# 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:** 119
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2361 "2011-05-25T21:44:53Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Dude, she’s a cyborg! Whomever did her programing needs to be fired. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2362 "2011-05-25T21:45:37Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Nitpick; It technically is a fact and a relevant one. There are some interesting pages about how society has dealt with the issue of fetal rights, and exactly what rights a developing human does or does not have such as > [this](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fetal+Rights) > [and this](http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/PersonhoodFetus.htm) > > concerning fetal rights. That’s really the question at hand. > > A zygote or an embryo are fully human with unique DNA even before it’s designated a fetus. They are unarguably stages of human development just as infant and adult are. That’s not in question. > > There are relevant questions about brain development {consciousness} and viability out side the mother’s body. You might argue that a fetus is not yet a person, IYO, but arguing that it’s not a human is factually incorrect. The thing that makes this so complex and unique IMO, is the fetus being totally dependent on the body of the mother and the woman’s right to choose concerning her body, weighed against the uncertain rights of the embryo or fetus. > > We certainly don’t legally require people to give transfusions to others even to save their lives. The second link is from an atheist source. Doesn’t surprise me. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2363 "2011-05-25T21:46:04Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > \ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2364 "2011-05-25T21:49:33Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If that’s what you want to believe. I personally believe that until it lives and breathes on it’s own, a fetus isn’t a human. > > **Then you’re crazier than I thought you were. A 24 week premie is not a human then. You know some 24 week fetuses can’t breathe on their own:smack:** > > No matter how many times you want to dance around it, a fetus is not yet a human. Repeating it doesn’t make it fact. > > **Then what the fuck is it. You’re retarded. What else can a fetus created by 2 humans be other than a human. ANSWER THAT.** > > You feel all human life is sacred, and that a fetus (of some undetermined age) is a human - fine, you have the right to believe these things. What you do not have the right to do is force your personal beliefs off onto others. It’s really as simple as that. > > \*\*So then stop spitting out nonsense.\*\*A fetus is a potential human? > > **No it is human.** > > Uh, actually, all mammals incubate fetuses… **Give me a break. Answer the question**. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2365 "2011-05-25T22:01:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I was making a general comment about the relationship between the people in society and the law, NOT a comment about how I personally valued people’s opinions. That’s called pulling something out of your ass, and/or “jumping around”. And yet, it’s not true in the case of abortion, which is what I said. > [@](#): > > for example; You said the SCOTUS made the current law based on Roe v Wade. Turns out the members of the Supreme Court are people with opinions who certainly influence the law. The people involved in the case itself, those who struggled to get it to the SC and argued before the court, are also people with opinions who influenced the law. So on and so forth. That’s what I was making an observation about. The people who have continued to lobby for or against the decisions or for the state laws limiting access, also people with opinions. I’m sorry, but "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA… HAHAHAHA… HA! That, quite frankly, is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, the most asinine justification I’ve ever seen you try to make. I’m fairly sure that Roe v. Wade (the main litigant of whom is now a pro-life activist,) and Doe v. Bolton (the main litigant of whom said she was lied to) wound up in court precisely because they _couldn’t_ influence the law and/or get people to agree with their position. All that aside, so now you’ve gone from arguing that people’s opinions matter to arguing that only the opinion of certain people matter? Wow, it’s not like I said that in my last post (which you effectively ignored). Who knew? Besides me, and anyone with a quarter of a brain, of course. > [@](#): > > That’s quite clear thanks. That’s how I took it. It’s still a big logical fail because one does not necessarily follow the other. There are many ways and degrees to consider and value others opinions without wanting the majority opinion to be the law. For example ; I value\*\* Bricker\*\*'s posts and opinions because they are well expressed and help me to better understand the mindset, opinions, and position of pro-life. That doesn’t mean I want them to be law. Your conclusion is erroneous and illogical. {insert another obligatory denial here} I’ll give you