# 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:** 131
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2601 "2011-05-28T19:06:50Z")
All right. You expressed that in a weird and ambiguous way but fine. Then why get hung up on what contains human life and what doesn’t, if you’re dismissing that anyway when arbitrarily asserting that this is a human being and that is not ? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2602 "2011-05-28T19:10:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m confident that you’re wrong, and I recognize the possibility that you choosing to believe this is a symptom that your individual perspective is biased, i.e. you want to believe it, there you can’t be trusted to believe it. I can only suggest you check with higher authority. Oh? I’m wrong. All right. Use the internet and prove that I’m wrong. The information (should be) is out there. > [@](#): > > …Well, okay, if you want to rape an unborn individual inside you, be my guest. The “foul” part of your analogies is you keep dropping the critical element, i.e. that it involves someone being inside your body. > > If the “another” is inside you, go ahead. Every time you drop this critical element and claim I’m suggesting a license to rape and murder, you display your irrational inability to maintain constancy, like an infant who thinks an object ceases to exists when it disappears from view. And here is the problem. A problem I’ve highlighted numerous times. You continue to assert that the two are different because one is inside of one’s body and the other not, but when I ask you “Why that’s important?”, you tell me because one is outside of the body of another individual and one isn’t. Surely, you know what begging the question is, don’t you? If you’re going to argue that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to act against another regardless of the effects it has on them, then the “inside or outside of one’s body” thing is completely inconsequential. Why, exactly, don’t you understand this? You don’t get to make up a different set of rules based on circumstances as it suits you. Before you tell someone else of their inability to ramain consistent, I think you should examine your argument. …If all the pro-choicers in Canada argue as you, I can understand why they tend to try to suppress pro-lifers from arguing. > [@](#): > > Meh, I’m of the position that all freedoms exist by default unless the state can demonstrate a good reason why a particular freedom should not. Preventing violent crimes like rape and murder are perfectly sound, of course. Preventing abortion… rather less so, and I haven’t seen anything compelling presented in this or any earlier thread. I can vaguely imagine circumstances changing so the state _could_ have a valid argument to ban abortion, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. So preventing rape and murder and wrong because of the effects they have on another human, but sucking the unborn right out the uterus and letting it die, collapsing its head, dismembering it into hundreds of cute little pieces or stopping its heartbeat all are perfectly acceptable? REALLY…??? > [@](#): > > Do you believe you only have the freedoms your government allows you to have, or do they only have the laws you allow them to have? Just curious. I figure the 10th Amendment supports me. So where was the 10th Amendment when deciding Roe v. Wade, huh? But it’s nice to know you support making abortion an issue of states rights. I can get behind that! > [@](#): > > Well, I’m sure someone with some constitutional expertise can weigh in sooner or later on the possible effects of a _Roe_ withdrawal. The mechanism for withdrawal exists, so presumably it’s been done before and since, though perhaps on not such a pivotal case. Withdrawal for what? She didn’t have an abortion. > [@](#): > > Heh, there’s that “as a whole” thing, again. As far as I can tell, you’re the only one in this thread who has invoked McCorvey’s later regrets, and now you’re doing so with Cano. > > Well, as long as you admit it doesn’t prove anything, I feel safe in just shrugging it off. Ummm, yeah. I’m the only one bringing them up. I never claimed otherwise. I’m just doing it because of the irony. > [@](#): > > I don’t actually know what Democrats promise to college educated white women, though I presume this is a group that overall wants abortion to remain legal and accessible. That’s the portion of their base which cares the most about abortion-- a base the Democrats don’t want to lose, since it’s pretty much been the most reliable. > [@](#): > > And I guess we can see the results of Republicans following through with recent proposed legislation denying federal funding the medical schools that teach abortion procedures, doing what they can to restrict access, ignoring consequences for short-term political gain… Consequences such as? Oh, wait. I know. You’re going to mention something about ‘ectopic pregnancies’ or the latter, right? > [@](#): > > Then we have different interpretations of the word “serious”, and I note that yours seems especially and conveniently flexible. No. When I say serious, I mean “spending actual time on it”. It’s a passing thought. > [@](#): > > Slavery arguments involved people being inside the bodies of other people, then? How novel. See one of my earlier responses on this. > [@](#): > > Sure, it would. You’d get some extra unwanted babies born into the world, hurray, along with a variety of negative effects that you can’t or won’t recognize. Such as? You keep telling me about these negative effects but you never elaborate on them. > [@](#): > > Your position is such that any analysis I could give about the negative effects of an abortion ban could be rationalized away as “fearmongering”. I can refer you to the “the only moral abortion is MY abortion” link, if it’ll matter. Uh-huh… See, this the problem. You state all these negative effects will happen if abortion is made illegal, but when I ask for you for evidence which would lead to any indication that these negative effects would happen (see that other thread), you then admit that you can’t but that you think it’s reasonable said negative consequences would occur. Frankly, that’s not going to cut it. If you’re going to make assertions, I want to see what you’re basing your assertion on. Therefore again I ask you, show me something which showed that making abortion legal reduced poverty for if you can then I’ll give your argument that if we make abortion illegal that the poverty rate will go up seriously. Of course I’ve asked this before yet you can’t prove it, on account of it’s not true. It’s an oversimplification. Making abortion legal/illegal comes with changes in behavior. One of the consequences of making abortion illegal is that women will use contraceptives more frequently than they do when it’s illegal, and that women will become less pregnant less often than they would if abortion were legal. Women who especially couldn’t afford to take care of a child would be less apt to become pregnant. Opportunity costs and all that. [An interesting read, for you.](http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html) > [@](#): > > What “record” are you talking about? The loss of gynecological services when Planned Parenthood clinics get driven out of town because pro-lifers ignorantly think the vast majority of their services are abortion related? You, ugh… Do realize that Planned Parenthood only service a minority of women in the U.S., correct? You keep making this argument, yet I wonder what the basis upon which you’re doing so is. > [@](#): > > You’re right - we won, you lost. Maybe you can try to claim a kind of victory through martyrdom, see how well that works out for you. Yeah, you won all right. You won by arguing first that abortions weren’t restricted in the 19th century based on some moral view of the unborn, and then arguing that even if they were they might not have been done because women wanted to (even, of course, if the underlying reason women aborted was because the idea that the unborn wasn’t alive during quickening to be based in faulty science). Yeah… ---
