# 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:** 129
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2561 "2011-05-27T22:46:41Z")
The links you posted don’t say that a sperm is a human. I asked for a cite that stated that sperm is a human being. ---
**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 28, 2011, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2562 "2011-05-28T02:52:02Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So ignoring the links I provided prior, I do remember specifically saying in post #2,332 that the fact that many states had proposeed gay marriage laws on their ballots were purely incidental, though it did help the Republicans overall. As far as gay marriage being a big issue, again, [incorrect](http://www.thetaskforceactionfund.org/studies_analyses/2004electionandmarriage.pdf). “Purely” incidental? As though it was a mere coincidence? I daresay if abortion could be made as significant a factor in the state races (and if it is “more” important than gay marriage), I can’t imagine the Republicans passing on such an opportunity. > [@](#): > > Rest assured that if a state ever amends its constitution to ban abortion, SCOTUS will eventually end up taking it. I just wanted to be sure after multiple references to “the constitution” (meaning the national one), I didn’t waste time challenging a sudden and specious argument about a _state_ constitution. > [@](#): > > Well, for one, you can’t argue whether an action is just or injust while ignoring the effects that action has on another. Oh, that’s clearly a mis-statement of my position. I’m not ignoring the effect on the fetus - I just see other priorities in play, i.e. that a woman is involved and that she exists, inconvenient though she might be to the pro-life stance. > [@](#): > > Anyway, ah yes, victimology. That’s what it is. Absolutely, with complaints of activist courts and crammed throats and whatnot. It’s not conceivable that the courts are defending individual freedoms - no, they act solely to spit in the face of hardworking Christian Americans. > [@](#): > > I happen to like this quote, which comes from McCorvey v. Hill a few years back when Norma McCorvey tried to get Roe v. Wade reversed: It’s worth noting that while the author of that quote, Edith Jones, expresses misgivings, she did not side with McCorvey. Truth be told, I’m not sure what effect McCorvey’s change-of-mind is supposed to have had. Overturn _Roe_? Even if that happened, later rulings have followed similar lines. Besides, what difference does it make if McCorvey herself feels guilty about being the “Roe” in _Roe_? Does she feel that she should _not_ have been given the choice? That other women should not be given the choice? I think you’ve mentioned her change-of-heart a few times, actually, and it’s never been clear to mean just what it was supposed to prove. > [@](#): > > Which, again, seems to be working since (1) going back to 1980, Republicans have won more presidential elections than Democrats (even though Democrats have more registered) voters and (2) Planned Parenthood v. Casey being decided 5 - 4 versus the 7 - 2 decision of Roe v. Wade. But I’d rather not argue like that, personally. Why? It looks like this is your best avenue for supplanting _Roe_. Of course, if it fails for lack of popular support or a lack of follow-through from Republicans who use the issue to get elected but have no interest in actually doing anything about it once in office, you won’t be able to blame liberals or the courts any more. Or maybe you still will, I don’t know. > [@](#): > > Except there’ve actually been serious amendments to try to ban abortion via the Constitution. None serious with gay marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment isn’t “serious” ? It looks pretty serious to me, considering how many times congress addressed it from 2002-2006, with votes split mostly along party lines. > [@](#): > > It’s just as I said. A majority of people could believe something should be a certain way, but that doesn’t translate to being able to amend the Constitution to reflect it. Because individual rights are important? > [@](#): > > So you’re saying that if something happens when it’s illegal, that making it legal tomorrow wouldn’t constitute “that big of a change” even if making it illegal overturns all but the laws of four states? Not if the illegality had been pretty porous already. It’s like overturning Prohibition - anybody who’d really wanted a drink had already found avenues to get one, and enforcement was just a waste of time. > [@](#): > > Well, unless you’re going to assume that 90% of pro-lifers disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn’t have to worry about that. I’m kind of curious if pro-lifers can handle the problems of the society they want to create, truth be told, what with doctors jailed or driven out, more poverty, the occasional scandal when a pro-life spokesperson tries to quietly take their teenage daughter out of state for the procedure… > [@](#): > > But since you asked, if that happened, then we’d get legalized abortion again as those people clamoring for legalized abortion would just vote in people they agree with, and they’d make new laws indicative of what the people want. Pretty simple, really. Sure. A lot of damage gets done in the process, but… y’know… omelettes and eggs. > [@](#): > > Yes, it was my cite, but now I’m not the one saying that it