a C+ fo reffort. At least you tried. Number one, you’ll notice I put the word valued in quotation marks, because that’s your word, not mine. I couldn’t care less if you value someone’s opinion. Number two, what I said, which you seemingly don’t understand, is that you don’t accept that people’s opinions matter, or more importantly, that people’s opinions don’t matter if you don’t agree with them. You don’t look at what society wants as an aggregate and base the law of that, which is what I say should be done to come to a compromise on abortion. No, you look at what _you_ want the law to be while discounting what society as a whole wants those laws to be. An opinion only matters if it’s taken into consideration. You don’t, point blank, and no amount of obfuscation will change this fact. Get real and try again. My point is neither erroneous nor illogical. Perhaps you should stop making erroneous and illogical accusations? > [@](#): > > Here you go with your mind reading hogwash again. You don’t have to be a mind reader to know when someone is purposely avoiding answering a question-- especially when they bother to respond to a post while refusing to answer a specific question. > [@](#): > > no need to wonder. I just don’t value your posts or your opinion enough to make it a priority over anything else. Feel free to believe whatever bolsters your ego. So you take the time to tell me that you don’t “value” my posts enough to respond (to certain parts of) my posts even though you’re taking the time to respond to my posts in order to tell me that you don’t “value” them enough to respond (to certain parts) of my posts? HAH! Congratulations on that fail logic. Both you and I know the reason you adamantly refuse to address either of those points is because you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > Really? It’s actually that I respond when I have the time and the interest but believe as you will. And, by some stroke of luck, you just seem to “lack the interest” when someone provides you evidence contrary to your assertions or asks for proof of your assertions. Funny how coicidental that is, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I’m not backing off of anything I said. I’m telling you that you either misunderstood them in a profoundly stupid manner, or deliberately misrepresented them. No, you’re backing off your statement, though you weren’t very successful at it. I think that is generally true, except for those who just gave up reading your posts because the sheer quantity of nonsense was too much for them. I see you’ve been here a few months. I’ve been a member for a few years as have others. I’ve seen posters like you before who think their arguments and logic are ever so fabulous. You’re not that unique. I engaged you to see if you had any interesting arguments to offer. Your stubborn refusal to admit an error or any flaws in your logic tells me what I need to know. [/QUOTE] If they “give up”, it’s because they’re incapable of having a fact based discussion, instead choosing to rely on nothing but opinion and ubsubstantiated claims. Anyway, 'guv, let’s be frank. Other than statements based on pure opinion and/or conjecture, you have jack shit in the way of an actual argument, and you wouldn’t know what logic is even you spent in entire semester in an intro to logic class. I mean, just look at my last post where I pointed out three egregious examples of you flatly ignoring those things which proved you wrong or showed that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And true to form, you ignored it. I mean, lol, really? Newsflash! Sticking your fingers ins your ear and going “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you!” when faced with something you don’t like ain’t a valid form of arguing. So let’s review, shall we? (1) You don’t know what you’re talking about as it relates to abortion history. Abortion was made illegal in the U.S. based on the moral view of the unborn. This is a fact attested to by the [1859 AMA Report on Criminal Abortion](http://www.abortionessay.com/files/1859ama.html). Though will you acknowledge this point? Nope. Go figure! (2) You can provide absolutely nothing which contradicts my claims regarding Americans views on abortion. I’ve given you seperate polls from CNN, FOX, ABC, Gallup, Pew, Henry-McAyers and even the GSS which show that Americans simply do not favor abortions outside of the hard cases. That’s **SEVEN** different sources. As you seemingly disagree with everything I’ve posted, I’ve asked for you to show me something-- anything!