**Author:** ![Docta\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Docta\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Docta_G)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2603 "2011-05-28T19:12:55Z")
Get a hobby, for fuck’s sake. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2604 "2011-05-28T20:00:01Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I have no respect for you. You are the one who chose to come on heer and insult me first by saying that I was a 16 year old boy. You constantly chose to come here with no other purpose than to mock and ridicule me. Don’t go and play all innocent with me or act all high and mighty. Frankly it’s ridiculous. > Don’t try to claim you were just being curious because you know damn well you weren’t. You were being the same jerk that you always are. Buzz off. So you are a mind reader now. You can honestly tell I _didn’t_ mean that I was simply curious? If you aren’t a mind reader that means you have called me a liar. Sheesh, and you call ME insulting. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2605 "2011-05-28T20:35:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Oh? I’m wrong. All right. Use the internet and prove that I’m wrong. The information (should be) is out there. Sure, I could just dig up the quote where you agreed that individual desire displayed untrustable individual bias. > [@](#): > > And here is the problem. A problem I’ve highlighted numerous times. You continue to assert that the two are different because one is inside of one’s body and the other not, but when I ask you “Why that’s important?”, you tell me because one is outside of the body of another individual and one isn’t. You have to ask why having an unwanted object inside one’s body could be, y’know, undesirable in a personally important way? You never did answer my question about the trespasser, now that I recall. _Can_ someone just move into your house and have you be helpless to remove them? Is it important to you that you control who has access to your house? If so, why? And if not, you’re lying. > [@](#): > > Surely, you know what begging the question is, don’t you? If you’re going to argue that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to act against another regardless of the effects it has on them, then the “inside or outside of one’s body” thing is completely inconsequential. That you refuse to recognize its significance doesn’t make it inconsequential. > [@](#): > > …If all the pro-choicers in Canada argue as you, I can understand why they tend to try to suppress pro-lifers from arguing. Ah, _there’s_ your victimology at play! Nobody in Canada is being suppressed out of expressing a pro-life view, nor is there any tendency among pro-choicers to do so. I can understand why you might believe that this must be so, though: pro-choicers soundly won, therefore pro-lifers must have been suppressed, QED. > [@](#): > > So preventing rape and murder and wrong because of the effects they have on another human, but sucking the unborn right out the uterus and letting it die, collapsing its head, dismembering it into hundreds of cute little pieces or stopping its heartbeat all are perfectly acceptable? REALLY…??? Well, I’ve run the numbers and… yes, frankly. That’s a distinction I’m okay with, and blatant emotional appeals (“hundreds of cute little pieces”… really?) aren’t going to rule me. > [@](#): > > So where was the 10th Amendment when deciding Roe v. Wade, huh? But it’s nice to know you support making abortion an issue of states rights. I can get behind that! Well, there’s also a “to the people” part of that Amendment, but I understand you suffer from denial-blindness, where the inconvenient is made invisible. Anyway, I’m naturally suspicious of “states’ rights” arguments, seeing how they’ve been misused over the years. > [@](#): > > Withdrawal for what? She didn’t have an abortion. Your word games are tiresome. McCorvey was trying to overturn _Roe_, withdrawing her support for it, as if it mattered 30 years after the fact. I can understand if she feels guilty and I have some tiny amount of vague sympathy for her. > [@](#): > > That’s the portion of their base which cares the most about abortion-- a base the Democrats don’t want to lose, since it’s pretty much been the most reliable. Well, I’ll cheerfully admit my personal bias here - the party that counts on support from college-educated people vs. the party that counts on support from bible-thumping nitwits… yes, I guess I’d side with the former, if I was American. Fortunately, as a Canadian, bible-thumping nitwits play a much smaller, indeed minuscule, role in my country’s politics. > [@](#): > > Consequences such as? Oh, wait. I know. You’re going to mention something about ‘ectopic pregnancies’ or the latter, right? Well, I hadn’t mentioned them before, but okay… that’s one of the potential problems, and not because they’d be recognized as such and the doctors were legally prohibited from treating them, since I figure only the stupidest of pro-lifers would demand that abortion be forbidden in such a circumstance. Rather, I suspect an ectopic pregnancy might not even get _diagnosed_ in time because the shutting down of clinics post-ban has made it harder for some women to get pre-natal care of _any_ kind. Heck, lock up or delicense an OB/GYN for performing an abortion, and you lose _all_ the training that doctor has received and _all_ the treatment that doctor might have given, 95% of which might have nothing to do with abortion. > [@](#): > > No. When I say serious, I mean “spending actual time on it”. It’s a passing thought. The Federal Marriage Amendment was a passing thought, that just happened to pass repeatedly from 2002-2006? > [@](#): > > Such as? You keep telling me about these negative effects but you never elaborate on them. I’ve elaborated repeatedly, but your denial-blindness may be getting in the way. > [@](#): > > Uh-huh… See, this the problem. You state all these negative effects will happen if abortion is made illegal, but when I ask for you for evidence which would lead to any indication that these negative effects would happen (see that other thread), you then admit that you can’t but that you think it’s reasonable said negative consequences would