… outside the uterus, not okay. Those goalpost are made of depleted uranium and sunk in 18 feet of cement. They haven’t budged one millimeter. Just less than a day ago, you said a woman should be able to have an abortion because, prior to birth, she can’t relinquish control of that child to someone else, while after birth she can’t kill that child because she can relinquish control of it. After I asked you whether or not a woman should be able to kill her child that she can’t give to another, you’ve begun telling me that such a criteria doesn’t mater (whether or not she can give that child up to someone else), quite possibly because you realize that employing such a criteria would necessitate a woman being able to kill her born child that she can’t give to someone else. Somehow the uterus, and by extension the woman, is in this blind spot you have. [/quote] [quote] Incorrect. I am, and have been, perfectly willing to argue the whole “bodily autonomy” angle. In fact, I posed a series of questions to you which still have gone unanswered. > [@](#): > > See? The whole “inside the uterus” thing just doesn’t enter into your calculations, does it? It’s an inconvenient flaw in your argument, therefore it doesn’t exist. So have you not been reading what I’ve been typing out? I’ve been more than willing to address the whole “inside the uterus” thing. On one than more occassion I’ve asked you why we should accept your “my body, my choice!” argument as it relates to abortion, especially since bodily autonomy isn’t treated as absolute (a point numerous pro-choicers have attested to). In response to that, I just keep getting the “Because it’s her body, and that’s important” response, which is nothing more than you begging the question. Now tell me that isn’t true. > [@](#): > > Sure, I agree that it will. I just don’t agree that this is a good thing, and whatever benefits that result won’t be worth the costs, because I’ve chosen to consider those costs in my analysis and you have not, because (if I’m reading you right), abortion should be banned because it is immoral, _damn_ the costs. I’d like to know what these hypothetical costs are. > [@](#): > > Besides, when you say “make abortion illegal”, that’s going to need to elaboration. And, further, “how people view it”, at least in the U.S., suggests you’d have fairly little chance of getting a nationwide ban, though some individual states would, given the opportunity, start layering on the restrictions. I understand South Dakota has taken the lead in this regard, adding a three-day waiting period and such. I suppose I could dig up some stats on how many pregnant women go to neighboring states and how many are too poor to manage even that and have children they can’t afford. I’ve gone over this once before, but it’s a fairly well-known that fact that the large majority of individuals would limit abortions to a certain instances and ban the rest. > [@](#): > > I figure one dead white teenager from a hypothetical botched post-ban abortion will get enough news coverage to force second thoughts. Almost like the Kermitt Gosnell got some people to rethink their position on legal abortion instead of passing it off as an isolated incident. > [@](#): > > Again, the whole “in the uterus thing”… predictably ignored. Funny. I’ve yet to ignore it. I’ve asked you questions regarding it but those have been ignored. Go figure. How do you ignore something you quote? That’s really odd. Anyway, let’s try this again. The only way your bodily autonomy argument works is if the unborn aren’t persons and have no protections under the law, for no person could be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. Therefore, you’re burdened with explaining why the unborn aren’t persons and why one must accept your definition of personhood over mine or someone else’s. I think this is the third or forth time I’ve asked, so try not to ignore it this time. > [@](#): > > Actually, I’m well aware that the Warsaw Pact countries were pretty casual about abortion, so much so that after German unification, the West Germans actually had more restrictions than the Easterners. What the Warsaw Pact lacked in quantity (among other things) was contraceptives. Among others. Anyway, now that you realize this, maybe you’ll quit with the whole “Communism” schtick. > [@](#): > > But even with all that, I’m pretty sure I’ve never told anyone that wanting to do something proves you have to run it by higher authority first, probably because I didn’t automatically start thinking that self-determination would be used to rationalize crime. Possibly, I’m far less crime-minded than a typical American, less inclined to live in fear, and in this specific case, utterly disinclined to think of abortion as a crime. Or you’re choosing not to live in reality. > [@](#): > > Well, actually, I was objecting to your eccentric definition of the word “choice”, and since you were using that as a premise, your subsequent conclusions are all suspect. So now you’re saying I defined choice when just above you claimed that I didn’t? Make up your mind. > [@](#): > > Besides, what’s wrong with calling groups by their self-chosen labels? At the very least, it save times wasted in side-discussions like this one. > > /notsarcasm Nothing, but I quite like the anti-abortion and pro-abortion labels. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you were expecting, on a liberal-slant board like this. Heck, even your choice of username indicates you came in with full knowledge that this _was_ a liberal-slant board (and that the users would be shocked to meet a black conservative, which strikes me as, to be mild, presumptuous). Go to any of a thousand conservative-slant boards and the ratio will be reversed. Quite possibly for people to not be so extreme. Even on most conservative boards, you won’t find a majority of posters adopting the “no abortion, never” position. > [@](#): > > What “media” is that? Serious question - I thought the mainstrea American media was pretty consistent in using “pro-life”. It’s not? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2146 "2011-05-23T17:06:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that depends on how aggressively this ban is enforced, which is another issue I can’t seem to get a straight answer on. If the ban exists only on paper, with token wink-wink slap-wrist enforcement, I’m sure doctors _will_ continue safely performing the procedure, because they’ve decided it is important to do so, as their counterparts in the 1950s did. Would you like to go kicking down the door of anyone suspected of performing illegal abortions or stick an FBI agent on every corner? You know, this isn’t me “not giving you a straight answer”, but rather me not taking your question seriously because I’m pretty sure you’re basing it on the assumption that unless one is going to go “all out” that they don’t really care about abortion. I’m quite content to ban abortion in general, and then deal with cases of people performing illegal abortions as they rise, just like we tend to do for other crimes, instead of adopting a pre-emptive “We’re gonna’ getcha’!” type approach that you seem to be assuming we take (correct me if I’m wrong). > [@](#): > > I don’t know that this is true, and even if so, I don’t much care. Because abortion is legal, an OB/GYN who doesn’t want to perform to procedure can casually refer the patient to one who can. Hence, we don’t _have_ doctors who are being forced into moral quandaries and having to decide whether or not to defy a (bad, in my opinion) law. [It’s true](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/731485_7). Furthermore, it’s important because you tried to insinuate that instituting an abortion ban and rigorously enforcing it would cause OB/GYN’s to leave the state. Why? Do you think that a significant majority of OB/GYN’s who would perform an abortion when they were illegal would leave the state to go to another state, where abortions are also illegal? > [@](#): > > This “greed” argument sounds pretty desperate. I doubt many doctors get rich because they provide abortions where abortions are legal. And doctors are human - if the lawmakers add too many restrictions, the temptation to just throw up one’s hands and say “screw this, I’m going somewhere else” can become irresistible. How is it desperate? You just proved my point; they’re greedy and are motivated by money. People who truly care about helping others are motivated far less by money and material wealth than are those who aren’t. If you were truly interested in helping others, you’d go where those need help. > [@](#): > > I’m confident in my arguments. I’m extremely doubtful of yours, and not just because I disagree with you. The things is, though, that you’re not making any arguments. > [@](#): > > Self-evident? Pointing out that an individual _inside the body_ of another individual is a special case not lending itself to slippery-slope arguments? No, the “Why?” is in relation to why is bodily autonomy important. How many times have I asked this again. > [@](#): > > There’s