# 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:** 109
**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 24, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2161 "2011-05-24T05:47:12Z")
I’ll respond to this one first, because it’s that idiotic. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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? And yet again, I point out to you how untrue and a load of BS this is. If this were true, and if people’s opinions mattered, as you say, then you would have to agree that abortion is murder (since the majority of respondents in the U.S. view abortion to be murder, with the majority of people who believe abortion is murder to equate it to killing a born child) and that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects (as those are the only cases in which abortion support is greater than 50%). If, as you want us to believe (_scoffs_), the opinions of the people matter, then why exactly aren’t you fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the people, whose opinions you say matter, determine what abortion laws are? …Oh wait. I know! **BECAUSE YOU DON’T ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE’S OPINIONS MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO SHAPING THE LAW**! Duh! The fact that abortion laws in the U.S. are nowhere near what society as a whole wants them to be doesn’t matter to you one lick. It’s funny how you can type out the above garbage with any kind of sincerity. > [@](#): > > 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. Would you like a refresher course? In post #1,497 you said, and I quote you verbatim: [QUOTE=cosmosdan] You can personally consider that potential life to be equal to a newborn, but that’s not the law, not the view of many of your fellow citizens, and not the view held by most societies {including ours} in history. [/quote] To which, in post #1,484, I responded: [QUOTE=Me] No, it’s not the law (currently). With that being said, would you like to place a wager on those assertions? It’s a well-known fact that, at least in the U.S., the majority of people view abortion to be murder and would restrict abortion not based on what the mother wants, but because of the situation (generally limiting it to cases of rape, incest and severe fetal defects). [/quote] To which you “conveniently” disappeared (I wonder why?). Someone asked for proof of those assertions, I gave them proof and you still decided to play MIA. Go figure! But since you’re here now… > [@](#): > > 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… Because the majority of people don’t want to make abortions flatly illegal, but rather leave it de facto legal but place restrictions on it. You seem to be operating under the assumption that not wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade means supporting abortion on demand. This is untrue, and quite so, though that’s probably hard for you to understand. > [@](#): > > …and legal abortions in the 1st trimester? This is true as a general rule, but not as an absolute standard. Americans would **not** leave abortions legal and unrestricted in the first trimester, contrary to what you want to imply. I had to do a bit of digging to find a poll which asked respondents whether abortions should be legal in the first three months for any reason, for only specific reasons or not at all and came up with this: > [@](#): > > Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 31-Aug. 4, 2008. N=808 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. > > “Which of these positions best represents your views about abortion? A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants one in the first three months of pregnancy, no matter what the reason. Abortion should be legal ONLY in certain circumstances, such as when a woman’s health is endangered or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, even if the mother’s life is in danger.” > > Always Legal in First 3 Months/Legal in Certain Circumstances/Illegal in All Circumstances/No Answer or Unsure > > 7/31 - 8/4/08: 46/40/10/4 [Link](http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm) That doesn’t lead to unrestricted abortions in the first trimester, for the simple fact that where always legal has fewer respondents than certain circumstances and illegal in all. What it means is that where always legal and certain circumstances agree (in this case issues of maternal health and rape/incest), that abortion will be allowed because the two groups outnumber the illegal in all group, and that were certain instances and illegal in all outnumber always legal, abortion will not be permitted because they outnumber the latter group. The **only** thing I could find which showed that Americans favored unrestricted abortions in the first trimester was from a study of GSS data on abortion done 11 years prior (1997), which found that: > [@](#): > > A factorial experiment examined the effects of the wording and sequence of survey questions on the measurement of attitudes toward abortion. When a first-trimester pregnancy is specified, 55% of respondents agree that a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason, compared with 44% when no pregnancy duration is stated. If you can find something more recent than that and more recent than 2008, I’d love to see it. Otherwise, you have no argument here. > [@](#): > > It is really? I guess that means people’s opinions matter. Gee …who said that? Now that’s funny. See the above given responses. To repeat, no, you don’t care about people’s opinions, because you won’t limit abortions no matter how many people agree they should be limited. We all know this, so cut the bullshit. > [@](#): > > 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… I