occur. Frankly, that’s not going to cut it. Hey, at lest I’m applying _reason_ to the problem, as opposed to the wishful thinking that an abortion ban will make things better. At best, you can argue that nothing bad might happen because doctors will continue to perform abortions, though you don’t spell out what the penalties for this might be. In fact, you’re _very_ coy about what a ban might actually do to people who violate it, as though the simple passing of a ban would magically get the desired effect with no consequences. > [@](#): > > One of the consequences of making abortion illegal is that women will use contraceptives more frequently than they do when it’s illegal, and that women will become less pregnant less often than they would if abortion were legal. Women who especially couldn’t afford to take care of a child would be less apt to become pregnant. Opportunity costs and all that. Can’t you do that with education? I’m pretty sure it’ll cost less than enforcement. And if a woman can’t afford to take care of a child _and_ uses contraception _and_ the contraception fails (as contraception occasionally does), is all you can offer her a stern “Well, you stupid slut, you shoulda kept your legs closed.” > [@](#): > > [An interesting read, for you.](http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html) Well, right off the bat, there’s a big Jesus fish sitting there, but I’ll read the article anyway and do my best to keep an open mind. …Well, the author’s gist seems to be that abortion rates are not correlated with poverty, but with how much time has passed since 1980, i.e. the rate is steadily decreasing. The author’s final paragraph speculates on this: [QUOTE=Darwin] Why has abortion really been falling? I think it’s significant that the abortion rate is falling in such a tight correlation to the number of years since the peak. This indicates, it seems, some sort of self-correcting mechanism going on. Perhaps it’s partly a re-introduction of restrictions on abortion, both cultural and legal. Perhaps it’s partly a build-up of painful experience, which has overcome the initial impression that the costs of getting pregnant (and getting out of getting pregnant) are not as high as they were before 1973. Either way, it seems that some force that is building with time is continuing to drive the abortion rate down without any current signs of slowing. [/quote] I’d suggest that abortion rates may be dropping because of a decreasing stigma (at least in much of the U.S.) against telling teenagers about contraceptives, but I don’t expect that’s something a writer for “[darwincatholic.blogspot.com](http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com)” would be eager to emphasize. Anyway, I’m not sure how this paper challenges anything I’ve said, the gist of which is that lack of abortion access reinforces poverty. > [@](#): > > You, ugh… Do realize that Planned Parenthood only service a minority of women in the U.S., correct? You keep making this argument, yet I wonder what the basis upon which you’re doing so is. I think that was the first time in this thread I’d mentioned Planned Parenthood (I might be wrong, but don’t feel like going through all my previous posts to check). You can take it as a generic reference to OB/GYN clinics in general, though PP is notable because of that idiot John Kyl and his “well over 90%” statement, which was not some off-the-cuff remark, but a prepared comment read into the record of the U.S. Senate. Anyway, look at South Dakota for a real-life example of barriers thrown up between a woman and her gynecologist. > [@](#): > > Yeah, you won all right. You won by arguing first that abortions weren’t restricted in the 19th century based on some moral view of the unborn, and then arguing that even if they were they might not have been done because women wanted to (even, of course, if the underlying reason women aborted was because the idea that the unborn wasn’t alive during quickening to be based in faulty science). > > Yeah… Please, I won on much better grounds than _that_. I won because you brought a cite to the thread while being blithely ignorant of its historical context. It’s a trivial victory, to be sure, but feel free to keep dancing around like some kind of lion-chased martyr. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2606 "2011-05-28T22:30:30Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > 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. ??? I said I was back eons ago. I said I was taking you too seriously and I got over it and this issue (debating prochoice)was my weakness. God, your reading comprehension or retention is off. Explains a lot actually. And what exactly does my religion have to do with? Plus, I’ve said I disagree with many aspects of the Jewish position. I only brought up Judaism for specific reasons. Reading/retention. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2607 "2011-05-28T22:58:46Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I have no respect for you. You are the one who chose to come on heer and insult me first by saying that I was a 16 year old boy. You constantly chose to come here with no other purpose than to mock and ridicule me. Don’t go and play all innocent with me or act all high and mighty. Frankly it’s ridiculous. > Don’t try to claim you were just being curious because you know damn well you weren’t. You were being the same jerk that you always are. Buzz off. This is false. In the first place, you immediately began cursing at **Baker** when he used a rather common gender-neutral pronoun to refer to you. **Baker** later said that he was inclining towards the idea that you are a 16 year-old boy. That does not mean he said you are. What is certain is that you have a very tenuous grasp on the English language. You don’t even have that much of a grasp on your temper. And manners, well you have none of those unless you count bad manners. ---
**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 29, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2608 "2011-05-29T00:37:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You have to ask why having an unwanted object inside one’s body could be, y’know, undesirable in a personally important way? That’s great, but it doesn’t explain why the location of the individual you are doing to is important. Are you ever going to bother explaining why? > [@](#): > > You never did answer my question about the trespasser, now that I recall. _Can_ someone just move into your house and have you be helpless to remove them? Is it important to you that you control who has access to your house? If so, why? And if not, you’re lying. I did answer it, and I’ll answer it again. You cannot kill them. If you do, you’ll go to jail. If you unwillingly dragged that person into your home, then you most certainly can’t throw him out and have him die, as that’d probably be kidnapping plus neglect 😛 > [@](#): > > That you refuse to recognize its significance doesn’t make it inconsequential. “Just because you refuse to recognize its significance doesn’t make it inconsequential” isn’t a response; it’s an evasionary tactic. I’m asking you **why** it’s important. Your absolute refusal to try to justify why it’s important without merely stating it’s important is proof that you really can’t provide any justification for why the fact that it’s her body is important. > [@](#): > > Ah, _there’s_ your victimology at play! Nobody in Canada is being suppressed out of expressing a pro-life view, nor is there any tendency among pro-choicers to do so. I can understand why you might believe that this must be so, though: pro-choicers soundly won, therefore pro-lifers must have been suppressed, QED. You know, you might want to spend a little more time paying attention to what happens in your own country, so you wouldn’t miss stuff like [this](http://alxweber.