that blind spot again. “Uterus? What’s a uterus?” Well, since you can only repeat the line about a uterus again and again, yet can’t bother explaining why bodily autonomy is absolute in this case when it’s generally not treated as absolute, I take it that you don’t have much of any real argument. > [@](#): > > It’s not just the babies, it’s what happens when four hundred thousand babies _who their own mothers don’t want_ get introduced into society. I’m predicting (not without basis) more poverty, more educational and employment opportunities lost to their mothers and, down the road, more crime. > > And, related, more law enforcement resources wasted on an abortion ban. Fewer doctors entering OB/GYN as a speciality because they don’t like the assumption of guilt, fewer OB/GYN treatments available to women with difficult (and wanted) pregnancies… I’m still wanting to know how you figure this. You think most OB/GYN’s become OB/GYN’s to perform abortions? I’m really confused here. You keep assuming that increased enforcetion (sp?) of anti-abortion laws will lead to fewer OB/GYN’s. I’m still waiting to see how you figure. > [@](#): > > I have no confidence that you’ve given any of these issues serious consideration. And I’m pretty sure I’m not being “sly” about it. I suppose if you say it enough, it’ll be true. > [@](#): > > No. I rather doubt Canadians will become an endangered species anytime soon. If anything, we could step up immigration or even start offering _positive_ encouragements for women to have two or more children, through tax breaks, free day care, extended maternity leaves… I don’t see why we’d have to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want. Number one, immigration doesn’t solve the problem; it only compounds it. Number two, I find something deliciously ironic about paying women to have a baby. Would that include trying to entice them out of an abortion with money/extra perks? > [@](#): > > Well, it’s not, _in the United States_. And I’m sure some pro-choicers make hyperbolic arguments. I’m avoiding them, myself, and I haven’t made any in this thread - my concerns are, to the best of my knowledge, quite valid and reasonable. > > Worldwide, the death tolls are considerably higher, of course. I guess I should ask if you meant worldwide or a theoretical post-ban U.S. before commenting further on numbers. Pro-choicers have this knack of looking at countries which lack access to modern technology to make their point. If abortion was made illegal in any westernized country, do you know what would happen regarding the death toll? Pretty much nothing. If a country doesn’t have access to the latest medical technology, it won’t matter if abortions are legal or illegal; they won’t be “safe”. Conversely, if a country has access tot he latest medical technologies, it won’t matter if abortions are legal or illegal; they’ll be “safe” regardless. > [@](#): > > Interestingly, I think you’ve unintentionally raised a valid point - assume abortion is banned nationwide, but in large parts of the U.S., enforcement is nil (I realize this is still an open question, but I’d assume the Northeast and West coast states would remain pretty casual about abortion). Getting an abortion might actually be _easier_ in some places because there will no longer be any need to indulge that waiting period/mandatory counseling/making-the-patient-look-at-an-ultrasound crap. The various hoop-jumps will be gone. You’re assuming waiting periods, mandatory counseling and ultrasounds laws are instituted at the Federal level. They aren’t. They’re state laws. Why would a state rescind the aforementioned laws should Roe v. Wade be reversed and each state able to set its own abortion laws? > [@](#): > > I don’t even know how much they cost _now_. I figure the total cost of a post-ban abortion would have to include travel costs to Canada for some women, but overall probably the doctors who are performing them legally now will continue to do so in the future, and since this ban is likely to be widely viewed as stupid, intrusive, and unnecessary, the cost _could_ remain steady. If the cost would remain steady, then why would the majority of births take place to the poor? Nothing would change. And since, as you stated, nothing would change, then why not institute the ban? > [@](#): > > I don’t know, honestly. I’m not sure what difference it makes. If the ban is useless, why do you need it? You’re the one who said a ban would be useless, not I. > [@](#): > > I’ll take your word for it, because I don’t see why it should matter. Artificially driving up the price of a commodity in order to affect demand? I suppose that might seem like a good idea… like taxing cigarettes or something. I’d suggest improving sex education, myself, and even then, contraceptives fail. You’re back to punishing the unlucky. I said nothing about abortion effecting demand, which it does. Rather, this is about women being more likely to get pregnant and more likely to not use contraception the lower the cost of an abortion. I’d say that should seem a bit wrong to you, but you’ll probably come up with a reason why it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Has it been? [Yes](http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113314261192407815-HLjarwtM95Erz45QPP0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top), [really](http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm). > [@](#): > > I’m okay with it. That doesn’t answer the question. Whose body does the unborn belong to? > [@](#): > > I’ve never offered a definition of personhood. I think the whole definition issue is a waste of time. I don’t care if the fetus is a person or not. It’s inside the body of another person who wants it not to remain there. That’s good enough for me. Well see. Now you’re just trying to avoid debate. You can’t be a person under the law and be arbitrarily deprived of your life, for being a person under the law means that you also are given its basic protections (such as not being arbitrarily deprived of yoru life). If your argument is that being a person doesn’t matter, then who gets to decide what person is deserving of protections under the law and what person isn’t? > [@](#): > > I don’t really need luck - I need vigilance against individuals who will gladly and casually take away hard-won rights. Because it’s a lot harder to get people to accept your point of view than it is to run to the courts and have them impose them upon society. > [@](#): > > I cheerfully admit to the basic biological unfairness, but short of hopping in a time machine and going back about 2.5 billion years to prevent the development of sexual dimorphism, there’s not a lot I can do about it. Biology is neither fair nor unfair. > [@](#): > > You don’t do it well, though. Yeah, you’re right, I don’t. Unfortunately I’m not too good on arguing based on beliefs rather than facts. > [@](#): > > There’s too much of a sneer implicit in your writing, and when you’re short on facts (indeed, expressing casual indifference to facts), it doesn’t help when you’re talking to someone who can think critically. Sneering rhetoric works better when you’re surrounded by a like-minded audience who _wants_ you to say things they already believe. That’s when you can get away with turning “community organizer” into an insult. Now this is nothing more than a flat out lie. Do you know how many facts you’ve brought up? Zero. Your posts are filled with baseless assumptions that you treat as true, or self-evident statements you don’t bother defending. If you want to claim that as untrue, how many examples would you like? On the whole, would you like for me to go through this thread and give you actual posts in where I make a factually correct statement, with the requisite information, to have it either flat out ignored? Would you like for me to go through this thread and point out the number of factually incorrect, or purely emotive, arguments some of the pro-choicers here are make? Because, you know, I can give you quite a few examples. Quite a few, indeed. > [@](#): > > Well, if that’s your concern, I can only suggest you work to keep abortion legal and stop telling people it’s evil. I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said abortion was “evil”. > [@](#): > > And get a vasectomy. But if you impregnate her and she gives birth, you’re on the hook. Sorry. I don’t see that your punishment of being made into a father against your wishes is as bad as her punishment of being made into a mother against her wishes. Sure, you’re stuck financially, but at least your genitals won’t be forcibly expanded. I had to laugh. Do you realize that the majority of women get an abortion because they don’t want to be financially liable for a kid or because they want to hold a career or go to school or some other factor unrelated to it being her body, correct? Again, it’s ironic how you claim that it’s wrong to make women “vessels of the state” just because she had sex, yet have no qualms about arguing that a man be a “slave of the state” just