# 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:** 126
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2501 "2011-05-26T17:17:32Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Really? Are you not shocked when someone T-bones your car in an intersection? Why wouldn’t you be expecting that? The odds of being in a car accident are quite good? Probably better than getting a woman pregnant who is taking the pill. Even better, if she were older and has been using BC for many years. In the year 2000, there were ~3,314 accidents per 100,000 drivers. Hormonal birth control used by itself has an average failure rate between 300/100,000 and 8,000/100,000 per year. Pretty close statistics for an off-the-cuff analogy, **BEG**. I’m impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2502 "2011-05-26T17:25:58Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > I count certain stages of aborted fetuses as victims. That’s fine but it doesn’t change the fact that in your gun analogy, the victim is always there regardless of outcome, but in protected sex the ostensible victim by definition doesn’t exist unless you have the comparatively rare negative outcome (AND they survive the miscarriage lottery). ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2503 "2011-05-26T17:49:13Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > That’s fine but it doesn’t change the fact that in your gun analogy, the victim is always there regardless of outcome, but in protected sex the ostensible victim by definition doesn’t exist unless you have the comparatively rare negative outcome (AND they survive the miscarriage lottery). The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that “I didn’t expect the outcome” doesn’t remove responsibility for the results. I have zero issue with the “precautions failed, confirmed pregnancy, aborted in first trimester” case. I consider that the “no fault” zone. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2504 "2011-05-26T18:15:00Z")
> [@double foolscap](#): > > you’ll always have brown eyes to me. > > because you’re so full of crap, you see? > > apologies, actual **brown eyed girl** hahhahahah!!! ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2505 "2011-05-26T18:33:36Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that “I didn’t expect the outcome” doesn’t remove responsibility for the results. True, but the relative risk of the outcome DOES matter in all kinds of situations, including legal ones (mostly centering around negligence). > [@](#): > > I have zero issue with the “precautions failed, confirmed pregnancy, aborted in first trimester” case. I consider that the “no fault” zone. And the vast majority of abortions that happen then will only increase if ostensible pro-lifers will bugger the hell off and keep their moralizing mitts off of birth control and sex ed. Fight the retards on your own side. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2506 "2011-05-26T18:38:07Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > hahhahahah!!! Please see the 12 scenarios listed in post #1710, bottom half.. Did you ever respond to them? ---
**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 26, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2507 "2011-05-26T18:38:22Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And again, I ask you this question, who ever said that abortion was a major issue. Since you want to continue with this complete straw man, why don’t you show me the page and post number where someone said this. What, you’re inviting another round of the definition game, where you can say abortion is an important issue to the whole of society, but not a “major” issue (or maybe it _is_ a major issue, but you never actually _said_ the word “major”…) If abortion a major issue or not? Was it ever a major issue or not? > [@](#): > > No, it wasn’t. Neither John Kerry nor Bush supported SSM’s, though both were supporters of civil unions. Well, I’d already expanded my query to state races. It’s not important. > [@](#): > > More important than gay marriage, yes, as evidenced by the fact that abortion always flares up every year as issue. Okay, and how many races, at any level, were decided by abortion alone? I get that it’s generally presumed the Republican candidate will be opposed to abortion and the Democrat will be in favour of choice (of course, this can vary wildly) and some people might vote for the Republican on that basis alone (the Democrat too, I assume)… Was there ever a situation in the primaries where one Republican candidate beat out rivals for being “more” pro-life than they? I dunno, just trying to evaluate the electoral impact of abortion. One of your cites says one in five Americans are influenced by it, which I’ll absolutely grant is significant, but it doesn’t quite get to the “whole of society” level. > [@](#): > > No, that’s not just one-in-five who care about abortion (about half of respondents do). That’s one in five (19%, really) who vote _solely_ on the issue of abortion. Still not the “whole” of society, though. Even if you double that to two-in-five to hypothetically include voters who consider the abortion issue while voting. > [@](#): > > Yeah, because with Roe v. Wade on the books and all, there can totally be a popular vote to ban abortion under certain instances. Well, their remedy is a slower process (and I never said otherwise) of voting for and contributing to the most-pro-life candidates in the primaries, the most pro-life candidates in the elections for president and senator, and expressing support for the appointment of pro-life justices to re-evaluate or over-ride _Roe_. I guess right off the bat, Rick Santorum _should_ have a minimum of 20% support, being the most pro-life Republican candidate thus far (as far as I know), but I guess we’ll see how it shakes out over the next few months. > [@](#): > > You’re either being flatly disingenuous, or you don’t understand