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/free-speech-on-campus/). > [@](#): > > Pro-life student groups are facing opposition on two university campuses. The women’s centre at Carleton University has put forth a motion to make the student council a pro-choice body, and preclude it from supporting any group whose primary goal is to make abortion illegal. The Carleton University Students’ Association is to vote today. Meanwhile, the University of British Columbia Okanagan student council is denying Students for Life official club status, even though UBC’s Vancouver campus has granted it such status. Spokespeople for both pro-life organizations assert that both sides of the issue should be allowed free speech. Or [this](http://academica.ca/node/2027). > [@](#): > > York University’s Federation of Students has tabled a ban on pro-life clubs. Student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space only within “a pro-choice realm,” and all clubs will be subject to investigation to ensure compliance. Or [this](http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/862012352.html). > [@](#): > > This action at York University comes in the wake of statements by the Canadian Federation of Students (of which the YFS is a part) comparing pro-life student groups to the KKK, and announcing their intention to support student unions who ban pro-life student clubs. “Salter also compared pro-lifers to the KKK,” concludes Fung, “And such comparisons are incredibly ignorant and, quite frankly, hurtful.” Or, well… You get the point. That’s enough at the moment. But I’m sure you’re going to tell me how “No one is being suppressed out of their pro-life views” or whatever other nonsense you want to say. Again, as I say, the reason pro-choicers tend to try to suppress debate between themselves and pro-lifers is because, in the grand scheme, they can’t win. This is precisely the reason why Canada has no real debate on abortion nor any laws on abortion, and probably won’t for a long while-- because whenever someone mentions the ‘a’ word, the pro-choice contingent up there in Canada goes ballistic. Tell me this isn’t true, too, because there are numerous recent examples of this, especially with the recent Harper election. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ve run the numbers and… yes, frankly. That’s a distinction I’m okay with, and blatant emotional appeals (“hundreds of cute little pieces”… really?) aren’t going to rule me. Except it wasn’t mean to “sway” you. Obviously, you can’t tell facetiousness over the internet. Of course the point, which you missed, is that you somehow think rape and murder are not okay, but the dismemberment and otherwise pretty brutal killing of the unborn to be perfectly acceptable. There’s really some odd there in that rationalization but you won’t see it. > [@](#): > > Well, there’s also a “to the people” part of that Amendment, but I understand you suffer from denial-blindness, where the inconvenient is made invisible. Anyway, I’m naturally suspicious of “states’ rights” arguments, seeing how they’ve been misused over the years. The tenth amendment allows for the states to set their own laws so long as they neither violate the laws of the Federal government or are prohibited from doing so. “To the people” means to the populace of a state, which elects officials to set the state’s laws. I have no idea what the hell you’re on about concerning the latter, because it seems to me you’re trying to assert that “to the people” means to the individual who therefore sets the law for his or herself, which is asinine, not to mention ridiculous. …And how can you be “naturally suspicious” of states rights when **YOU** brought up the 10th Amendment as an arguing point? Disingenuous, much? > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll cheerfully admit my personal bias here - the party that counts on support from college-educated people vs. the party that counts on support from bible-thumping nitwits… yes, I guess I’d side with the former, if I was American. Just so you know, Republicans, as a whole, tend to be better among the college educated (Bachelor’s), where a large portion of their base have less than a college education or post-graduate degrees. Oh, and Catholics make up a rather large majority of the Democratic base and are usually rather reliable Democratic votes, since you want to talk about bible thumping and all. > [@](#): > > Fortunately, as a Canadian, bible-thumping nitwits play a much smaller, indeed minuscule, role in my country’s politics. As I’m sure you’re well aware, Canada has no abortion law. > [@](#): > > The Federal Marriage Amendment was a passing thought, that just happened to pass repeatedly from 2002-2006? That’s just what I said. Voted on once in each period, quickly tabled and forgotten about. > [@](#): > > I’ve elaborated repeatedly, but your denial-blindness may be getting in the way. Indeed, you haven’t. I end up usually having to ask you the same question over and over and over again, and then you might sorta’-kinda’ elaborate. And when I ask for proof, you say you don’t have any or give me something you think is “probable”. > [@](#): > > Hey, at lest I’m applying _reason_ to the problem, as opposed to the wishful thinking that an abortion ban will make things better. At best, you can argue that nothing bad might happen because doctors will continue to perform abortions, though you don’t spell out what the penalties for this might be. In fact, you’re _very_ coy about what a ban might actually do to people who violate it, as though the simple passing of a ban would magically get the desired effect with no consequences. A reason devoid of any cause as to why it would happen. That’s called fearmongering, as I said prior. Oh, and just because you don’t understand the status quo pre-Roe v. Wade, doesn’t mean I’ve been coy about spelling out penalties or whatever. > [@](#): > > Can’t you do that with education? I’m pretty sure it’ll cost less than enforcement. And if a woman can’t afford to take care of a child _and_ uses contraception _and_ the contraception fails (as contraception occasionally does), is all you can offer her a stern “Well, you stupid slut, you shoulda kept your legs closed.” No. Women aren’t less likely to get pregnant the higher up they go in education. They are, however, more likely to abort should they get pregnant. Again, you seemed to note what I was talking about. Making abortions illegal makes women less likely to get pregnant in the first place because it causes contraceptive use to go up. This is an undeniable fact borne out of evidence. > [@](#): > > Well, right off the bat, there’s a big Jesus fish sitting there, but I’ll read the article anyway and do my best to keep an open mind. And? Someone posted a site from “Atheism About”. I didn’t complain. > [@](#): > > I’d suggest that abortion rates may be dropping because of a decreasing stigma (at least in much of the U.S.) against telling teenagers about contraceptives, but I don’t expect that’s something a writer for “[darwincatholic.blogspot.com](http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com)” would be eager to emphasize. Yeah, because Catholics don’t use birth control, or use it at a lesser instance than does the general population ([they don’t](http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9990)). But, no, abortion rates are dropping because more women are choosing to keep their pregnancies when they get pregnant. Contraceptive use has pretty much been steady, though some contraceptives have become more popular while others less popular. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I’m not sure how this paper challenges anything I’ve said, the gist of which is that lack of abortion access reinforces poverty. You’ve said, on more than one occassion, that if we were to make abortion illegal that poverty would increase. I’m still waiting for you to substantiate this claim with some kind of evidence. > [@](#): > > I think that was the first time in this thread I’d mentioned Planned Parenthood (I might be wrong, but don’t feel like going through all my previous posts to check). You can take it as a generic reference to OB/GYN clinics in general, though PP is notable because of that idiot John Kyl and his “well over 90%” statement, which was not some off-the-cuff remark, but a prepared comment read into the record of the U.S. Senate. We’ll just file that next to the “there were 1M+ illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade and \ died from those abortions” statements. > [@](#): > > Anyway, look at South Dakota for a real-life example of barriers thrown up between a woman and her gynecologist. Even if that OB/GYN doesn’t perform abortions? Which (s)he probably doesn’t? > [@](#): > > Please, I won on much better grounds than _that_. I won because you brought a cite to the thread while being blithely ignorant of its historical context. You say that the early abortion laws weren’t influenced by any moral views of the fetus. When I say they were, and link writings by the AMA, you tell me that it doesn’t mean anything because it’s not what women wanted. When I point out that the early feminists championed against abortion, you say “Well, women just want to control women”. So what evidence, exactly, can I present that you won’t discredit? The answer? None. You’re just playing a game you can’t lose, as I said. > [@](#): > > It’s a trivial victory, to be sure, but feel free to keep dancing around like some kind of lion-chased martyr. You should look up the definition of a victory. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2609 "2011-05-29T00:51:01Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s great, but it doesn’t explain why the location of the individual you are doing to is important. Are you ever going to bother explaining why? ``` That's an obfuscatory example of obtusosity (which should be a word even if it isn't) worthy of a Presidential candidate. Seeing as how the Repubs are basically drawing short straws amongst their truly meagre choices for candidates, somebody needs to nominate OMGABC to the ticket. I say get him and Sarah Palin in the same room. Maybe we could tell one of them that the other is a Democrat. ``` ---
**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 29, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2610 "2011-05-29T00:57:25Z")
> [@margin](#): > > That’s an obfuscatory example of obtusosity (which should be a word even if it isn’t) worthy of a Presidential candidate. Seeing as how the Repubs are basically drawing short straws amongst their truly meagre choices for candidates, somebody needs to nominate OMGABC to the ticket. I say get him and Sarah Palin in the same room. Maybe we could tell one of them that the other is a Democrat. It is? Naw, it isn’t. Aside from the fact that a minority of people support unrestricted abortion whenever (which, you know, you’d expect one to if they were treating where the location of the individual you’re doing to as important), if you’re going to constantly assert that where the location of one is to be the determining factor in whether someone or not is allowed to engage in a certain action, you need to explain why location is important. Simply stating that it’s important really-- I mean, _ **really** _– doesn’t help your cause. I’ll just keep asking “Why?” and you’ll just keep telling me “Because it is”. Which is no way to argue. Well, unless you’re arguing an unsupportable position. Hey. 'Tis not my fault you don’t understand the dynamics of the debate 😃 ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2611 "2011-05-29T00:57:28Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I said it does not simply contain human life it is human. Do you actually go around telling people you contain human life. Who the hell talks like that? Apparently you are the only one who talks like that. No one here has been referring to something “containing” human life but you. The only ones who use the term “contains human life” are people directly replying to your posts about something “containing human life”. They are trying to figure out what you are on about because you are all over the place. Also, sorry to break you bubble, but my post contained cites to direct you through the logic that cells are considered living things. All biologists consider gametes of a certain organism to be living cells of that organism. They are simply part of the organisms life cycle. So a sperm would be considered a human life, regardless of being haploid. I even used an example of another eukaryotic organism that spends more of its time as a haploid cell. No one would say its diploid form is not the organism just because it’s usually haploid. It appears to you that something that has 46 chromosomes/cell and is implanted into the wall of the uterus is the thing that now “contains human life”? That distinguishes it from a sperm which, again sorry to be biological, is a human life. Before you continue to rampage, go back and read your own posts. If you need to clarify, please do, but realize that you need to clarify your own words because everyone else (at least the last few pages) has been using correct terminology. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2612 "2011-05-29T01:34:21Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > So you are a mind reader now. You can honestly tell I _didn’t_ mean that I was simply curious? If you aren’t a mind reader that means you have called me a liar. > > Sheesh, and you call ME insulting. If the shoe fits wear it. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2613 "2011-05-29T01:36:47Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Apparently you are the only one who talks like that. No one here has been referring to something “containing” human life but you. The only ones who use the term “contains human life” are people directly replying to your posts about something “containing human life”. They are trying to figure out what you are on about because you are all over the place. > > Also, sorry to break you bubble, but my post contained cites to direct you through the logic that cells are considered living things. All biologists consider gametes of a certain organism to be living cells of that organism. They are simply part of the organisms life cycle. So a sperm would be considered a human life, regardless of being haploid. I even used an example of another eukaryotic organism that spends more of its time as a haploid cell. No one would say its diploid form is not the organism just because it’s usually haploid. > > It appears to you that something that has 46 chromosomes/cell and is implanted into the wall of the uterus is the thing that now “contains human life”? That distinguishes it from a sperm which, again sorry to be biological, is a human life. Before you continue to rampage, go back and read your own posts. If you need to clarify, please do, but realize that you need to clarify your own words because everyone else (at least the last few pages) has been using correct terminology. You are rambling on again:rolleyes: I’ll explain it one more time. A sperm ALONE will not be able to create human life. It takes an egg AND a sperm. Are you saying that a sperm alone can create human life. What is the point anyways. Anything I says gets twisted and turned around. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2614 "2011-05-29T01:46:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > It is? Naw, it isn’t. Aside from the fact that a minority of people support unrestricted abortion whenever (which, you know, you’d expect one to if they were treating where the location of the individual you’re doing to as important), if you’re going to constantly assert that where the location of one is to be the determining factor in whether someone or not is allowed to engage in a certain action, you need to explain why location is important. Simply stating that it’s important really-- I mean, _ **really** _– doesn’t help your cause. I’ll just keep asking “Why?” and you’ll just keep telling me “Because it is”. Which is no way to argue. Well, unless you’re arguing an unsupportable position. > > Hey. 'Tis not my fault you don’t understand the dynamics of the debate 😃 It’s not my fault you’re a sexist scumbag who refuses to acknowledge that womens’ bodies are theirs, not yours, and that you’re going on and on and ON to conceal the fact that if you type enough you think people will ignore the central facet of your little obsession: your misogyny. Womens’ bodies and what they do with them don’t concern you. I rather expect you’ve had a lot of bitter experience with that. ---
**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 29, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2615 "2011-05-29T01:57:52Z")
> [@margin](#): > > It’s not my fault you’re a sexist scumbag who refuses to acknowledge that womens’ bodies are theirs, not yours, and that you’re going on and on and ON to conceal the fact that if you type enough you think people will ignore the central facet of your little obsession: your misogyny. Womens’ bodies and what they do with them don’t concern you. I rather expect you’ve had a lot of bitter experience with that. Aaaaaaaaand there goes the ‘m’ word (no, not misandry). Is there a Godwyn’s Law for the word ‘misogyny’ or some form of it? Because if not, there should be. Anyway, the above post made me wonder something; **WHY IS THERE NO EYEROLL SMILEY**??? This would be the perfect time to use one. Surely, one would think if you had a point to make, you could do it without having to resort the age old “you’re just a misogynist” line, which really is quite laughable within itself. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2616 "2011-05-29T02:14:53Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You are rambling on again:rolleyes: I’ll explain it one more time. A sperm ALONE will not be able to create human life. It takes an egg AND a sperm. > Are you saying that a sperm alone can create human life. > What is the point anyways. Anything I says gets twisted and turned around. Yes, now finally you are being precise. No one is twisting your words. You are twisting them yourself because you are using your own definitions based on your own philosophy that not everyone agrees upon. When people are using precise, biological definitions based on your own words like “human life”, you call them a moron. However, you are the one being imprecise. Your stance appears to be that an implanted zygote has a right to live that outweighs the right of a woman to control her body. Not just because it’s a human life because sperm and unfertilized eggs are also human lives. However, we all know that zygotes, by definition, are not babies. Nevertheless, an implanted zygote has the highest potential of becoming a baby. This potential is so important that it must be legally protected and it supersedes a woman’s right to her own body; a level of infringement that is not imposed in any other circumstances. Furthermore, your own descriptions on punishment, exemptions and involvement of accomplices suggest that you don’t think it is murder. However, you keep talking about murdering babies which is something you don’t believe. To summarize one more time: You view is that the government must prevent the killing of things that have a high potential of becoming a baby. If the entity with this high potential is killed, it will be considered a sort of voluntary manslaughter. Keep your terminology precise and you’ll get less crap. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2617 "2011-05-29T02:48:09Z")
My favorite part of OMGABC is the way he always assumes that all pro-choice voters are a hive mind, and that it’s somehow relevant to cite random arguments from the pro-choice position at any given specific poster. My favorite part about classyladyhp is the looks, I’m assuming that solely on the basis that if she is somehow more ugly than stupid, she’d’ve been on the news already. My favorite part about this thread is that one side is so bad that **margin** , **curlcoat** , and I are on the other side. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2618 "2011-05-29T03:09:01Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s great, but it doesn’t explain why the location of the individual you are doing to is important. Are you ever going to bother explaining why? Well, let’s see… inside your body vs. not inside your body… I’m sorry, I don’t think I can break it down any more than that. It’s not exactly a Grand Canyon-sized leap I’m asking you to make, here. > [@](#): > > I did answer it, and I’ll answer it again. You cannot kill them. If you do, you’ll go to jail. You can _remove_ them, right? You can call the cops and have the person removed. Their mere presence doesn’t guarantee them indefinite lodging, does it? > [@](#): > > If you unwillingly dragged that person into your home, then you most certainly can’t throw him out and have him die, as that’d probably be kidnapping plus neglect Dragging them in might be kidnapping. I don’t see how dragging them back out is. What you’re basically arguing is the nonsensical “you kidnapped him, you keep him!” and it’s dishonest. > [@](#): > > “Just because you refuse to recognize its significance doesn’t make it inconsequential” isn’t a response; it’s an evasionary tactic. I’m asking you **why** it’s important. Your absolute refusal to try to justify why it’s important without merely stating it’s important is proof that you really can’t provide any justification for why the fact that it’s her body is important. Because a state where the citizen’s bodies don’t belong to them is a bad thing. But fine, I’ll cheerfully admit my arbitrary fondness for more individual freedom over less individual freedom. Freedom is good, even if I don’t have a mathematical proof for it. > [@](#): > > You know, you might want to spend a little more time paying attention to what happens in your own country, so you wouldn’t miss stuff like [this](http://alxweber.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/free-speech-on-campus/). > > Or [this](http://academica.ca/node/2027). Great, I’ve been undone by five seconds of googling. Fine, some university students are in fact being suppressed for expressing (or trying to express) pro-life views. That’s actually quite regrettable, not a practice I support and fortunately not widespread nor (as far I know) instrumental in forming legal policy. > [@](#): > > Or, well… You get the point. That’s enough at the moment. But I’m sure you’re going to tell me how “No one is being suppressed out of their pro-life views” or whatever other nonsense you want to say. Okay, a dozen people are suppressed. I cheerfully admit my error. I guess I should have originally said “virtually no one is being suppressed”. > [@](#): > > Again, as I say, the reason pro-choicers tend to try to suppress debate between themselves and pro-lifers… Well, now I have to object to the extrapolation of how a dozen students are treated to all pro-choicers. > [@](#): > > …is because, in the grand scheme, they can’t win. This is precisely the reason why Canada has no real debate on abortion nor any laws on abortion, and probably won’t for a long while-- because whenever someone mentions the ‘a’ word, the pro-choice contingent up there in Canada goes ballistic. Tell me this isn’t true, too, because there are numerous recent examples of this, especially with the recent Harper election. I admit I wasn’t paying close attention, but I can’t remember abortion being mentioned _at all_ (let alone provoking any “ballistic” reactions) during the run-up to our recent election. Anyway, now that Harper’s head of a majority government for the first time, this would be his chance to get abortion legislation though, if he seriously believed it was necessary, and the evidence of the last 20+ years is that it is not. Anyway, I’m sure some googling can turn up some isolated cases. I’ll give it a shot: Heh, here’s one, with the page-turning title [Abortion mentioned in Canadian election campaign](http://www.theinterim.com/soconvivium/abortion-mentioned-in-canadian-election-campaign/): > [@The Interim](#): > > Earlier today we blogged about Day 10 of the Canadian election campaign and noted that abortion had yet to be mentioned on the campaign trail. Of course, no sooner had we posted that and the Prime Minister was asked about abortion and other social issues. He denied any interest in re-opening the abortion issue if the Conservatives win a majority. Disappointing but predictable. > > Because the Liberals, NDP, Green and Bloc are so left-wing on social issues, constantly pushing the envelope on moral issues and remaking Canada into a progressive heaven, Harper can attempt to occupy middle ground and still win the support of most social conservatives. As I’ve said before, pro-lifers are a cheap political date. Harper strategy of taking pro-life social conservatives for granted has worked for him in the past because pro-lifers consider the defensive electoral action of preventing the Liberals, NDP and Bloc from pushing the social engineering envelope (including daycare) sufficient reason for voting Conservative. Heck, even our conservatives aren’t that riled up about it. I guess we’ll see over the next ~4 years what, if anything, Harper does. > [@](#): > > Except it wasn’t mean to “sway” you. Obviously, you can’t tell facetiousness over the internet. You’re not good at it. Besides, the rhetoric you use facetiously is embraced quite seriously by other pro-lifers. In fact, I doubt there’s anything you _could_ say facetiously that somebody somewhere isn’t dead serious about. > [@](#): > > Of course the point, which you missed, is that you somehow think rape and murder are not okay, but the dismemberment and otherwise pretty brutal killing of the unborn to be perfectly acceptable. There’s really some odd there in that rationalization but you won’t see it. Nah, for reasons I’ve already explained. Forcing women to stay pregnant against their will is a bad thing, I have calculated. I know _I_ wouldn’t want to stay pregnant against my will, assuming some highly unlikely chain of events put me in that situation, and thus I’m not eager to hypocritically force my fellow Canadians to undergo something I would not. > [@](#): > > The tenth amendment allows for the states to set their own laws so long as they neither violate the laws of the Federal government or are prohibited from doing so. “To the people” means to the populace of a state, which elects officials to set the state’s laws. I have no idea what the hell you’re on about concerning the latter, because it seems to me you’re trying to assert that “to the people” means to the individual who therefore sets the law for his or herself, which is asinine, not to mention ridiculous. So do you have only the rights the government lets you, or is it incumbent on the government to justify its laws? And now I’m curious what, if any, distinction exists between “the the States” and “to the people”. > [@](#): > > …And how can you be “naturally suspicious” of states rights when **YOU** brought up the 10th Amendment as an arguing point? Disingenuous, much? Because “state’s rights” has been used to support a lot of crap, while “people’s rights” (something clearly indicated in the 10th) sounds better, at least to me. I cheerfully admit my understanding is superficial at best. In any case, I can hardly think of a more personal decision than whether or not to continue a pregnancy and interference from any official from any level of government, be it federal, state, municipal or the head of the neighborhood watch association is unwarranted. > [@](#): > > Just so you know, Republicans, as a whole, tend to be better among the college educated (Bachelor’s), where a large portion of their base have less than a college education or post-graduate degrees. Oh, and Catholics make up a rather large majority of the Democratic base and are usually rather reliable Democratic votes, since you want to talk about bible thumping and all. Hey, good for them, I don’t care. > [@](#): > > As I’m sure