doesn’t much matter because society didn’t much care for women back then, anyway. You didn’t have to. We did it for you, free of charge. ---
**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 28, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2563 "2011-05-28T02:53:24Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > The links you posted don’t say that a sperm is a human. I asked for a cite that stated that sperm is a human being. Actually, the quote that was linked asked for cites that sperm contained human life and that what was provided. [QUOTE= classyladyhp] Show me a cite, post a link that actually says sperm contains human life. Either you are incredibly stupid, insane or both. Once again. A sperm is not a human. If ti joins with an egg cell and fertilizes the egg cell then a human is created. some sense into yourself. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2564 "2011-05-28T03:11:38Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > The problem is, the “point” that you consider anything worth anything is irrelevant in the face of real women with real pregnancies in real crises. Your consideration of the worth of a fetus flies directly in the face of a real family considering whether or not they can face months of a pregnancy carrying a fetus that will never live, or will live only briefly and in agony. Your consideration of the worth of a fetus flies directly in the face of a woman considering whether or not her cancer treatment can wait another 14, 18, 20 weeks. > > I saw a picture from a protest sign just this evening that said “politicians make lousy physicians.” Not only is that true, uninvolved bystanders make even worse ones. The only fetus you have any reasonable claim to determine the worth of is the one inside your own uterus. Beyond that, you’re meddling into real people’s lives, imposing your own beliefs in a fashion that has real world consequences that you will never ever bear. > > Why are you and your considerations possibly that important? This, particularly the last sentence. > [@AlienVessels](#): > > It’s not merely about comfort zone. It’s about moral stance. The more the fetus resembles a person, the more I am morally obligated to influence society in the direction of focusing maximal resources towards education, early detection and early resolution, and away from late term abortions. > > Pretty sure I’ve said more than once that the health of the mother is major factor. If I failed to do so, I’m doing so now. I’d certainly also factor in the chances of quality of life if there are serious defects with the fetus. Why are your morals and decisions based on them more important than the morals and decisions based on those of the woman who is pregnant (to steal a theme from **tumbleddown** )? Are you so sure of your morals and beliefs that you would have no problem with forcing them on others? Really, no matter how often you want to deny it, if you are trying to curtail choice in any way, you are on the side of the anti-abortionists. Slippery slope and all that. > [@pikey\_pete](#): > > I’m anti-abortion, but pro-choice. for me abortion is kind of a deal breaker if I’m the father Deal breaker? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2565 "2011-05-28T03:43:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Deal breaker? Either he means he doesn’t have sex with someone who’d have an abortion, or he’s deluded himself into thinking he’s got any moral or legal say in the matter. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2566 "2011-05-28T04:04:47Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Either he means he doesn’t have sex with someone who’d have an abortion, or he’s deluded himself into thinking he’s got any moral or legal say in the matter. Wouldn’t those be the same thing? I mean, even asking that prior to sex means he’s deluded about his say in the matter since a woman has the right to change her mind at any time. (About anything!) ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2567 "2011-05-28T04:29:43Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > It’s not merely about comfort zone. It’s about moral stance. The more the fetus resembles a person, the more I am morally obligated to influence society in the direction of focusing maximal resources towards education, early detection and early resolution, and away from late term abortions. Which is a lot of words that signify little, as the vast majority of abortions are not late term, and the vast majority of late term abortions are performed specifically due to health concerns for mother or fetus. Meanwhile, you’re advocating on the side that doesn’t care why or when, they just want all abortions stopped. This “resemblance to a person” canard is exactly the _appeal to emotion_ that is used by people who stand on the side of the road with photos of a 28 week fetus that was miscarried and try to pretend that it’s a 10 week fetus after a vacuum extraction termination. And frankly, I don’t care if a fetus I’m carrying is the spitting image of my dead father or its father or me, for that matter, if continuing to carry it is going to make me suicidal, or keep me from getting cancer treatment or cause me to lose my job, therefore leaving me unable to feed my existing children or keep a roof over our heads. So long as it’s in my uterus, your opinion of its resemblance to whatever is moot. > [@](#): > > I oppose the pro-life people