did? Really? > [@](#): > > …or in the opinions of most people as far as I can tell. Good luck with that citation. > [@](#): > > 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 want to insult you, but I’m having trouble thinking of something I can compare to you with being insulting to that thing. Before you press the “Post” button, do you put **any** thought into what you type out? Murder is illegal yet it still happens. Does that mean the populace wants it to happen? Rape is illegal yet it still happens. Does that mean the populace wants it to happen? Theft is illegal yet it still happens. Does that mean the populace want it to happen? I would continue, but I don’t need to. You get the point. Try to think next time. Also, lol @ dubious polls. What’s a dubious poll? Any poll with which you don’t agree? So Gallup, Pew, CNN, FOX and ABC, all of which found the same thing, are in some kind of cahoots? I guess you’d consider [this](http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/archived-pdf/Ayres.pdf) poll to be dubious as well? How about the [GSS](http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/Mnemonic+Index/) (ABANY, ABCHOOSE\*, ABDEFECT, ABHLTH, ABNOMORE, ABPOOR and ABRAPE)? Dubious too because they don’t show that your view is the majority one? (\*I’ve no idea where the ABCHOOSE variable came from. It seems to be brand new, is the same as ABANY and is missing a **ton** of cases, but whatever.) > [@](#): > > And yet the law is what now? The law is what it is because of SCOTUS; not because of the populace. The law was what the populace wanted it prior to 1973. Again, anyone familiar with abortion in the U.S. knows this. > [@](#): > > 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. Guess what? It’s not an inappropriate analogy. The right to not be killed isn’t contingent on one being a U.S. citizen. That’s nothing short of extreme idiocy, which I’m sure you very well realize, which is why you did your best to avoid the question posed to you. Which, by the way, you failed miserably to do. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it odd how someone who constantly complains about questions and posts being ignored can use such a lame dodge as this? Except-- and get this!-- it’s not a lame dodge. You said that pregnancy is a unique situation. If it’s a unique situation, then how can it be compared to something else? It either can’t be, or it’s not a unique situation as you claim. So which is it? Do you know know what unique means? > [@](#): > > 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. Ummm, yes, you did. On numerous occasions, only to have me ask you “Who’s defining anything?”. > [@](#): > > 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. And people who are pro-gun will support the choice to not own one. That doesn’t make them any less pro-gun, though. Just because you take offense to the pro-abortion label, doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. All you’re doing so far is just showing that you don’t want to be associated with the word abortion. But your personal displeasure at being associated with the term doesn’t much matter. > [@](#): > > Certainly far less extreme than those who kill Drs and bomb clinic. Which is far less extreme than delivering live babies and killing them afterwards. At least one is killing to prevent another from being killed, while the other is killing to get his/her jollies. > [@](#): > > 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. Please. When I say pro-choicers, I don’t mean “every pro-choicer-on-the-face-of-the-Earth”, just like when someone says pro-lifers they don’t mean “every pro-lifer-on-the-face-of-the-Earth”. We both know this so let’s not play that game. The point, which is irrefutable, is that pro-choicers do discount the unborn, much to your consternation. A five minute glance at the first ten pages of this thread would tell you that. You’ve never read one of Dehr Tris’ (or however it’s spelled) posts? > [@](#): > > 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. I haven’t lost anything. Your entire argument can be boiled down to this; “I don’t like the term pro-abortion, there I’m going to claim its inaccurate and assume that the pro- in pro-abortion means something totally different to the way pro- is used in reference to any other activity”. > [@](#): > > 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. The choice that comes before sex. What about that one? > [@](#): > > It sure isn’t working in this thread, and I don’t agree your conclusions are all that logical. Looking at the statements you’ve proceeded to make in this thread, I don’t think you not finding my arguments all that logical is anything I need to worry about. > [@](#): > > It didn’t get any better though. It didn’t need to get better, as it was already good. 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. [/quote] All of which has absolutely, positively nothing to do with forcing someone to adhere to a definition of personhood which is not their own. Oh, and just so you know, they’re neither lousy nor disingenuous comparisons, just so you know. But I’ll get to that in a bit. > [@](#): > > 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. … … …Really? So ignoring the fact that in this very thread there are pro-choicers talking about how there is no consensus as to personhood as it’s dependent on one’s personal beliefs, so long as the majority of society agrees to a certain definition of personhood, then it’s okay to force that definition of personhood onto the the minority? Is that what you’re saying? Great! So then I don’t want to hear any more crap about imposing one’s beliefs on another and how wrong that is, since you just stated that as long as