what the abortion laws were in the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade. > > Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in thirty states, legal in instances of rape in one, legal in case of danger to woman’s health in two, legal in case of danger to woman’s health, rape or incestor in the case of a severely deformed fetus in thirteen and legal on request in four. Yes, I can read the wiki page, too. > [@](#): > > Guess how many of those states laws weren’t invalidated by Roe v. Wade? Forty-six. You mean _were_ invalidated? If not, I don’t understand this statement. Anyway, just for laughs, let’s look at the states where abortion was legal prior to _Roe_ or legal with a “woman’s health” exception, which I figure means “legal if you can get a doctor to sign off on it.” That’s 19 states, represented on the “Abortion in the Unites States” wiki page’s map in yellow, green and blue. And now, just for laughs, I will compare that map to the electoral college 1976 map, which gives a rough indication of population distribution by state. The 19 states, if I add right… 9+6+45+4+7+7+6+9+12+12+8+13+12+10+3+41+14+3+4 = 225, out of 528. So, _very_ roughly… 225/528 ~= 42% population lived in states who access to abortion was minimally affected by _Roe_ (and that doesn’t even count women in the 31 other states who knew how to procure an abortion anyway). That sounds like more than enough for _Roe_ to qualify as an idea whose time had come. And of course, I cheerfully admit the statistical goofiness of the above. My point is that abortion rights wasn’t something American society “as a whole” didn’t want or wasn’t ready for, let alone crammed down their throats, as the saying goes. I know it’s popular to hold up _Roe_ as an example of “activist judges” and such, but let’s be honest - American society didn’t crumble or warp because of _Roe_, nor did _Roe_ represent a radical departure from what already existed in a significant part of the U.S. > [@](#): > > And again, I will quote myself since, for whatever reason, because you continue to repeat the above: > > > [@](#): > > > > Who said anything about abortion being a top issue? I said it’s a more important issue to voters than is gay marriage. > > Feel free to acknowledge this point at any time. So is abortion a “major” issue or not? Is it really that inappropriate for me (a strawman, as it were) to infer that “more important… than… gay marriage” qualifies as “major”? ---
**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 26, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2508 "2011-05-26T18:48:07Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > I count certain stages of aborted fetuses as victims. Sure, and that’s okay - just that being a victim doesn’t automatically mean you get to win the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Double\_Foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@Double\_Foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Double_Foolscap)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2509 "2011-05-26T19:38:04Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Please see the 12 scenarios listed in post #1710, bottom half.. Did you ever respond to them? Sorry, I distracted her with my awesome zinger. It’s a blessing and a curse. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2510 "2011-05-26T19:38:23Z")
> [@kambuckta](#): > > This. Double that. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2511 "2011-05-26T19:49:10Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Nice try but I didn’t create those kids and that’s not what we’re talking about here. Exactly. All anti-abortion people care about are potential kids, not the real ones. Otherwise, how could you care so much about a pregnancy you didn’t create, yet so easily toss of all the kids (in the US, 1 in 4) living with hunger and other issues just because they aren’t yours? > [@classyladyhp](#): > > Unlike you I don’t live on this message board so give me some time. You haven’t addressed posts I made to you days ago. I think it is more likely that you simply ignore what you can’t answer. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > on a more serious note, I tend to agree. I can also understand the desire to honor and protect a potential human life, but I think trying to legally make women biological slaves to a fetus is not the way to deal with it. Yes, how can anti-abortionists claim so much desire to honor and protect potential humans when they have so little concern for actual already here humans?? It isn’t even just the women, tho they bear a greater burden - what about all the men forced into child support for 18 years, for a baby neither of the parents wanted? ---
**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 26, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2512 "2011-05-26T19:56:15Z")
> [@Double\_Foolscap](#): > > Sorry, I distracted her with my awesome zinger. > > It’s a blessing and a curse. As much as I’d like to believe that, I’m pretty sure she was distracted by her lack of a coherent argument for those scenarios. You know, based on her post history and all. Just guessin’ really. ---