-- three times now which shows otherwise, and thus far you’ve provided **NOTHING** nor have you attempted to provide anything because, apparently, “you don’t value my posts or opinions enough [to respond to the points I make]”, though you have no problem responding to my posts in general sans the specific points which prove you wrong. Yeah, that makes sense. (3) You throw aside your own arguments as it suits you. You tell me that people should be entitled to their own definition about personhood and that no one should have a definition of personhood that is not their own imposed on them, but then you turn around and say that it’s okay to impose a definition of personhood on someone if the law says it’s okay, which would mean that it’s okay to force a definition of personhood onto people who would not view the unborn as persons much the same way it is to force the definition of personhood onto someone who would not view a newborn up to two or so months as a person. Of course, no matter how many people make this point, you choose to be willfully ignorant and ignore anything and everything which pokes a huge logical hole in your otherwise already piss poor logic. If I really wanted, I could keep going on and on, but I won’t. Point being, you’re nothing but a damn hypocrite. You ignore what you can’t respond to, you openly refuse to provide any kind of proof of your assertions when asked for proof and, to top it all off, you have the audacity to try to call someone else stubborn? HAH! Considering the fact that I’ve willingly asked you to provide something which proves me wrong, yet you have refused to do so, that’s an insanely laughable comment for you to make. Like I said prior, I’ve got your whole schtick figured out. Perhaps if you ignore the big bad prolifer and his facts, he’ll go away, huh? Too bad that won’t work. It must really hurt you to know that you’ve got no real arguments ☹ ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2366 "2011-05-25T22:03:38Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > A fertilized egg is a POTENTIAL human, but is [not yet](http://i.imgur.com/WQyPl.jpg) a human. Same nit pick I just mentioned. Even your link uses the term person rather than human. I know what you mean, but using the term human, just gives the opportunity to say “Yes it is” and they are technically correct. A fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, are all fully and uniquely human. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2367 "2011-05-25T22:09:31Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > The second link is from an atheist source. Doesn’t surprise me. So? If you are using science to bolster your opinion, then an atheist source shouldn’t be an issue as the divinity of the argument is irrelevant. If you are using religious dogma as your argument, then you can certainly be critical of atheist sites, but then you have to recognize the fact that other religions have validity as well. So if you argue the atheist source has it’s facts wrong, then the atheism is irrelevent: wrong is wrong. If you argue the atheist source is wrong because it’s devoid of religious morality, then all your DNA makes it human etc arguments don’t apply as you are using a religious platform. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2368 "2011-05-25T22:11:24Z")
Sorry, I’m just popping back in to correct factual inaccuracies. 1. Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated medically using methotrexate in some cases. This does not require surgery or a hospital. 2. **OMGABC** - “medical training” is not a superpower. One does not have the knowledge and skills to perform a safe surgical abortion simply by graduating from medical school. The necessary skills to perform all medical and surgical procedures aren’t handed out telepathically with the MDs.This is why gynaecologists don’t do facial botox, orthopaedic surgeons don’t insert IUDs and dermatologists don’t inject frozen shoulders. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2369 "2011-05-25T22:21:11Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Sorry, I’m just popping back in to correct factual inaccuracies. > > 1. Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated medically using methotrexate in some cases. This does not require surgery or a hospital. > **I know that but that would still usually be done at the Dr. not at an abortion clinic** > **Ectopic pregnancies are generally determined after an ultrasound and a woman wanting an abortion is usually not going to have an ultrasound**. > > 2. **OMGABC** - “medical training” is not a superpower. > One does not have the knowledge and skills to perform a safe surgical abortion simply by graduating from medical school. > The necessary skills to perform all medical and surgical procedures aren’t handed out telepathically with the MDs.This is why gynaecologists don’t do facial botox, orthopaedic surgeons don’t insert IUDs and dermatologists don’t inject frozen shoulders. **Your tone is very condescending. I am well aware that GYN’s don’t do botox etc** Did you like my responses to your other thread? I don’t hold grudges. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2370 "2011-05-25T22:25:27Z")