there is a majority consensus (exactly how many people make a consensus, anyway?) that the minority view is SOL. > [@](#): > > bullshit Except it’s not, no matter how much you wish it to be so. You can’t say that it’s wrong to force someone to adhere to a view which is not their own then turn around and argue that someone can be forced to adhere to a view which is not their own. Even a **child** can see that’s hypocritical on your part. > [@](#): > > 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. ROFL! Please tell me where you live, so I can make sure my (future) kids stay the hell away. First of all, please tell me when society defined personhood. I would like the time, day, month and year, please, as I feel you just pulled that statement out nowhere. I could have sworn that pro-choicers like to usually argue that there is no set definition of personhood and that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs regarding personhood (see: this thread). Second of all, did you really just say that it’s okay to force a definition of personhood, of which there is none, onto someone else via the law? If this is true, then you have no rational basis upon which to say that I can’t define the unborn at all gestational ages to be persons under the law and force that definition upon you. Well, that is, unless you’re going to argue that it’s okay to force someone to conform to your views, but that it’s wrong to force you to conform to my, or anyone else’s, views. Is that what you want to argue? Please do, for I love it when someone displays their hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > 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. Because Bryan brought it up. Yeah, startling, I know. > [@](#): > > What’s the current law on this issue? Abortion is legal, but only until the right case gets to SCOTUS. Which it will. > [@](#): > > What is it we just can’t win? You can’t win the abortion argument. [Pro-lifers are far more effective at framing the abortion debate than are pro-choicers](http://www.michelepolak.com/200fall10/Weekly_Schedule_files/Strickler.pdf). > [@](#): > > And why then but not unless the fetus is injured. Small word, begins with C. Conception? > [@](#): > > That’s too bad. It means you seriously can’t see why your arguments are illogical. It indicates a lack of maturity. This is all kind of ironic, given the above responses. > [@](#): > > When you answer every question put to you I’ll take this seriously. What question have I ignored? Certainly none until after you started to wilfully choose to pretend like you didn’t see my posts, if at all. > [@](#): > > 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. (1) What happened in post #1,867 and (2) you’re one to talk about going in circles when the above is filled with at least three different circular arguments galore. > [@](#): > > I’m satisfied your arguments have been clearly and logically dismantled. Now this is just stupid. You haven’t “logically dismantled” anything, except for maybe your own arguments. You’ve yet to provide proof of any of your assertions (i.e., the majority of Americans don’t view the unborn as being equal to a born child, the majority of Americans would leave abortion legal for any reason within the first three months). You make non-factual and otherwise incorrect statements (i.e., no one viewed abortion as a moral issue in the 19th century or whatever the line was), and when faced with evidence to the contrary, you disappear for a few days. You engage in some ridiculous circular arguments or just general non-sequiturs and you throw your own arguments and reasoning when it suits you to do so (i.e., it’s only wrong to force your beliefs on someone else when it involves forcing you to conform to a set of beliefs not your own). But hey, that’s just you. Now when you respond, be sure to make a post filled with self-evident statements that just beg for some proof (but don’t provide any!) and opinions/assumptions passed off as fact. I know you want to. Also, please note Zeriel’s post. That’s what a straw man looks like. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2162 "2011-05-24T05:52:47Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > 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… Don’t bother with that one. Also, I \<3 \*\*Zeriel and Irishgirl \*\* for being classy. And I mean that sincerely. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2163 "2011-05-24T07:00:08Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’ll respond to this one first, because it’s that idiotic. > \ > > Also, please note Zeriel’s post. That’s what a straw man looks like. Speaking of fallacies, have you ever heard of _argumentum verbosium_? ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2164 "2011-05-24T07:47:38Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > - “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. > > 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. > . IMO, that’s a threshold of proof requirement that virtually nobody meets when talking about their beliefs. We shouldn’t have to prove that the fetus is human. The burden of proof should be on those insisting that it isn’t. If we meet the “hypocrisy” requirements and in fact go beyond them when it comes to insisting that we as a society respect not only human life, but animal as well, then it seems to me that those that insistent the fetus isn’t human until it hits air are infact the ones that hold inconsistent views. I expect that from the conservative pro-lifers. I hold our side to a higher standard. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2165 "2011-05-24T08:30:50Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > IMO, that’s a threshold of proof requirement that virtually nobody meets when talking about their beliefs. We shouldn’t have to prove that the fetus is human. The burden of proof should be on those insisting that it isn’t. > > If we meet the “hypocrisy” requirements and in fact go beyond them when it comes to insisting that we as a society respect not only human life, but animal as well, then it seems to me that those that insistent the fetus isn’t human until it hits air are infact the ones that hold inconsistent views. > > I expect that from the conservative pro-lifers. I hold our side to a higher standard. 🙂 So, wait. You expect pro-choicers to make your argument _for you_? That’s novel. It’s also nuts. That’s because if you argue that a three month fetus is human, there’s the impediment that it looks like a salamander. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2166 "2011-05-24T09:39:01Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > **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. It’s 18 hours now by my reckoning. Maybe he/she ran out of cuss-words and is digging away in his/her thesaurus for some new ones. It might take a while 'cos some of those are BIG words that take a bit of time and effort to understand. Or mum has revoked his computer rights like you said **Baker.** 😃 ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2167 "2011-05-24T12:08:17Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Oh boy. Not that ridiculous personhood argument again:smack: > A fetus is human. A human is a person. There is no such thing as a non human person. > The same bullshit tactic that pro-choicers use to depersonalize the fetus so they can feel better about themselves for supporting the butchering of the unborn. Biologically the fetus is not yet a person. You don’t look at a frozen embryo and say ,"Oh what a cute little baby.. A hen’s fertile egg is not a chicken, a pollenated apple blossom is not an apple, a horse’s fetus is not yet a horse. It is just a religious teaching that calls a fertile egg a human being.There is just as much "life in a man’s sperm as in a full grown adult. Many human lives are lost with each ejaculation, if a conception takes place or not! Life is a passed on thing! It is a rediculous argument to you, because that is your belief and what you were taught. No one should force you to have an abortion even if you were raped, but to force a woman to have children she is unable to care for is just as wrong, it seems okay to have children and let them starve to death as happens in other countries. That, you can apparently justify. as long as the fertile egg is brought to birth? Strange, how so called pro-lifers think it okay to kill human beings in a war, but deprive a woman of her choice of self defense! Many innocent born and un born die in wars, far more innocent than the guilty. Look how many have died to get Saddam in Iraq, and the death toll is still rising! ---
**Author:** ![Lorski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Lorski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorski)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2168 "2011-05-24T13:37:52Z")
> [@kambuckta](#): > > It’s 18 hours now by my reckoning. > > Maybe he/she ran out of cuss-words and is digging away in his/her thesaurus for some new ones. It might take a while 'cos some of those are BIG words that take a bit of time and effort to understand. > > Or mum has revoked his computer rights like you said **Baker.** 😃 _snerk_😃 ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2169 "2011-05-24T13:44:48Z")
Well done, **Zeriel**. I realize this isn’t \*your \*argument, but I figure you’ll be more likely to respond to challenges to it. Can you apply this argument to the scenarios I presented previously in #1710? I suppose, if nothing else, trying to think like an anti-abortioner reinforces your own pro-choice position. ---
**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 24, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2170 "2011-05-24T14:58:44Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The fact that abortion laws in the U.S. are nowhere near what society as a whole wants them to be Out of curiosity, where do you honestly believe society as a whole wants the abortion laws to be, and what is keeping existing law nowhere near this? ---
**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, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2171 "2011-05-24T15:09:42Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > IMO, that’s a threshold of proof requirement that virtually nobody meets when talking about their beliefs. We shouldn’t have to prove that the fetus is human. The burden of proof should be on those insisting that it isn’t. I don’t think ANYONE can meet the burden of proof for any definitional statement, pro or anti. At some point, you have to decide what a “human” is, and if you can find a way to prove someone is human or not human without declaring a set of essentially arbitrary axioms, you’d better have peer-reviewed repeatable evidence showing that you’ve discovered the soul and are simultaneously going to get the Nobel Prize and Sainthood. > [@](#): > > If we meet the “hypocrisy” requirements and in fact go beyond them when it comes to insisting that we as a society respect not only human life, but animal as well, then it seems to me that those that insistent the fetus isn’t human until it hits air are infact the ones that hold inconsistent views. I don’t see the respect of animal life as anything but irrelevant to the entire argument. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2172 "2011-05-24T15:15:25Z")
> [@margin](#): > > So, wait. You expect pro-choicers to make your argument _for you_? That’s novel. It’s also nuts. That’s because if you argue that a three month fetus is human, there’s the impediment that it looks like a salamander. Yes, if you’re going to make the argument that you can terminate something that is increasingly becoming more baby like with each passing day, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn’t human yet before you kill it. BTW, I don’t argue that a 3 month old fetus is human. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2173 "2011-05-24T15:19:36Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I don’t think ANYONE can meet the burden of proof for any definitional statement, pro or anti. At some point, you have to decide what a “human” is, and if you can find a way to prove someone is human or not human without declaring a set of essentially arbitrary axioms, you’d better have peer-reviewed repeatable evidence showing that you’ve discovered the soul and are simultaneously going to get the Nobel Prize and Sainthood. > > I don’t see the respect of animal life as anything but irrelevant to the entire argument. As you point out, we can’t really prove anything. Therefore when deciding to terminate a life, it’s probably best to do so “conservatively”. 🙂 If it isn’t human, it’s probably still alive and “animal” is probably a close alternative category. Quite often you hear a claim of “parasite” as a descriptor from the pro-choice side. I can understand that that makes termination of the fetus more palatable regardless of the stage of development. ---
**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 24, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2174 "2011-05-24T15:22:34Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > BTW, I don’t argue that a 3 month old fetus is human. Heck, I’m pro-choice and I can’t see why you _wouldn’t_ describe a fetus of any age as “human.” It’s made up of human tissue, from human donors… ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2175 "2011-05-24T15:33:05Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > IMO, that’s a threshold of proof requirement that virtually nobody meets when talking about their beliefs. We shouldn’t have to prove that the fetus is human. The burden of proof should be on those insisting that it isn’t. Why should the burden of proof be on the ones who are drawing even rudimentary knowledge of the natural world to make their conclusions? Even though scientists don’t provide a direct answer to philosophical questions, it does provide a logical framework. People in this thread have provided their logic. It’s not even very complicated and uses very simple comparisons that ARE reasonable. If we apply our reasoning skills that we use in every other aspect of our lives to identify a zygote or early embryo, anyone would logically say that it does not remotely resemble, in any way, shape or form a baby. Yet, we discard reason in this instance because people have made this potential to become a baby a sacred thing. So sacred, this thing has rights that even babies don’t have (taking away control of a person’s body). Because it has now become sacred, no logic or proof will ever be accepted. This is exactly the argument for people’s religion. They put the burden on non-believers to provide evidence that the supernatural claim they are making doesn’t exist. No other aspect of our lives work this way. > [@](#): > > If we meet the “hypocrisy” requirements and in fact go beyond them when it comes to insisting that we as a society respect not only human life, but animal as well, then it seems to me that those that insistent the fetus isn’t human until it hits air are infact the ones that hold inconsistent views. > > I expect that from the conservative pro-lifers. I hold our side to a higher standard. 🙂 I don’t know of any pro-choice person wanting anyone to respect an amoeba. Not even PETA would storm a tissue culture facility to save the precious tissue. Then there’s also the argument made time and time again, that no pro-choice or PETA person would force someone to keep an animal in their womb for 9 months. ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2176 "2011-05-24T15:46:02Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Well done, **Zeriel**. I realize this isn’t \*your \*argument, but I figure you’ll be more likely to respond to challenges to it. Can you apply this argument to the scenarios I presented previously in #1710? > > I suppose, if nothing else, trying to think like an anti-abortioner reinforces your own pro-choice position. Yeah, honestly, I only do that kind of thing because my dad exists. Have I mentioned I really like my dad, and I bristle at the implication that he’s misogynist and evil and stupid because he happens to have one specific position (that’s unfortunately shared with people like OMG and classy)? 😃 > [@](#): > > There are so many reasons for abortions, but they all factor into a single reason: continuing the pregnancy is undesirable. Do you oppose abortion in each and every one of these circumstances? If so, what is the best alternative in each case? > > 1. I was raped and I am in college. A pregnancy will disrupt my studies and may jeopardize my continuing my education. Rape is a damnable thing. I’m sorry, but under the axioms presented abortion cannot be justified. Laws that require colleges to allow medical withdrawal for pregnancy with no academic penalty should be implemented. > [@](#): > > 1. I’m forty-eight years old and my husband is retired due to health issues. I am the sole breadwinner for our family. We have no other children. We have been using barrier method of birth control for 25 years with no failure until now. Too close to call, but I am willing to believe that a 48-yr-old woman is going to have enough potential complications to invoke the life/health exception. > [@](#): > > 