even more strongly. I certainly support unrestricted access to first trimester abortions even in the case of underage minors. You oppose them so hard that you’re parroting all of their major talking points, just moving the timeline past the first trimester as if that’s meaningful. > [@](#): > > Wipe the foam off your mouth. Like hell. I’m a woman of reproductive age. This is my life and my health and my interests on the line, being debated like it’s an appropriation for a new research plant in Paducah or some such shit. This is _my_ ability to access reproductive healthcare being bandied about like a political football in 51 different legislative bodies. This is about me and every woman like me being able to go visit our doctor without being hectored and harassed on a public street as if that’s ever acceptable. You dislike me being passionate about that then quit opposing me, if you claim to not be on the side of the anti-abortion faction, and the get the hell out of the way. > [@](#): > > My considerations are important because I have a vote and I can influence the votes of others. So which of your personal decisions do you think we should put up to a vote? What medical procedures would you like a legislator deciding whether or not you can have? What decisions are you okay with being legally forced to endure mandated counseling or non-indicated and invasive medical procedures beforehand for someone else’s satisfaction? Which of your neighbors are you going to accompany to their next doctor’s appointment to second guess their doctor’s counsel and their decisions about what they should do about the state of their own bodies? These are not public decisions. Women’s wombs are not public property. Your right to interfere with what happens in them is nil. The fact that you think that it’s appropriate to try to use public interference to control women’s reproduction is horrifying. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Suppose a state like South Dakota passes some truly egregious law (i.e. before a woman can get an abortion, she must volunteer for a week at a neonatal ICU) South Dakota already did one better. As of July 2011, any woman who wants to have an abortion there (at the one clinic) has to go through counseling, which has not been statutorily defined nor limited, at a crisis pregnancy center, a Christian-run, non-medical facility with volunteer-trained, non-medical and non-psychological counselors. It is only after a woman presents a signed certificate attesting that she endured such counseling (which can, from investigations into CPCs nationwide, last as long as _six hours_) that she may legally terminate a pregnancy. As a fun little spanner in the works, none of the crisis pregnancy centers in South Dakota are willing to provide this counseling and certification (gee, wonder why, and wonder if that wasn’t the point all along?) so as of July, no woman in South Dakota will be able to have a legal abortion in the state. ---
**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 28, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2568 "2011-05-28T04:47:56Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > As a fun little spanner in the works, none of the crisis pregnancy centers in South Dakota are willing to provide this counseling and certification (gee, wonder why, and wonder if that wasn’t the point all along?) so as of July, no woman in South Dakota will be able to have a legal abortion in the state. Ah, the banality of evil. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2569 "2011-05-28T05:05:01Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Which is a lot of words that signify little, as the vast majority of abortions are not late term, and the vast majority of late term abortions are performed specifically due to health concerns for mother or fetus. Then apparently then in the “vast majority” of cases we seem to agree. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > Meanwhile, you’re advocating on the side that doesn’t care why or when, they just want all abortions stopped. This “resemblance to a person” canard is exactly the _appeal to emotion_ that is used by people who stand on the side of the road with photos of a 28 week fetus that was miscarried and try to pretend that it’s a 10 week fetus after a vacuum extraction termination. And people wonder why discussions of public policy turn into polarized hyperbole. > [@](#): > > And frankly, I don’t care if a fetus I’m carrying is the spitting image of my dead father or its father or me, for that matter, if continuing to carry it is going to make me suicidal, or keep me from getting cancer treatment or cause me to lose my job, therefore leaving me unable to feed my existing children or keep a roof over our heads. So long as it’s in my uterus, your opinion of its resemblance to whatever is moot. Turns out that’s not the case. If society can hijack my entire body (when I was of age) via the draft, it can make rules about abortion. > [@](#): > > You oppose them so hard that you’re parroting all of their major talking points, just moving the timeline past the first trimester as if that’s meaningful. I support unrestricted access to abortion during the first trimester. They would say I’m diametrically opposed to their position. Both cannot be true. > [@](#): > > Like hell. I’m a woman of reproductive age. This is my life and my health and my interests on the line, being