**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 26, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2513 "2011-05-26T20:17:02Z")
> [@Double\_Foolscap](#): > > Sorry, I distracted her with my awesome zinger. > > It’s a blessing and a curse. She’s never replied to any of my serious responses either. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2514 "2011-05-26T20:35:14Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Um, Although common people have an influence on law makers they don’t make the laws. I meant common people as opposed to scientists. > [@](#): > > Human rights is the legal issue I mentioned before. That’s why I linked to the fetal rights pages. One has a series of landmark cases on the subject. > Is it human? is a differrent question than, does it have human rights? In this context, I don’t think so because we are dealing with what a majority views as human and apparently the majority doesn’t view a fetus as a human. The scientific community may want to view it as human due to DNA, but even they hedge their bets by using words like “potential” and “develop”. > [@](#): > > [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13840926&postcount=2294) Thanks - that’s a good one! > [@](#): > > It’s the difference between biology and philosophy. A fetus is scientifically human because of it’s unique DNA. There’s no question about that. Is it A human, is more of a question about person hood, and that has not been answered clearly because it is more philosophical than scientific. Another problem with looking at it scientifically is that technically, a fetus is human _tissue_ that, yes, has the ability to become a human, but at the time it is still only tissue. **(GAHHHHH I just had to call United Healthcare and threaten them with nuclear death from the sky AGAIN!!! I’ve lost my train of thought…)** Oh yeah. It seems to me that those who are against abortion are giving the fetus (and earlier) a soul, so it isn’t an issue with them as to whether or not it is human, but that it has a soul. And according to them, an innocent soul, so it’s more valuable than the poor woman surrounding it. Which to me seems to be an obvious issue of allowing religious beliefs to dictate law. > [@](#): > > [Here’s an interesting page](http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/PersonhoodFetus.htm) briefly covering some of the key points. Corporations can be considered as persons under the law? > [@](#): > > It has some, which is how fetal rights is relevant. The fetus has some rights, but it doesn’t have human rights any more than the anti cruelty laws for pets are human rights. (If I remember correctly…) > [@](#): > > IMO, the difficulty is balancing the rights of the woman to control the course of her own life and body, and the potential of the human life created in pregnancy. > An embryo, or fetus without a brain, shouldn’t be able to physically enslave the mother if the pregnancy is unwanted. I just don’t see how that is just, or beneficial to society. So there shouldn’t be any difficulty balancing the rights then? If nothing else, the woman is a thinking, feeling being and the fetus isn’t. Simply because it has the potential to become a human shouldn’t mean it has the right to force the woman to give up her lifestyle at the least or risk her life at worse, unless she wants to take that chance. > [@](#): > > Bu7t we would expect doctors to do everything within their power to save that non person wouldn’t we? Somewhere in our hearts and minds, that fetus is a baby, a human being. You’re asking the wrong person here - I have trouble viewing newborns as “real” humans! But I personally cannot see that it can be a human person until it is no longer acting as a parasite, even if the host is now dead. Yes, doctors should do everything in their power to save the unborn IF the mother is already dead, but not if she is still alive and doing so would endanger her life. Unless she wants them to, and even then, eh. > [@](#): > > Of course. It’s a very controversial area. I have forgotten what legal definition I was looking for… :smack: ---
**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 26, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2515 "2011-05-26T22:56:54Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > I think you vastly oversimplify the reasons that we don’t have comprehensive healthcare in rural regions. It’s hard enough to get a GP to some of those areas. I’m willing to bet it’s easier for a 15-year-old South Dakotan girl to have a tooth pulled/a broken arm set/prescription for antibiotics than a prescription for birth control/an abortion. When you talk about “how rural people tend to want to shape their societies” you’re pretty much rephrasing what I just stated in less direct manner. [Here’s why](http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134855087/in-south-dakota-abortion-fight-goes-on) South Dakota women are [unable to get](http://www.slate.com/id/2295530/) comprehensive reproductive medical care. It’d be funny, too, if it weren’t so sad, that the restrictions don’t really do much to eliminate abortions, but instead punitively make it much more difficult on patients as they are driven across state lines to get the same care to which her metropolitan cousin has easy access. > [@](#): > > CDC statistics show an unusually high incidence of women crossing state lines to obtain abortions in regions of the country that have few providers. Over 35 percent of abortions in North Dakota are for women from other states, a direct result of how poor abortion access already is in South Dakota. For someone like you who prefers abortions take place in the first trimester, these restrictions should be appalling as tend to result in later term abortions, which further marginalizes the health and welfare of women: > [@](#): > > Raising the money for hotel and travel takes time, pushing a woman later into her pregnancy, which can create greater health risks. A Missouri provider, who preferred to remain anonymous for safety reasons, explained, “With the later pregnancy, the complication rate goes up.” He referenced a patient of his who discovered a fetal abnormality at 18 weeks, but because of the travel expenses, wasn’t able to abort until 20 weeks. “The difference between [aborting] an 18-week and a 20-week pregnancy is significant for risk of complications.” These restrictions end up resulting in unwanted children and mothers who cannot afford to care for them which in turn ends up costing the community even more: > [@](#): > > Of course, no matter how determined some women are to abort, the obstacles can overwhelm and force them to have unwanted children. Already, according to the Guttmacher Institute, one