because he had sex. I’m not sure if you’re just being purp I’m confident my handle on reality is as strong or stronger than yours. I recognize that men and women are biologically different, that the stresses of reproduction are different, that the economic outcomes are different… Ignoring reality would be insisting that everything be made absolutely “fair” by law when they can’t possibly be made “fair” by biology. And insisting so not because I believed it, but in an effort to score some tenuous debate “gotcha!” point. > [@](#): > > Hey, you made the claim that in ~15 years, somebody in my country was going to lose their civil rights because of a lack of abortion laws. I have to call “bullshit!” on that, barring some solid reasoning that I’ve yet to see. I honestly don’t believe you have any such reasoning beyond some sense that Canada _deserves_ to be punished, somehow, but I’ll do you the favour of considering it an off-the-cuff remark, not to be taken seriously, and dropping it. If you don’t reference it again, neither will I. I can think of numerous countries which “should be punished” way before Canada. I’m perfectly content to keep this going, though 🙂 (Oh, and for clarity’s sake, I believe I said “Defined out of”.) > [@Lobohan](#): > > Newborns are aware. Personhood is based on consciousness. And babies are conscious for quite a bit of gestation. Not for around the first two or so months after they’re born, they’re not. > [@](#): > > If personhood isn’t based on consciousness then you must support keeping brain-dead people on ventilators until they die of a secondary infection or old age. If personhood, as you state, _is_ based on consciousness, then anyone who is injected with anaesthesia would lose their status as a person under the law, on the basis that they’d no longer be conscious. But this is untrue. > [@](#): > > Consciousness is what separates us from apes. I’m… Pretty sure that’s [not true](http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/6/910.full). At any rate, I ask again, why must others accept your definition of personhood over the definition that I or someone else can construct? It’s such an easy question. > [@Zeriel](#): > > At this point, I can’t decide which flavor I enjoy better: OMG a Black Conservative’s Original Illogic or classyladyhp’s Extra Crazy. > > We should just have a mod rename the thread as “Kentucky Fried Pro-Life Arguments”. > > I can’t say I find it surprising that the rational pro-lifers are avoiding this thread like the plague, though. Didn’t you run off and “refuse” to answer any more of my questions? Considering the number of my arguments which have been flat out ignored or casually tossed aside, especially by you, I don’t think you should talk about “Kentuck Fried” anything unless you’re talking about chicken/pro-choice arguments 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2147 "2011-05-23T17:17:25Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > At any rate, I ask again, why must others accept your definition of personhood over the definition that I or someone else can construct? It’s such an easy question. Because mine is based on reality. We are conscious. We mourn as dead those who have lost it. The most common argument for outlawing abortion is the nonsense notion that we have some sort of spirit or magic that is destroyed when an abortion happens. An aborted fetus has never had consciousness. It loses nothing, it has no inherent value. If you believe in a spirit, that’s your problem. Your notions of fanciful celestial mechanics have nothing to do with reality. If you don’t believe in a spirit then the only argument against abortion is some kind of sentimental valuing of the potential of an as yet unthinking human. That’s akin to refusing to bury the dead because you hate the idea of worms eating them. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2148 "2011-05-23T17:19:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Because mine is based on reality. We are conscious. We mourn as dead those who have lost it. lol wtf does that mean? Someone who comes up with a different definition of personhood didn’t do so based on reality? Yours is the only reality based definition? And for what it’s worth, a loss of consciousness does not mean you’re dead. > [@](#): > > The only argument for outlawing abortion is the nonsense notion that we have some sort of spirit or magic that is destroyed when an abortion happens. An aborted fetus has never had consciousness. It loses nothing, it has no inherent value. > > If you believe in a spirit, that’s your problem. Your notions of fanciful celestial mechanics have nothing to do with reality. If you don’t believe in a spirit then the only argument against abortion is some kind of sentimental valuing of the potential of an as yet unthinking human. That’s akin to refusing to bury the dead because you hate the idea of worms eating them. …Or the fact that abortion kills a human being. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2149 "2011-05-23T17:22:51Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > lol wtf does that mean? Someone who comes up with a different definition of personhood didn’t do so based on reality? Yours is the only reality based definition? And for what it’s worth, a loss of consciousness does not mean you’re dead. It means you have lost your value as a human. We allow people who have permanently lost consciousness to die in hospitals all the time. Again, there is no intelligent argument against early abortions. You certainly haven’t suggested one to prove me wrong. > [@](#): > > …Or the fact that abortion kills a human being. It kills a valueless human being. Because that being has no brain and no consciousness. If someone shot the top of your head off, but you had enough brainstem left to keep your heart beating, do you think you should be kept on a ventilator until you die of old age? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2150 "2011-05-23T17:59:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It kills a valueless human being. Because that being has no brain and no consciousness. If someone shot the top of your head off, but you had enough brainstem left to keep your heart beating, do you think you should be kept on a ventilator until you die of old age? Cue OMG asking Bryan to defend this viewpoint in 3…2…1… ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2151 "2011-05-23T18:12:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It means you have lost your value as a human. We allow people who have permanently lost consciousness to die in hospitals all the time. Again, there is no intelligent argument against early abortions. You certainly haven’t suggested one to prove me wrong. > > It kills a valueless human being. Because that being has no brain and no consciousness. If someone shot the top of your head off, but you had enough brainstem left to keep your heart beating, do you think you should be kept on a ventilator until you die of old age? Him yeah. U not so much.😛 ---
**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:** [May 23, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2152 "2011-05-23T18:39:41Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Go back and read. No one was talking about “absolute moral standards” but “absolute moral wrongs”. This distinction has not only escaped me, it’s fled to a country with whom I have no extradition treaty. > [@](#): > > You don’t get to pick and choose when it’s okay to look at the consequences restricting an actions vs. allowing that action would have on those engaging in the actions and when it’s not. Of course, I do. And it helps when I can point at a clear and distinctive element of the circumstances. A unwanted pregnancy is a distinct element lacking in a robbery. Therefore it’s okay to treat the situations differently and no need to use the circumstances of one to make a general statement about the other. > [@](#): > > This argument is either applied uniformly to all things, or it isn’t. And that would be true if we we’re debating physics or math. > [@](#): > > They’re sufficiently similar to one another in the context of what we’re talking about. No, they’re sufficiently similar in the context _you want_ to talk about, which as far as I can tell is to find a justification to ban abortion by linking it to crime. > [@](#): > > Both have negative effects on an outside party. Why should we ignore the effects one of those actions has on an outside party, but not the other? If we’re going to ignore the consequences of one, shouldn’t we ignore the consequences of both of them? One situation involves a distinct element - an unwanted pregnancy, and the unwanted pregnancy is not some minor side-effect; it pretty much _is_ the situation. This distinction allows, indeed requires, a different view of the consequences. > [@](#): > > If, as you claimed, your argument is that a woman can kill her unborn child because she cannot transfer it to someone else, whereas it’s wrong for her to kill her born child because she can transfer it to