debated like it’s an appropriation for a new research plant in Paducah or some such shit. This is _my_ ability to access reproductive healthcare being bandied about like a political football in 51 different legislative bodies. This is about me and every woman like me being able to go visit our doctor without being hectored and harassed on a public street as if that’s ever acceptable. You dislike me being passionate about that then quit opposing me, if you claim to not be on the side of the anti-abortion faction, and the get the hell out of the way. > > So which of your personal decisions do you think we should put up to a vote? What medical procedures would you like a legislator deciding whether or not you can have? What decisions are you okay with being legally forced to endure mandated counseling or non-indicated and invasive medical procedures beforehand for someone else’s satisfaction? Which of your neighbors are you going to accompany to their next doctor’s appointment to second guess their doctor’s counsel and their decisions about what they should do about the state of their own bodies? That’s what living in a society entails. It can do any or all of those things. > [@](#): > > These are not public decisions. Women’s wombs are not public property. Your right to interfere with what happens in them is nil. The fact that you think that it’s appropriate to try to use public interference to control women’s reproduction is horrifying. Your position that you can terminate a fetus one minute before birth for any or no reason whatsoever is equally horrifying to me. > [@](#): > > South Dakota already did one better. As of July 2011, any woman who wants to have an abortion there (at the one clinic) has to go through counseling, which has not been statutorily defined nor limited, at a crisis pregnancy center, a Christian-run, non-medical facility with volunteer-trained, non-medical and non-psychological counselors. It is only after a woman presents a signed certificate attesting that she endured such counseling (which can, from investigations into CPCs nationwide, last as long as _six hours_) that she may legally terminate a pregnancy. Yes, that’s a special kind of ignorance. Some of the state level representatives elected in just about every state are crazier than any of the people you see at the federal level. And as you point out, society CAN impose these restrictions. > [@](#): > > As a fun little spanner in the works, none of the crisis pregnancy centers in South Dakota are willing to provide this counseling and certification (gee, wonder why, and wonder if that wasn’t the point all along?) so as of July, no woman in South Dakota will be able to have a legal abortion in the state. The answer in these cases is to keep the pressure up and engage rationally. Accusing everyone that isn’t absolutely in agreement with you of being in diametrical opposition isn’t going to get you very far. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2570 "2011-05-28T05:56:13Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Wouldn’t those be the same thing? I mean, even asking that prior to sex means he’s deluded about his say in the matter since a woman has the right to change her mind at any time. (About anything!) Whilst you are right, one can always hope to get a straight answer out of a potential sexual partner concerning a matter directly related. Assuming everyone is fickle or dishonest is no way to live. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2571 "2011-05-28T05:59:14Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > And people wonder why discussions of public policy turn into polarized hyperbole. What, because idiots lie about what their grotesque signs are displaying, and shove them in the faces of anyone who might listen regardless of circumstances? Yeah, it is not generally the pro-choice side that resorts to crazy hyperbole. > [@](#): > > Turns out that’s not the case. If society can hijack my entire body (when I was of age) via the draft, it can make rules about abortion. When you break out “two wrongs make a right” in what’s an ostensibly serious discussion, you can’t expect to be taken seriously from that point forward. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2572 "2011-05-28T06:56:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > “Purely” incidental? As though it was a mere coincidence? I daresay if abortion could be made as significant a factor in the state races (and if it is “more” important than gay marriage), I can’t imagine the Republicans passing on such an opportunity. Yes, purely incidental. There was no grand Republican scheme to make gay marriage an issue to win at the ballot boxes. Again, gay marriage is just not that big of an issue, and most certainly isn’t close to being as important as abortion. > [@](#): > > Oh, that’s clearly a mis-statement of my position. I’m not ignoring the effect on the fetus - I just see other priorities in play, i.e. that a woman is involved and that she exists, inconvenient though she might be to the pro-life stance. And we’re back to this point. Essentially your argument is that because the woman exists, she can decide to act in any manner she chooses regardless of the effect it has on the unborn. Of course, when I take this logic and apply it elsewhere, you cry foul, as if it’s any less nonsense when used in your situation. I exist. I mean, really. Why can’t I do what I want with my body