in four women on Medicaid who want to terminate carry to term because they can’t afford abortion, which is not covered by federal Medicaid. Recent Guttmacher research also finds that states that heavily restrict abortion tend to pay much higher medical-care costs for childbirth and infant care for families on public assistance, indicating that the abortion restrictions do work to keep low-income women from obtaining abortions. This is what I’m talking about when I say that while I respect your ideals, the reality is that there are, and will continue to be, women in need of abortion, for whatever reason, and the \*\*only \*\*effective way to significantly reduce (\*not \*eliminate; that is unrealistic) those abortions is by providing every woman with easy access to comprehensive and affordable reproduction medicine and education. And by ‘comprehensive’ I mean up to and including abortion as her doctor and she determines necessary and preferred. When you seek to restrict reproductive rights, you’ll invariably find restrictions will end up way past what you may be comfortable with and well into into unreasonable, misogynistic territory. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2516 "2011-05-26T23:48:21Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > It’s not a perfect world and never will be. There will always be exceptions. And if you’re 15 and pregnant out in the middle of bumfuck, you’re probably going to be delivering that baby and your father will probably be out hunting the father with a shotgun. And so oh, well, too bad, so sad, sucks to be her, shouldn’t have been born in a state where the legislators have no regard for the actual lives of women and girls? Throwing your hands up and saying “that’s the way it is” isn’t an answer. It’s not a solution to a considerable problem. It’s a fucking ridiculous cop-out, is what it is. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m reminded of a what seems to be a modern feminist principle. Women should be trusted, unless those women disagree with feminists. Then they’re stupid. That’s not a feminist principle. The principle is quite simple: trust women to make our own decisions about our own lives without outside interference. Period. It’s not trust women to dictate what other women should do. It’s not trust women to know better than you what course your life should take. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Any pro-lifer who understands that ectopic pregnancies and other catastrophic situations exist, who has the belief that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother, MUST oppose this bill or reveal themselves a misogynist (and a hypocrite or liar). And yet, a Republican woman (the incredibly incompetent, wholly dishonest and purely hateful Virginia Foxx) introduced the bill and the whole spate of Republicans voted for it. The lives of women be damned. > [@AlienVessels](#): > > I think you vastly oversimplify the reasons that we don’t have comprehensive healthcare in rural regions. It’s hard enough to get a GP to some of those areas. And you blithely ignore the extremely restrictive laws South Dakota already on the books up until this year, which had limited access to one clinic on the far eastern border of the state, which if you’ve ever looked, is quite a big one. (Not unlike if the only abortion clinic in all of Texas was in Dallas.) And they’ve made it worse: right now, because of a clause in the new restrictions signed in the past few weeks, no woman can get an abortion in South Dakota at all. For any reason. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2517 "2011-05-27T03:59:01Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > And the vast majority of abortions that happen then will only increase if ostensible pro-lifers will bugger the hell off and keep their moralizing mitts off of birth control and sex ed. Fight the retards on your own side. My “side” is roughly where abortion is now handled in public policy. Since it’s clear I don’t agree with the “life at conception crowd”, you’re getting pretty ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2518 "2011-05-27T04:06:24Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > When you seek to restrict reproductive rights, you’ll invariably find restrictions will end up way past what you may be comfortable with and well into into unreasonable, misogynistic territory. And as long as people continue to try to push permissible abortions past the point where I consider the fetus enough of a person worth defending, I’ll keep doing so. I will also fight to extend reproductive health care and education to every corner of the country. I’ll oppose further restrictions before that point, and vehemently oppose end-around tactics like the defunding of training mentioned earlier. ---
**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 27, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2519 "2011-05-27T04:15:05Z")
So, AV, what do you think would happen if all abortion laws among the various U.S. states ceased to exist? Worst-case scenario. Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2520 "2011-05-27T04:36:12Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > And as long as people continue to try to push permissible abortions past the point where I consider the fetus enough of a person worth defending, I’ll keep doing so. Seriously, do you think people have abortions past your personal comfort zone just because they were too lazy to get around to it? There have been plenty of cites in here showing that almost all later abortions are done because the fetus has some sort of devastating issue. Would you rather these be brought to term, perhaps risking the life of the woman, certainly costing quite a bit of money, only so the parents can watch it die and perhaps suffer as it does so? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=125) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=127)