someone else, then this argument would necessitate that it’s also okay for a woman to kill her born child if she can’t transfer it to someone else I would have to know some details of the circumstances under which a woman _cannot_ transfer custody. I know you say repeatedly that it shouldn’t matter, but it kinda does. I’m not inclined to evaluate a hypothetical which has literally _no_ details attached to it. > [@](#): > > You’re burdened with “proving” what tangible effect a woman who has an abortion and a woman who kills her newborn right after its born have on the state. Or better yet, you’re going to be burdened with explaining how those two situations have a different effect on the state. I don’t see any such burden. I’m okay with admitting that I’m drawing an arbitrary line at birth. I guess I could micro-analyze it, but at the end I’d still be back at birth, so it’s a waste of time. > [@](#): > > And again I ask, what if she can’t transfer custody to anyone else, or even not for an extended period of time. Can she therefore kill that child? Again I ask for details. But just for laughs, let’s assume my answer was a uniform “no” - that it’s not okay, ever, to kill a child. I still don’t see what the abortion relevance is. As far I figure, the situations are unique: (a) Unwanted pregnancy. The woman wants the fetus removed from her body. She can abort or wait it out and deliver. (b) Unwanted child custody. The custodian wants the child removed from their custody. They can take legal steps to do so, or wait it out until the child is 18. You’re essentially arguing that since some hypothetical wrinkle might exist in (b), i.e. the legal steps are for some reason not available, (a) must logically be affected. I don’t see how. > [@](#): > > See, now you’re just looking for the proverbial way out. It doesn’t really matter what the situation is which prevents her from signing over custody of that child to someone else is. It’s not important to the question. The simple fact that you refuse to provide an answer to the question (which itself is not a trick question) is testament to the fact that you simply can’t answer the question without coming off as a hypocrite in some way, shape or form. Well, I’m just gonna have to take the chance of being viewed as a hypocrite in your eyes, because I’ve answered the question as best I can - by pointing out the flaws in the question itself. > [@](#): > > And here goes another self-evident statement made without any kind of requisite information. Just because you _think_ it’s better than any other factor doesn’t mean it is. Sure, I’ve no problem admitting this is a matter of opinion. I’m not claiming this as a math or physics problem with a single correct answer. I figure, though, that my position is the optimal one under current circumstances and I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to make me change my mind, and the longer Canada goes without an abortion law and no resultant ill-effects, the more confident I get. > [@](#): > > Here. Let me simplify it for you. Does the right to bodily autonomy include the right to violate someone else’s right to bodily autonomy? Is that someone else already invading your bodily autonomy? That’s the key element I’ve referred to earlier in this post and many earlier posts. > [@](#): > > If it doesn’t, then abortion should be illegal because abortion involves forcing death upon another individual, thus violating their right to bodily autonomy (unless you don’t think causing one death isn’t a violation of their bodily autonomy). If it does, then why isn’t rape legal? Since we’d all agree that rape violates one’s bodily autonomy, and if I had the right to violate one’s bodily autonomy by virtue of having bodily autonomy, then rape is permissible. It’s not complicated in the least. Well, it’s only “not complicated” because you’ve ridiculously simplified the two situations in an attempt to make a point, in the sense that arguing that since elephants and atmospheres are both made of atoms, it must be possible to fly a plane through both. Heck, I figure the right to not have to suffer unwanted objects in one’s body applies in both cases, except the unwanted objects are the fetus and the rapist. To make your analogy work (or at least fail slightly less), the rapist should be the stand-in for the fetus, not the woman seeking an abortion. > [@](#): > > Those are your only two options here, unless you want to deem the unborn as non-persons and bother explaining why that is or why one should accept your definition of personhood. I’m not offering a definition of personhood and I reject the false dichotomy. If the fetus _is_ a person, by whatever definition of “person” one chooses to apply, I figure it’s a person whose short-term fate is fully in the hands of another very specific person (i.e. the person whose uterus the fetus is occupying), and I’m okay with that. > [@](#): > > And in the same vein, if you shoot someone standing on the corner, that’s attempted murder. If you shoot someone sitting on your couch, that’s fine. > > …Oh, wait. It isn’t. I liked how you tried to (again) slyly change the argument to your actions relative to your location vs. your actions relative to the location of another. Hey, I gave you several good examples in support of my argument. If you want to cough up a bad example and claim it disproves my argument, good luck with that. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter what the situation is. It’s a question, aimed to test how willing you are to be consistent-- a question, mind you, which still stands. If a woman, for whatever reason, is unable to give that child to someone else or if someone else is unable to take care of that child, then you’d agree that she should be able to kill that child, correct? I don’t know why it should be a virtue to remain consistent when circumstances dramatically change. It would be like testing someone for consistency by asking them if they behave the same way when someone approaches them with flowers or with a sword. Why be so inconsistent? Each of them is approaching with something in his hand! The situations are perfectly alike! Stop dodging the question! > [@](#): > > Just less than a day ago, you said a woman should be able to have an abortion because, prior to birth, she can’t relinquish control of that child to someone else, while after birth she can’t kill that child because she can relinquish control of it. Well, actually, I’ve stated several times that she should be able to have an abortion for any reason she wants and with no obligation to give said reason to the state. The whole “custody transfer” thing is specifically to address the claims that no appreciable difference exists between a pre-born fetus a post-born baby. There may come a time when a woman can end her pregnancy and in the process transplant the fetus into another woman of a machine, at which point I’ll gladly reconsider the issue. The gist is that if someone claims “it’s wrong to have an abortion because it’s wrong to kill a child”, I feel okay in pointing out that for a woman who wants to end a pregnancy, killing the “child” is unavoidable. And if I’m hit with the follow-up claim of “aborting an unwanted fetus is the same as killing an unwanted child”, I feel okay in pointing out that an unwanted child has options an unwanted fetus does not. > [@](#): > > After I asked you whether or not a woman should be able to kill her child that she can’t give to another, you’ve begun telling me that such a criteria doesn’t mater (whether or not she can give that child up to someone else), quite possibly because you realize that employing such a criteria would necessitate a woman being able to kill her born child that she can’t give to someone else. Actually, I’m still holding out hope that this “can’t give to another” hypothetical will be elaborated on before I comment on it. > [@](#): > > Incorrect. I am, and have been, perfectly willing to argue the whole “bodily autonomy” angle. In fact, I posed a series of questions to you which still have gone unanswered. Well, I’m doing my best. I don’t think I’ve missed any major questions, and whenever possible I’ve given direct answers. Some of the questions you’re asking have flawed premises, though, and can’t be directly answered, or at least not by me. > [@](#): > > So have you not been reading what I’ve been typing out? I’ve been more than willing to address the whole “inside the uterus” thing. On one than more occasion I’ve asked you why we should accept your “my body, my choice!” argument as it relates to abortion, especially since bodily autonomy isn’t treated as absolute (a point numerous pro-choicers have attested to). In response to that, I just keep getting the “Because it’s her body, and that’s important” response, which is nothing more than you begging the question. > > Now tell me that isn’t true. Well, if I have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, “my body, my choice” seems to me to be the optimal place for it. Sure, others may draw that line at viability, or quickening, or