Someone just discovered the bolding function… Oh, and please don’t add your own comments within a quote tag. It makes it confusing to tell who said what. You’re welcome. ETA: Your tone is very shout-y and swear-y. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2371 "2011-05-25T22:26:02Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > No. The parents had no intent of passing on their genetic condition to the fetus. It is not their fault that the fetus was born with this condition. How is this different than parents who have no intention of conceiving at all? As I’ve mentioned repeatedly above, the act of sex does not equate to the intention of conceiving offspring. If a parent is not required to forgo bodily autonomy for a born child, why should a parent be required to forgo bodily autonomy for an unborn child? You keep saying ‘fault’ as if we must assign blame and punish the actors accordingly. Why is that? Do you think of children as punishment? Let’s say that these parents \*knew \*that they both carried the gene for hemochromatosis and conceived anyway (should it matter whether intentionally or not?) knowing full well their offspring would be afflicted with the disease. Are they now responsible for donating a liver (or partial liver as is the case for living donors) to their child? Or are they allowed to abort despite the fact that the disease is often manageable with decent health care? > [@](#): > > We can’t control which chromosomes are going to come together to create the fetus. We can’t choose the healthy chromosomes. No, but we can screen for chromosomal pairings that will create disease and disorders before they are matched. It’s not done for everything, however, including for this particular disease. We can also identify disorders and diseases occurring in developing fetuses that can’t be or weren’t screened for prior to conception. Not all are fatal, but some cause a great deal of suffering for all involved. That’s why I believe these difficult decisions should be left strictly to the patient and her doctor. > [@](#): > > I have a feeling most parents would give their own life willingly for the lives of their children. Granted, and as you’ve noted, it’s not for the law to decide that they do. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2372 "2011-05-25T22:34:30Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > You keep saying ‘fault’ as if we must assign blame and punish the actors accordingly. Why is that? Do you think of children as punishment? > > **No you’re putting words in my mouth.** > > Let’s say that these parents knew that they both carried the gene for hemochromatosis and conceived anyway (should it matter whether intentionally or not?) knowing full well their offspring would be afflicted with the disease. Are they now responsible for donating a liver (or partial liver as is the case for living donors) to their child? Or are they allowed to abort despite the fact that the disease is often manageable with decent health care? **There is no 100% guarantee that their child would definitely have the disease**. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2373 "2011-05-25T22:40:09Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Abortion was made illegal in the U.S. based on the moral view of the unborn. This is a fact attested to by the [1859 AMA Report on Criminal Abortion](http://www.abortionessay.com/files/1859ama.html). I daresay in 1859 there might have been a moral view of the unborn, but there was also, by modern standards, a less-than-flattering view of women. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2374 "2011-05-25T22:41:36Z")
You did not come from a zygote. You once were a zygote. You did not come from an embryo. You once were an embryo. You did not come from a fetus. You once were a fetus. You did not come from an adolescent. You once were an adolescent. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2375 "2011-05-25T22:46:50Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You once were an adolescent. And with every post you write, you remind us of what adolescence was like. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2376 "2011-05-25T22:49:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And with every post you write, you remind us of what adolescence was like. Can’t answer the question can you dimwit? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2377 "2011-05-25T22:51:14Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > I appreciate your interest in debate, but this stuff is absurd. Could you at least pretend to acknowledge that you’re presenting ideas in a public forum and construct hypotheticals that are within reason? There is nothing absurd about it. You cannot find me any other situation in law, in ANY circumstances, where a person can be compelled to provide their organs or lifeblood to another for any reason. > [@](#): > > If you don’t agree that the fetus is ever a person, we don’t have a common ground for discussion. The fetus is a person, and abortion is STILL okay by my axioms. Fetal personhood is 100% irrelevant to my logical justification of abortion. > [@](#): > > A more likely analogous situation would be one in which you put yourself on a donor list and when the doctors are in the middle of the procedure (point of no return for the recipient of the organ), you ask the doctors to end the procedure, knowing that would kill the recipient. I don’t think the doctors comply at that moment and I think society would be behind that decision as well Who’s got the ridiculous hypotheticals now, Mr. You’re Making Conscious Decisions in the Middle of Surgery? In any case, those doctors would be crushed in a malpractice suit, period. > [@](#): > > I’ll change my mind when I find a right that’s absolute. Nice dodge. Are you trying to steal the King Bonehead crown from OMG? Because let me tell you you’ve got a long way to go. ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2378 "2011-05-25T22:52:00Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > **No you’re putting words in my mouth.** No, you said “fault”. I am \*asking \*you if you think that children are a punishment for women who need to be blamed for getting pregnant? Why must we find fault with regard to pregnancy? > [@classyladyhp](#): > > **There is no 100% guarantee that their child would definitely have the disease**. No. They would definitely have it, although they may not be symptomatic. You still haven’t answered the question. Why should a parent be legally exempt from donating his/her body to preserve the life of a born child but not legally exempt from donating her body to preserve the life of an unborn child? ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2379 "2011-05-25T22:53:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You’re right, the War on Terror _and_ gay marriage were more important than abortion in that election. So what was the last election where abortion was among the top issues? You do this a lot. Who said anything about abortion being a top issue? I said it’s a more important issue to voters than is gay marriage. > [@](#): > > Abortion is an important issue to most Americans, more so than gay marriage - (possible, I guess… though how much time they spend dwelling on it is unclear) What I said was Americans care more about abortion than gay marriage. It’s a fact. Since you keep mentioning 2004, check [this](http://www.gallup.com/poll/13786/abortion-issue-guides-one-five-voters.aspx) and [this](http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PSApr05Lewis.pdf) out. > [@](#): > > Current abortion law is “nowhere near what society as a whole wants them to be” - (possible, I guess, if we could say for sure where American society as a whole wanted these laws to be, and preferably not just a vague “it would be nice if…” ) There’s nothing vague about “Abortion should be legal in \ instance” and “Abortion should be illegal in \ instance”. > [@](#): > > [li]American desires regarding these laws are being thwarted by the “bad guy” courts who not allow “abortion laws [to] be set as society wants” (I asked why the courts would do this, the answer is still pending)[/list][/li][/quote] > > Because Roe v. Wade is on the books. They **have** to. > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, surely the American people are not hostages to their courts. An amendment is the ultimate response, and it does have precedent, but there are other approaches, including electing presidents who will appoint anti-_Roe_ justices and senators who will confirm those justices. > > Okay, fine. Let’s see, since the 1980 presidential election when the two parties became pro-life and pro-choice, respectively, of the eight presidential elections, Republicans have won five of them (1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004), whereas Democrats only three (1992, 1996, 2008), and in two of those instances, Democrats (1992 and 1996) Democrats won because either the Republican base had soured on the incumbent (in the case of GWB senior, who reneged on his promise to not raise taxes) or because the last guy was thought to be that bad (GWB Jr.). In 1973 Roe v. Wade was decided 7 - 2; in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided 5 - 4. That’s not a very good trend if you’re a pro-choicer. > > > [@](#): > > > > And if they won’t, if the only effect is that some additional Americans vote Republican, then I’d wonder _if_ American society “as a whole” feels the way you describe and even if they do, why they don’t act. > > And if they won’t what? > > [QUOTE=curlcoat] > No matter how many times you want to dance around it, a fetus is not yet a human. Repeating it doesn’t make it fact. So an unborn human baby, of which a fetus is (hey, that’s not my definition. It came from Oxford dictionaries), isn’t a human? Then wouldn’t that make it a non-human baby? Is the Oxford dictionary wrong then? [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I daresay in 1859 there might have been a moral view of the unborn, but there was also, by modern standards, a less-than-flattering view of women. [/quote] Uh-huh… So now you’re assuming that that they were on some kind of anti-women trend? Never mind the fact this is based on the notion that abortion views differ by gender. What about the early feminists (not the kind that run around today) who were staunch abortion opponents and were instrumental in helping make abortion illegal? ---
**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 25, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2380 "2011-05-25T22:56:02Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Can’t answer the question can you dimwit? If my light is dim, yours is off, the bulb shattered and the filament burnt. But I do agree that it’s odd to try to define “human” to exclude a fetus, at least with any sound biological or scientific reasoning. If it’s a philosophical or legal definition, that’s another matter, but I wouldn’t expect you to know what that means, being kind of stupid and all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=118) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=120)