1. I became widowed when my husband was killed in a car accident two months ago. We were separated and about to divorce because he fell in love with another woman, who is now fighting me for his estate. He willed everything to her and this is costing me a fortune in legal fees. I am 16 weeks into my pregnancy and I just can’t take the stress anymore. Abortion cannot be justified absent a psychologist’s declaration that you are an actual suicide risk while pregnant. State probate law should treat the fetus as an actual child (which in my state means, as I understand it, that unless they were expressly disinherited, they get a specific major share). > [@](#): > > 1. I am nine years old and my father did this to me. Abort, no question. Too much health risk to the mother. > [@](#): > > 1. I am a single mother supporting two young children on $25,000/year. I have no higher education, no health insurance, no support of any kind. I do not have easy access to medical intervention and am not likely to be able to take off work to go to the doctor without losing some crucial income. I can’t afford this pregnancy let alone another child. Abortion cannot be justified. Welfare that preserves your ability to get adequate prenatal care without having to worry about lost job hours is morally required. > [@](#): > > 1. I have bipolar disorder and will have to go off my medication to continue this pregnancy. The last time I was off my medication, I pushed a stranger into the street causing them serious injury and I ended up in jail. I’m afraid to go off my medication. Abortion is justified, as violent psychological disorders definitively count as “health of the mother”. > [@](#): > > 1. My husband and I both carry the gene for Tay-Sachs disease. We both agreed at the time we were married that we would not have children because we both lost siblings to the disease. I think we could stretch the premise that requires a fetus to be capable of full human development to allow the abortion of a fetus that can be confirmed to have as lethal a disorder as Tay-Sachs. Big grey area here. > [@](#): > > 1. I believe the planet is already overpopulated and further population growth is wholly unsustainable. I firmly believe that more people to take the stand I have taken by not exacerbating this problem. I am committed to remaining childless and working within my community to promote zero-population growth. Abortion cannot be justified. Medical standards should be changed so that people in your situation can be medically sterilized by competent gynecologists without a hassle. > [@](#): > > 1. I was traumatized by my own adoption and would not ever want to do this to another human being. Abortion cannot be justified. (damn, some of these break my heart) > [@](#): > > 1. I was born to an alcoholic parent, physically and emotionally abused until I was eight years old, and then spent the rest of my childhood bounced from one foster home to another. I have tried to commit suicide twice. Wait, is the kid pregnant, or are we trying to figure out if the kid should have been aborted? > [@](#): > > 1. My husband and I are older and we aren’t willing to take the risk to my health to have a child, nor do we want another as already have an adult son (from a previous relationship) and a twelve year-old daughter. We had no intention of conceiving a child. In the presence of a serious health risk, abortion is allowed, otherwise, no. > [@](#): > > 1. I am a senior in high school and made a serious mistake trusting my boyfriend to take precautions. I certainly have learned a lesson with regard to my bodily integrity. I am an honor student and have just received a rare opportunity to study abroad in my final year in a program offered by the one of the top practitioners of my chosen profession of evolutionary biology. See answer 1, although the international nature of the situation makes legal remedies problematic. Wow, that hurt my heart a little. > [@](#): > > I believe all of these are perfectly valid reasons to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Yeah, me too. It helps to do these kinds of thought exercises, though–it reminds (the general) you that pro-lifers are actual people and they’re not necessarily crazy, misogynist, or religious nuts; they just have a different belief about what it means to be human in a specific case than you. ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2177 "2011-05-24T15:47:33Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > As you point out, we can’t really prove anything. Therefore when deciding to terminate a life, it’s probably best to do so “conservatively”. 🙂 Why? Many justifications for being pro-choice exist that don’t depend one way or another on the personhood of the fetus. I do it in one axiom: “No one should ever be required to give their own life’s blood to another, or be required to continue doing so having consented to do so at one point.” ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2178 "2011-05-24T15:50:27Z")
Just to calm your fears guys.“rolls eyes”…I haven’t disappeared. Some of are very busy and don’t have countless hours to spend on the internet. I shall return later to respond. ---
**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 24, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2179 "2011-05-24T15:55:00Z")
I don’t think your return calms our fears as much as dashes our hopes. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2180 "2011-05-24T15:56:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t think your return calms our fears as much as dashes our hopes. Gotta love the abuse. I feel so loved:D [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=108) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=110)