implantation, or fertilization, or whatever… good for them. I think they’re wrong, though. > [@](#): > > I’d like to know what these hypothetical costs are. Well, I guess South Dakota will prove somewhat useful in this regard over the next few years. I look forward to reading stats on whether or not poverty has gotten worse, whether or not OB/GYN services are harder to find, whether or not the abortion rate has actually gone down in that state… > [@](#): > > I’ve gone over this once before, but it’s a fairly well-known that fact that the large majority of individuals would limit abortions to a certain instances and ban the rest. Well, I was asking you specifically what kind of ban you had in mind, what kind of enforcement and what kind of penalties. My hypotheticals on the results of a ban rely on your hypotheticals about the nature of a ban, after all. > [@](#): > > Funny. I’ve yet to ignore it. I’ve asked you questions regarding it but those have been ignored. Go figure. How do you ignore something you quote? That’s really odd. Anyway, let’s try this again. The only way your bodily autonomy argument works is if the unborn aren’t persons and have no protections under the law, for no person could be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. Therefore, you’re burdened with explaining why the unborn aren’t persons and why one must accept your definition of personhood over mine or someone else’s. I think this is the third or forth time I’ve asked, so try not to ignore it this time. You can ask the same question as many times as you like - I’ve pointed out the problems several times, and given the question as written the best answer I can. If that’s not enough, I’ll just randomly flip a coin, heads means ‘yes’… It came up heads, so my answer to your question is “yes”. If you ask the same question again, I’ll flip the coin again. > [@](#): > > Among others. Anyway, now that you realize this, maybe you’ll quit with the whole “Communism” schtick. Fair enough. The concept you described would equally apply to a totalitarian theocracy. > [@](#): > > So now you’re saying I defined choice when just above you claimed that I didn’t? Make up your mind. Grasping at straws, huh? My mind is quite made up - you misused the word “choice” to try to bolster a weak argument. > [@](#): > > Quite possibly for people to not be so extreme. Even on most conservative boards, you won’t find a majority of posters adopting the “no abortion, never” position. So? > [@](#): > > It’s not? I don’t know what media you’re referring to that prefers the term “anti-abortion” over “pro-life.” I’d be a little surprised if it was the mainstream media (i.e. network television, major newspapers and magazines), but not hugely so. ---
**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:** [May 23, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2153 "2011-05-23T19:51:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Would you like to go kicking down the door of anyone suspected of performing illegal abortions or stick an FBI agent on every corner? > > You know, this isn’t me “not giving you a straight answer”, but rather me not taking your question seriously because I’m pretty sure you’re basing it on the assumption that unless one is going to go “all out” that they don’t really care about abortion. I’m quite content to ban abortion in general, and then deal with cases of people performing illegal abortions as they rise, just like we tend to do for other crimes, instead of adopting a pre-emptive “We’re gonna’ getcha’!” type approach that you seem to be assuming we take (correct me if I’m wrong). I honestly don’t know what position you’d take, and what level of enforcement you’d be content with, which is why I’ve asked several times. So you’ll “deal with” cases as they rise? What did you have in mind? What, in general terms, is your idea of a just penalty for a doctor who has performed one abortion, or 100 abortions? For a woman who is getting her first abortion or her fifth? For someone who lists over-the-counter medications that are also abortifaciants on a website? I don’t know, which is why I’m asking. I haven’t made any assumptions - I admit that it’s perfectly possible that a slap-wrist $5 fine might be enough for you, which is why I asked if it was enough for you, and if it wasn’t, what would be? > [@](#): > > [It’s true](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/731485_7). Furthermore, it’s important because you tried to insinuate that instituting an abortion ban and rigorously enforcing it would cause OB/GYN’s to leave the state. Why? Do you think that a significant majority of OB/GYN’s who would perform an abortion when they were illegal would leave the state to go to another state, where abortions are also illegal? Did the ban you have in mind cover _all_ the states? In any case, I figure a rigorously-enforced ban will arrest doctors who I presume (but again, I’m asking you for details) will be jailed and lose their licenses and whatnot, thus depriving that state of all the other OB/GYN services those doctors were providing, with the resulting negative effects. Doctors who don’t want to lose their livelihoods will, again I figure, move to states where enforcement is more lax, which will have the same effect of reducing the tough-enforcement state’s access to OB/GYN care. > [@](#): > > How is it desperate? You just proved my point; they’re greedy and are motivated by money. People who truly care about helping others are motivated far less by money and material wealth than are those who aren’t. If you were truly interested in helping others, you’d go where those need help. Well, congratulations, then. You’re proposing a ban that will punish people who care about helping others. Bravo. But in any case, one doesn’t have to be greedy to have limited patience with governmental interference, and in this case, pro-life activist protests and occasionally lethal violence. > [@](#): > > No, the “Why?” is in relation to why is bodily autonomy important. How many times have I asked this again. [coin flip]… “no”. > [@](#): > > Well, since you can only repeat the line about a uterus again and again, yet can’t bother explaining why bodily autonomy is absolute in this case when it’s generally not treated as absolute, I take it that you don’t have much of any real argument. [coin flip]… “yes”. > [@](#): > > You think most OB/GYN’s become OB/GYN’s to perform abortions? I’m really confused here. Clearly, because you’re making stuff up. > [@](#): > > You keep assuming that increased enforcetion (sp?) of anti-abortion laws will lead to fewer OB/GYN’s. I’m still waiting to see how you figure. Well, the doctors who are known to perform abortions will get arrested first, I guess, leaving other OB/GYNs to make the tough moral decision to obey a unjust law or not, and some will decide their patients are more important and _they’ll_ get arrested, forcing the remaining OB/GYNs to face the same decision… > [@](#): > > Number one, immigration doesn’t solve the problem; it only compounds it. It does? I’d ask for details of this very dubious claim but I guess immigration deserves a thread of its own. > [@](#): > > Number two, I find something deliciously ironic about paying women to have a baby. Would that include trying to entice them out of an abortion with money/extra perks? Sure, why not? If it’s her choice, let her make her choice based on whatever factors she deems important including, possibly, financial aid with raising the resulting child. Let the pro-life protesters lined up outside clinics offer financial aid with pregnancy and child-rearing costs, if they think it’ll help, and let governments offer tax breaks and subsidies, if the voters are okay with that. > [@](#): > > Pro-choicers have this knack of looking at countries which lack access to modern technology to make their point. If abortion was made illegal in any westernized country, do you know what would happen regarding the death toll? Pretty much nothing. If a country doesn’t have access to the latest medical technology, it won’t matter if abortions are legal or illegal; they won’t be “safe”. Conversely, if a country has access tot he latest medical technologies, it won’t matter if abortions are legal or illegal; they’ll be “safe” regardless. Well, that goes back to how aggressive the enforcement will be. What if in an effort to prevent abortions, the “latest medical technology” that has made abortion safe becomes restricted or banned? The doctors whose training make it safe get jailed? If it’s a toothless wink-wink paper ban, I’m sure you’re right and the death toll from abortion won’t change. The death-toll overall will slightly increase since childbirth is a somewhat riskier process than abortion. > [@](#): > > You’re assuming waiting periods, mandatory counseling and ultrasounds laws are instituted at the Federal level. They aren’t. They’re state laws. Why would a state rescind the aforementioned laws should Roe v. Wade be reversed and each state able to set its own abortion laws? Well, now we’re getting into what kind