regardless of the effect it has on another? > [@](#): > > Absolutely, with complaints of activist courts and crammed throats and whatnot. It’s not conceivable that the courts are defending individual freedoms - no, they act solely to spit in the face of hardworking Christian Americans. It’s kind of hard to defend a freedom which doesn’t exist-- except in the ‘penumbra’ and ‘emanations’ of the Constitution, which requires you to hold the Constitution at just the perfect angle to be able to find. > [@](#): > > It’s worth noting that while the author of that quote, Edith Jones, expresses misgivings, she did not side with McCorvey. Not because she didn’t want to, but because she couldn’t. The statute of limitations had passed. > [@](#): > > Truth be told, I’m not sure what effect McCorvey’s change-of-mind is supposed to have had. Overturn _Roe_? Even if that happened, later rulings have followed similar lines. Highly doubtful. > [@](#): > > Besides, what difference does it make if McCorvey herself feels guilty about being the “Roe” in _Roe_? Does she feel that she should _not_ have been given the choice? That other women should not be given the choice? I think you’ve mentioned her change-of-heart a few times, actually, and it’s never been clear to mean just what it was supposed to prove. It’s not supposed to prove anything. I just find it… ironic… that one of the most iconic women as it relates to abortion in the U.S. is now a pro-life advocate. In fact, so is the other one (Sandra Cano, the “Doe” of Doe v. Bolton), who even testified that she was forced by her attorney to argue abortion in court. Just indicative of how the abortion debate is as a whole goes. > [@](#): > > Why? It looks like this is your best avenue for supplanting _Roe_. Of course, if it fails for lack of popular support or a lack of follow-through from Republicans who use the issue to get elected but have no interest in actually doing anything about it once in office, you won’t be able to blame liberals or the courts any more. Or maybe you still will, I don’t know. Whereas Democrats only use the abortion card because it works on college educated White women, Republicans actually do more to live up to their promises when it comes to abortion. > [@](#): > > The Federal Marriage Amendment isn’t “serious” ? It looks pretty serious to me, considering how many times congress addressed it from 2002-2006, with votes split mostly along party lines. That’s just what I said. > [@](#): > > Because individual rights are important? Not if they come at the expense of another’s life, they don’t. Honestly, your argument was just as easily applied to slavery. > [@](#): > > Not if the illegality had been pretty porous already. It’s like overturning Prohibition - anybody who’d really wanted a drink had already found avenues to get one, and enforcement was just a waste of time. So you think that making abortions illegal wouldn’t change their incidence? > [@](#): > > I’m kind of curious if pro-lifers can handle the problems of the society they want to create, truth be told, what with doctors jailed or driven out, more poverty, the occasional scandal when a pro-life spokesperson tries to quietly take their teenage daughter out of state for the procedure… You wouldn’t happen to be fearmongering, now would you? > [@](#): > > Sure. A lot of damage gets done in the process, but… y’know… omelettes and eggs. Only assuming you think that’d happen which, for the record, it won’t. > [@](#): > > You didn’t have to. We did it for you, free of charge. And thus were content to play a game you can’t lose. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Why are your morals and decisions based on them more important than the morals and decisions based on those of the woman who is pregnant (to steal a theme from **tumbleddown** )? Are you so sure of your morals and beliefs that you would have no problem with forcing them on others? See? There goes that “not forcing your beliefs on others” line again that pro-choicers like to use. I’d like to know what planet some people live where the morals of the majority of the majority are not > [@tumbleddown](#): > > Like hell. I’m a woman of reproductive age. This is my life and my health and my interests on the line, being debated like it’s an appropriation for a new research plant in Paducah or some such shit. This is _my_ ability to access reproductive healthcare being bandied about like a political football in 51 different legislative bodies. This is about me and every woman like me being able to go visit our doctor without being hectored and harassed on a public street as if that’s ever acceptable. You dislike me being passionate about that then quit opposing me, if you claim to not be on the side of the anti-abortion faction, and the get the hell out of the way. I find it funny how you can totally go on about your life and your health and your interests and whatever else while negating the existence of the unborn. I ask this question a lot, but whose life does unborn belong to? It’s kind of odd to argue that it’s wrong for someone to impose on you, but it’s not okay for you to impose on the unborn. And get more people to agree with you and to negate the existence of the unborn, and maybe you wouldn’t have to worry about “being bandied about like a political football”. (And have I said how much I just absolutely adore the phrase “reproductive healthcare”? Euphemisms always make me laugh.) > [@tumbleddown](#): > > As a fun little spanner in the works, none of the crisis pregnancy centers in South Dakota are willing to provide this counseling and certification (gee, wonder why, and wonder if that wasn’t the point all along?) so as of July, no woman in South Dakota will be able to have a legal abortion in the state. I would like to place a wager on this assertion. Care to take it? > [@Zeriel](#): > > What, because idiots lie about what their grotesque signs are displaying, and shove them in the faces of anyone who might listen regardless of circumstances? Yeah, it is not generally the pro-choice side that resorts to crazy hyperbole. You don’t think “hundreds of thousands of women will die from coat hanger abortions if abortion is made illegal” to be hyperbole? ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2573 "2011-05-28T07:06:21Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > What, because idiots lie about what their grotesque signs are displaying, and shove them in the faces of anyone who might listen regardless of circumstances? Yeah, it is not generally the pro-choice side that resorts to crazy hyperbole. If you do say so yourself. When someone starts announcing the score like that, my skepticism alarm goes berserk. > [@](#): > > When you break out “two wrongs make a right” in what’s an ostensibly serious discussion, you can’t expect to be taken seriously from that point forward. That’s only fair, I stopped taking you seriously a while back. Society is about compromise. Anyone that thinks in absolutes is probably going to be marginalized and not taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2574 "2011-05-28T08:53:47Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Turns out that’s not the case. If society can hijack my entire body (when I was of age) via the draft, it can make rules about abortion. That you actually think that is an apt comparison then there’s no reason to go any further. I note that you didn’t answer my most crucial questions: which medical procedure are you okay with legislators meddling in your ability to receive? Which neighbors will you be accompanying to their doctor appointments to get in your vote on what they should do with their bodies? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2575 "2011-05-28T12:20:51Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > That you actually think that is an apt comparison then there’s no reason to go any further. I actually think the draft is a somewhat appropriate comparison. Let’s face it, we might debate personal liberty and right and wrong but the government can tell individuals what to do or what not to do with their bodies. The draft insists that someone risks their body , even their very life, or go to jail. It insists on putting the body through rigorous training. Nothing is perfectly analogous but I think the draft makes the point **AV** was trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2576 "2011-05-28T12:41:44Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Actually, the quote that was linked asked for cites that sperm contained human life and that what was provided. No. The links did not say sperm contains human life. Sperm is part of a male. It is a haploid cell. It does not contain human life. Sperm joined with an egg creates human life:rolleyes: Then again your pro-choice position is based only on YOUR religious beliefs. Oh and surprise surprise you’re back again. You remind of that famous scene in movies where the person is really uspet and makes this dramatic exit and then comes back into the room because they forgot something and they completely embarrass themselves. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2577 "2011-05-28T12:44:41Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Show me a cite, post a link that actually says sperm contains human life. Either you are incredibly stupid, insane or both. > Once again. A sperm is not a human. If ti joins with an egg cell and fertilizes the egg cell then a human is created. :smack:some sense into yourself. You make me feel so sad for you. I will just agree to disagree with you as it would seem you are too filled with hate to debate!!! ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2578 "2011-05-28T12:48:18Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > You make me feel so sad for you. I will just agree to disagree with you as it would seem you are too filled with hate to debate!!! I am filled with hate for stupid people such as yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2579 "2011-05-28T13:11:43Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I am filled with hate for stupid people such as yourself. classy, are you a member of any organized religion? I was just thinking, if you are Christian, I’d remind you of John 3:16. Shouldn’t even have to look that one up. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2580 "2011-05-28T13:13:26Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > classy, are you a member of any organized religion? I was just thinking, if you are Christian, I’d remind you of John 3:16. Shouldn’t even have to look that one up. I have nothing to say to you and none of your damn business what my religion is. I would never discuss that with the likes of you. Shouldn’t you be at daycare this morning? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=128) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=130)