of ban you had in mind, finally. Not a nationwide Federal ban but a _Roe_-tossed state-by-state mosaic, huh? Well, I picture a lot of extra gas burned as women in conservatives states start taking day-trips to more liberal ones because I think they really would prefer getting a legal abortion and full access to the “latest medical technology”. South Dakota will probably be the most useful real-world example for the next few years, unless another state (Utah, maybe) tries to outdo them. And I didn’t assume the current hoop-jumps were handed down from the Feds. You just assumed I assumed. > [@](#): > > If the cost would remain steady, then why would the majority of births take place to the poor? Nothing would change. And since, as you stated, nothing would change, then why not institute the ban? Nothing would change so why _not_ institute the ban? That’s a little backward - I figure the state’s obligation is not to pass useless laws, even if it makes some segment of the population feel better. > [@](#): > > You’re the one who said a ban would be useless, not I. No, I’m saying it would be a bad idea. At _best_ it’s useless (i.e. has no effect one way or the other) but more likely would be harmful. I don’t know of a circumstance where it would be beneficial. > [@](#): > > I said nothing about abortion effecting demand, which it does. Rather, this is about women being more likely to get pregnant and more likely to not use contraception the lower the cost of an abortion. I’d say that should seem a bit wrong to you, but you’ll probably come up with a reason why it isn’t. Do you mean that if abortion is cheap and easy enough, it will be viewed as a birth-control method? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your question. > [@](#): > > [Yes](http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113314261192407815-HLjarwtM95Erz45QPP0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top), [really](http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm). Well, so it’s controversial. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t answer the question. Whose body does the unborn belong to? Well, let’s assume the unborn’s body belongs to itself (to the extent a fetus can have belongings). I don’t see how this entitles it to parasitically live off another’s body. I’m not sure who else could claim ownership. The mother? If so, she can have it removed. The father? The state? I’m not sure how one could justify such claims. > [@](#): > > Well see. Now you’re just trying to avoid debate. You can’t be a person under the law and be arbitrarily deprived of your life, for being a person under the law means that you also are given its basic protections (such as not being arbitrarily deprived of yoru life). If your argument is that being a person doesn’t matter, then who gets to decide what person is deserving of protections under the law and what person isn’t? In this very specific case, the person owning the occupied uterus. > [@](#): > > Because it’s a lot harder to get people to accept your point of view than it is to run to the courts and have them impose them upon society. Well, in Canada’s case, it was the courts and the Senate and a troubled majority party in the House of Commons that had more immediate problems, and by the time the dust settled, Canada had no abortion law nor any particular motive to re-introduce one, because not having a law wasn’t causing any problems, and we don’t need our legislators to look for nonexistent problems to solve. We get enough of that already. > [@](#): > > Now this is nothing more than a flat out lie. Do you know how many facts you’ve brought up? Zero. Your posts are filled with baseless assumptions that you treat as true, or self-evident statements you don’t bother defending. If you want to claim that as untrue, how many examples would you like? On the whole, would you like for me to go through this thread and give you actual posts in where I make a factually correct statement, with the requisite information, to have it either flat out ignored? Knock yourself out, sport. > [@](#): > > Would you like for me to go through this thread and point out the number of factually incorrect, or purely emotive, arguments some of the pro-choicers here are make? Because, you know, I can give you quite a few examples. Quite a few, indeed. Be my guest, sport. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said abortion was “evil”. But it’s still analogous to rape and murder, right? > [@](#): > > I had to laugh. Do you realize that the majority of women get an abortion because they don’t want to be financially liable for a kid or because they want to hold a career or go to school or some other factor unrelated to it being her body, correct? Sure. They don’t want a pregnancy _and_ they don’t want a child. I don’t see the contradiction - the pregnancy is just the more immediate of the two. Besides, if I read you correctly, you’re admitting that them having an unwanted child could have a negative effect on their careers or education, right? > [@](#): > > I can think of numerous countries which “should be punished” way before Canada. I’m perfectly content to keep this going, though 🙂 > > (Oh, and for clarity’s sake, I believe I said “Defined out of”.) Defined out of, lost… whatever. You ignore distinctions you don’t like and make up distinctions you _do_ like. I’m very confident in your contentedness to keep doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2154 "2011-05-23T21:35:47Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > But that’s what lawmaking is about! Unless everyone’s united on the issue, some people get to tell others that they can’t do as they like. You don’t say: > > - If you don’t want to beat your wife, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t beat their wives. > > - If you don’t want to euthanise your granny, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t euthanise their grannies. > > - If you don’t want to steal, don’t. But you don’t get to tell people who believe otherwise that they can’t steal. > > …etc. Seriously, a child could understand it. I’ve said something similar before, but if your grandmother takes up residence in your womb, you won’t hear much argument from me against euthanization. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2155 "2011-05-23T22:32:34Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > I’ve said something similar before, but if your grandmother takes up residence in your womb, you won’t hear much argument from me against euthanization. You know, if she managed to get in there somehow, I’d hope that would attract some attention long before it came to euthanization. I mean, unless you’re an _exceptionally_ deep sleeper or something. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2156 "2011-05-23T22:56:41Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Ok then. So we should just get rid of prisons since by telling people that it is wrong to murder others we would be imposing our morality on them. How about drug dealers. it should be legal to sell drugs. How about prostitution that should be legal as well:rolleyes: Again, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because some issues have vague areas, all do not. Frankly, there is actually a lot of good evidence that most anti-drug laws do more harm than good. There are also places in this country where prostitution is legal. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2157 "2011-05-24T00:37:44Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Please, spare me this garbage. When it comes to abortion, you don’t accept that people’s personal opinions matter. Your bag of semantic BS is like Santa’s bag of toys. Magically endless. We were talking about the law remember? People’s opinions matter because people influence the writing of, the interpretation of, and the enforcement of the law. Not only is it obvious , it’s something you’re about to acknowledge in this very post. Doesn’t contradicting yourself within a few sentences bother you? > [@](#): > > I direct you to post #1,497, which was really directed towards you, which you effectively ignored. You’re criticizing me for ignoring a post that was directed at me, that wasn’t a response to any post of mine. :rolleyes: I know you think you’re a minf reader, but I’m sure I’m not one. > [@](#): > > If people’s opinions matter, as you claim, then abortion is murder and should be limited to instances of rape, incest, fetal defects and the health of the mother. Glad to see you agree. You should look a little closer at the links you provided and ponder this. If most people see abortion as murder why does the majority still support Roe vs Wade being upheld, and legal abortions in the 1st trimester? > [@](#): > > The law, which is in turn decided by the populace. It is really? I guess that means people’s opinions matter. Gee …who said that? > [@](#): > > Because preventing someone from drinking and preventing someone from killing another are sooooooooo comparable. Here’s an example of what you do very often. You base a response on your personal view that abortion is akin to killing another person, even though it’s not a fact based on current law, or in the opinions of most people as far as I can tell. You just acknowledged that the populace decides the laws. We also know beyond doubt that if abortions are illegal tomorrow, they will still happen, because other than lip service and dubious polls, that appears to be what the populace wants. > [@](#): > > I just want to make sure you understand that the majority of people, at least in the U.S. (I’m too lazy to look at other countries, right now) simply don’t perceive the abortion debate in that way, correct? You do realize that you’re not making any kind of argument which convinces people, yes? I ask, because I don’t think you do. And yet the law is what now? > [@](#): > > Aside from that, though, I’ll humor this with a simple question. What does citizenship have to do with anything? Are you invoking some kind of pseudo-Dredd Scott type logic? Does your argument mean that a woman, who is an American citizen, can kill a German tourist, who isn’t an American citizen and get away with it? I really want to know. It’s a mystery to me why you waste so much time on inappropriate analogies. It should be obvious to the reasonable mind that I’m speaking of the fact that a newborn is a citizen due the legal protections of the law. and fetal rights are much less clear. > [@](#): > > Just above, you claimed that the situation between a woman and her unborn child was unique. If it’s unique, then how can it be compared to other situations? Isn’t it odd how someone who constantly complains about questions and posts being ignored can use such a lame dodge as this? > [@](#): > > You and Bryan need to get together. Here you say I defined them and just above Bryan admits that I didn’t. That’s not actually what I said is it? You made a lame and ineffective argument about the nature of choice and why pro choice is a misnomer. {You will admit to saying that won’t you?} Your argument was demonstrated to be clearly incorrect even though you don’t want to admit that. > [@](#): > > Show me what pro-lifer has taken the “no abortion, never” stand and you may have a point. I, on the other hand, can name at least three different pro-choicers who take the “abortion, whenever” stand. Quite an imagination, indeed. The thing is that even the folks who support “choose abortion whenever” will support the choice to NOT have one. Your use of the term extreme is pretty suspect. In fact comparing the two, they are less extreme than those who say no abortions except rape, incest etc. since they support the a yes or a no on abortion the entire term. Certainly far less extreme than those who kill Drs and bomb clinic. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you should start reading posts, for then you’d know that you don’t have to be a mind reader to know that pro-choicers discount the unborn. I mean, if we want to go down this route then, as a starting point, I’d kindly point out to you the people who emphatically claim that the unborn are just like cancer and/or a tumors or the people who claim that the abortion debate is all about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. That applies to the individuals. My objection was to your broad brush comments about Pro Choicers, which implies “all” Anybody with a modicum of common sense and life experience understands that on any major issue, opinions will vary on either side. Your own linked polls demonstrate this. > [@](#): > > No, not a little. A lot. And, no, they’re not inaccurate and, no, not to most people. I seriously think you overstate just how many self-identify as pro-choice, and how many of them have a problem with the term pro-abortion. Bryan gave you some good advice about this that you ignored. I guess accuracy in word definitions matters far less to you than believing you’re correct. Pro Choice is obviously the more accurate term, pro abortion a semantic game you lost. > [@](#): > > No, we don’t. Again, I’d be willing to bet that most people don’t value human life like that. Hell, I’d even say the majority. I don’t agree, and am not interested in continued speculation on this distraction. > [@](#): > > You know, my first inclination was to mock and ridicule you, but I’ll refrain from doing that. No, we don’t live in a perfect world, which is precisely why people should stop and think prior to engaging in sex. As we don’t live in a perfect world, then we know that protection isn’t perfect. If a woman still chooses to still have sex knowing this, then she does so knowing full well of the consequences that can ensue. If she still have sex in the face of those consequences well then that was their choice, and she should be held responsible for the consequences stemming from that choice. > > (Of course, you negate the existence of that choice, so apparently all this is moot.) What choice do you imagine I’m negating the existence of? Of course responsible behavior is desirable. Never argued against it. I’m all for education, and making contraception available, but we still have to decide how to deal with real world problems. I just disagree that enforced biological enslavement is a good way of holding women responsible. > [@](#): > > Of course you wouldn’t argue that. Why would you, as then you’d just be admitting that your position makes little sense. That’s why I like to take things to their logical conclusion, so I can prove that they’re absurd without the individual using said argument admitting it’s absurd themselves. And it works, too! It sure isn’t working in this thread, and I don’t agree your conclusions are all that logical. > [@](#): > > Quite effective at poking holes (well, more bringing those holes to light than poking) in pro-choice logic. And I use the word logic, lightly. Based on your posts in this thread, you sure as hell do! > [@](#): > > Please. This is just a fancy way of saying that you all can’t even agree with the position you all claim to hold. It’s even funnier when two or more pro-choicers proceed to make contradictory statements, and then call someone else’s argument a straw man even though they were directly responding to something someone typed out. It’s just a very basic observation about the reality of how groups of humans are concerning any major issue. People simply vary in opinions and knowledge. If you’re suggesting that varied opinions and knowledge indicates a failing in the overall position, you haven’t got a logical leg to stand on. > [@](#): > > \*\*IF, AS YOU CLAIM, “WE” DON’T HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF PERSONHOOD AND EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION REGARDING PERSONHOOD, THEN YOU AGREE THAT SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT AWARENESS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PERSONHOOD SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL THEIR NEWBORN, WHO ISN’T AWARE, AS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS AND ANY ACTIONS WHICH STEM FROM IT, YES? \*\* > > (I made sure you can’t miss it this time.) It didn’t get any better though. Earlier you correctly pointed out that choice does not exist in a vacuum. I’d like to point out that the various factors in the abortion issue have to be considered as a whole within that issue. They are interconnected and cannot taken out and argued separately as if the other factors aren’t connected. Well I guess they can be because that seems to be what you’re trying to do, but it leads to a disingenuous argument and really lousy analogies and comparisons like this one. Choice, the autonomy of ones own body, the rights of the woman, vs the limited and less specific rights of an embryo or fetus, the law, the welfare of society as a whole, the value of human life,etc. All the elements are weighed TOGETHER. The law and the general consensus of society has already decided that a newborn is due all the legal protection as anyone else, regardless of personal opinions about person-hood, or awareness. That’s why many of your arguments amount to semantic BS, rather than “taking things to their logical conclusions” They aren’t logical conclusions at all when you ignore other interconnected elements to try and make a point. > [@](#): > > Unless you answer yes, then your assertion is nothing short of hypocritical, bullshit > [@](#): > > for then you’d be arguing that it’s perfectly okay to force someone to adhere to your definition of personhood when that might not be their own-- something you seemingly reject when applied to your definition of personhood. also bullshit. In most cases the person-hood has already been defined by the law and society in general so we don’t get to arbitrarily decide a certain race , gender or whatever are not persons. A hard core racist might think black people or Jews are persons worthy of equal consideration but there are still enforceable laws. So far the issue of what makes human DNA a person is not settled philosophically , or scientifically, so allowing a woman to choose seems to be the best option for this issue. Once again, your logical conclusion , isn’t logical. > [@](#): > > Or you can just look at what you wrote out. It’s a hell of a lot simpler that way. hmmm another lame dodge. and then ironically you follow it up with > [@](#): > > Such as? Unlike you, I don’t ignore posts and need to take what you say out of context. that’s funny right there. > [@](#): > > Which is precisely why we were talking about “absolute moral wrongs”. How many times do I need to point this out to you? I mean, I’ve had to point this out at least five times now, yet you’ve ignored them every single time. Because I’ve considered it just more semantic nonsense every time. If you’d like to spell out exactly how it’s not and why it’s relevant to this specific issue feel free. You’ll have to explain it rather than just ask a question and then whine about it being ignored. > [@](#): > > How can my argument be wrong when I didn’t say that all actions which negatively affect someone are disallowed? Good luck explaining that one. No luck needed. It just isn’t necessary for all actions to be included for your argument to be wrong. That was easy. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. It’s me pointing out that just because you don’t like someone taking your argument to their logical conclusions, don’t mean those logical conclusions are invalid or are a misrepresentation of your argument. Haven’t I already agreed that you’re correct? That isn’t why they’re illogical and a misrepresentation. Now I’ve explained it more fully I hope you catch on. Here’s a thought, Just because you keep repeating them and insisting they are correct, doesn’t make them logical or accurate. > [@](#): > > You know, just because you don’t have as great of a grasp on logic, in general, as you think you do doesn’t mean the arguments I make are wrong. I said this many pages ago, and I’ll say it again. I understand your argument better than you understand your own, which while surprising, really isn’t. This is generally why pro-choicers tend to shy away from and shut down debate-- because it’s an argument they just can’t win. What’s the current law on this issue? What is it we just can’t win? > [@](#): > > He does if she was hit by a drunk driver 😉 > > I’m sure you’ll be trying that again. And why then but not unless the fetus is injured. Small word, begins with C. > [@](#): > > I’m actually serious. That’s too bad. It means you seriously can’t see why your arguments are illogical. It indicates a lack of maturity. > [@](#): > > Oh, and for what it’s worth, I’ve seen you ignore post after post. When you answer every question put to you I’ll take this seriously > [@](#): > > I gave you an example above. Another one would be my post concerning how “people in the 19th century didn’t view abortion to be violating the rights of the unborn” or whatever that line was. I’m still waiting for a response to that one. I’m still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the 1867 thing but I don’t expect it. You can convince yourself that stubbornly never acknowledging a point, and waiting for people to just get sick of of going in circles with you is some version of “winning” but it really isn’t. I’m satisfied your arguments have been clearly and logically dismantled. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2158 "2011-05-24T01:45:43Z")
Okay, y’know what, I’m going to throw the kids a bone here and channel my dad. **The following beliefs are not mine,** but I will happily respond to challenges to refine them. The goal here: make a logically coherent pro-life argument from reasonable axioms, that doesn’t fall apart when you apply those axioms outside a pregnancy/abortion context, without sounding like a complete bag of dicks. You two chuckleheads (\*\*classy \*\*and **OMG** ) better thank me for making your argument for you. [devils\_advocate] Start from the following axioms: 1. Not killing “a person” is the highest good (but not an absolute good) 1a) It is permissible to end the life of a person to save the life of a person. 1b) It is permissible to consider, in situations relating to 1a, the chances of achieving fully sentient personhood of any given person 1c) It is permissible to allow a person’s life to end due to inaction on your part, but not action. 2. To be “a person”, the following characteristics are all necessary and are cumulatively sufficient: 2a) Must possess a complete set of DNA, created from a pair of gametes merging 2b) Must have a better-than-even statistical chance of developing into a fully sentient person if natural processes are not interrupted by accident, injury, poor care, etc. ([the chance of a miscarriage, in aggregate, is somewhere between 10 and 25%](http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html)). That’s really all you need. At that point, the following situations discussed in this thread or commonly discussed in this context resolve as follows: - Troublesome pregnancies, risk to mom’s health, etc? Abortion is legal–preserving the life of the mother can be said to logically override preserving the life of the not-yet-fully-sentient fetus. - Ancephalic pregnancy or other disorder that means the baby will die within a month after birth? Abortion is legal–it is never going to be a person by the terms of 2b. - Birth control? A-OK. Because of the way I’ve worded 2b, even birth control that allows the formation of a zygote but prevents implantation is permissible, although it’s easy enough to acknowledge this as a gray area. I’m currently (for my dad) accepting it because it seems a fair trade to get many fewer abortions. Alternately, one could construe 2b to disallow emergency contraception. This is the biggest logical hole in this argument. - 500 embryos vs. a live child? Realistically, those embryos have a 0% chance of becoming full people without massive intervention, so by 1a/1b/2b we save the child. - Mourning for miscarriage? As you like it. 50-75% of miscarriages are not even noticed by the mother, but certainly when they are known they can be traumatic. - Investigating miscarriage? This one’s tricky. But we have a 5th Amendment that protects people from self-incrimination, and we don’t require doctors to report any other wounds to the police unless the doctor judges them as potentially criminal in nature (exception: many states require reporting of potential child abuse and gunshot wounds). Leave this to the doctor’s discretion in the cases where the miscarriage happens in the hospital, as only a medical investigator is going to have any ability to tell if it was an intentional abortion or a miscarriage. - Punishment for abortion? I would expect something in the involuntary manslaughter range. People who believe abortion should be legal do not have the _mens rea_ that they are premeditatedly killing a person, and criminal intent is a big part of which “killing” offense you get. - Donating kidneys? By 1c, I’m allowed to be the callous bastard since the primary axiom is “don’t kill”, not “preserve life”. - “Pro-Life” hypocrisy? This position requires one to be anti-war, anti-death-penalty, and strongly implies one should be pro-universal-health-care and pro-welfare. No problem, we’ve just described my dad. - Picketing Planned Parenthood? Screw THAT. They prevent far more abortions than they perform simply due to their birth control services. They also preserve the life of children and mothers with proper prenatal care, women’s health screenings, and the like. Not only is it counterproductive, it’s being an asshole. If you want to march and yell, go bother the politicians. [/devils\_advocate] Postscript: I don’t believe any of the above applies. In particular, I don’t agree at with that definition of personhood. There is no way to logically prove that definition of personhood correct. Naturally all and sundry can point out holes in the above, and we’ll see if we can plug 'em. This was done mostly for my own damn amusement, and to prove that I respect some pro-life views while thinking that most of them are held by and for idiots who should just say “MYGODSAIDSOYOUSHUTUP”. Void where prohibited. For external use only. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2159 "2011-05-24T02:45:15Z")
**clhp** hasn’t posted in this thread in almost eleven hours. I think his mommy has been reviewing his computer usage, like a good parent does, and has taken it away from him. How many want to bet she washed his mouth out with soap?😃 Maybe I’m wrong though. He may be old enough that he has an apartment in his parent’s basement, and the power has gone out. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2160 "2011-05-24T05:02:57Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You can’t support abortion and still believe in God. > . Ah, but you have also stated that abortions are acceptable to you in a few situations. Therefore, you do not believe in God. Do I have that right? Just trying to follow your twisted logic… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=107) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=109)