you’re well aware, Canada has no abortion law. Woo-hoo! [proudly waves Maple Leaf] True North, strong and free! > [@](#): > > That’s just what I said. Voted on once in each period, quickly tabled and forgotten about. Until the next time to vote and table. Still more attention than abortion gets, as far as I know, but I admit I haven’t looked into how many empty gestures congress has made about it. > [@](#): > > Indeed, you haven’t. I end up usually having to ask you the same question over and over and over again, and then you might sorta’-kinda’ elaborate. And when I ask for proof, you say you don’t have any or give me something you think is “probable”. My concerns are proportionate to how seriously enforced a ban gets. If it exists only on paper with no enforcement, no problem. If there are serious crackdowns, serious problems. The exact extent of these problems are, of course, hard to predict accurately. I guess (again) it’ll be up to South Dakota to be the canary in the coal mine and we’ll see what problems they suffer. > [@](#): > > A reason devoid of any cause as to why it would happen. That’s called fearmongering, as I said prior. Oh, and just because you don’t understand the status quo pre-Roe v. Wade, doesn’t mean I’ve been coy about spelling out penalties or whatever. And you were wrong. Fearmongering… please. Feel free to carry on ignoring likely consequences all you like. I rather doubt anyone more open will be made fearful from my rather mild predictions. As for the “status” pre-_Roe_, what about it? Women weren’t being killed by botched abortions in large numbers because in states where it was illegal, the practice had mostly been relegated to sympathetic medical professionals who knew how to do the procedure safely. And I’ve little doubt in states with a “health” exception, it would be fairly easy to find the doctors who would interpret “health” broadly and their names would rapidly pass among women who needed “help”. > [@](#): > > No. Women aren’t less likely to get pregnant the higher up they go in education. They are, however, more likely to abort should they get pregnant. Well, yes, they have the financial options to secure an abortion despite any petty roadblocks thrown in their path. And if they recognize that more children are likely to have a negative effect on their standard of living, it’s a conclusion independently reached by women in industrialized countries the world over. If a woman is poor, having an extra child is likely to _keep_ her poor. > [@](#): > > Again, you seemed to note what I was talking about. Making abortions illegal makes women less likely to get pregnant in the first place because it causes contraceptive use to go up. This is an undeniable fact borne out of evidence. …so…? Even if true… so? Instead of 1m women getting safe legal abortions, ban abortion, maybe 600,000 women instead get unwanted pregnancies and are now highly motivated to get illegal abortions, some small number of which will be unsafe. I don’t see the benefit, I admit. Why not keep abortion legal _and_ promote contraceptive use. > [@](#): > > And? Someone posted a site from “Atheism About”. I didn’t complain. I read the cite - I just thought the big Jesus fish was amusing. > [@](#): > > Yeah, because Catholics don’t use birth control, or use it at a lesser instance than does the general population ([they don’t](http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9990)). I don’t care. My comment was that I had my doubts someone who wrote for a Catholic-themed website would praise the use of contraceptives. > [@](#): > > But, no, abortion rates are dropping because more women are choosing to keep their pregnancies when they get pregnant. Are they? Good for them, they exercised their choice. > [@](#): > > You’ve said, on more than one occassion, that if we were to make abortion illegal that poverty would increase. I’m still waiting for you to substantiate this claim with some kind of evidence. It seems a rational enough process to me. Women who want abortions find them suddenly illegal. Wealthier women travel to get abortions, meaning the ban disproportionately affects poor women. Poor women who have more children then they can provide for will remain poor, with all the social problems that entails. > [@](#): > > We’ll just file that next to the “there were 1M+ illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade and \ died from those abortions” statements. So your filing system consists of a big random pile, does it? > [@](#): > > Even if that OB/GYN doesn’t perform abortions? Which (s)he probably doesn’t? Oh, we live in a world where a pediatrician can get confused with a pedophile. I’ve little doubt in the possibility that when South Dakota’s effective abortion ban doesn’t bring about paradise, one of the more strident and less rational pro-lifers will conclude that a gynecologist must be responsible and any gynecologist will do. Yes, that’s right, I’m recognizing the unlikely possibility of pro-life violence being directed at people who aren’t even involved in abortion. Shocking, I know, since pro-life violence has always been so rational in the past. Anyway, I figure one dead or assaulted OB/GYN in South Dakota will make other doctors reconsider that specialty, or even that state, to the benefit of no-one. > [@](#): > > You say that the early abortion laws weren’t influenced by any moral views of the fetus. No, I don’t. Now it’s my turn to play the “show me where I said that” game. What I said was… well, actually, I can’t find exactly what I said. I gave it a shot, went back to page 36 and tried to go forward before eye-glazing set in… What I _meant_ (if that means anything) is that an opinion on an issue of women’s rights written in 1859 must be viewed with suspicion, since by modern standards, women in 1859 _had_ no rights. It was very easy to just view them as “vessels” and such, who didn’t need the vote, didn’t deserve to own property, didn’t really need their concerns much addressed at _all_. And, incidentally, it was (and is) fairly easy to turn women into oppressors of other women. > [@](#): > > You’re just playing a game you can’t lose, as I said. So I won, right? I don’t know what you’re complaining about. One of your cites is being dismissed - you’ve got others, and you can find others. Get over it. I don’t care any more about the 1859 cite. I’m not referencing it again. You want to keep being a sore loser, you can do it without my involvement. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2619 "2011-05-29T06:11:17Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > I would like medical procedures performed by practitioners who have been thoroughly trained in the procedures being performed and at the minimum professionally competent at performing those procedures. Does it matter if they work out of a hospital or clinic? No. I’m not sure why it should. The point is that you’re not going to get an experienced practitioner local to every rural community. For all sorts of reasons. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that despite the fact that you support comprehensive sexual and reproductive access and education in this country, you feel it would be impractical to achieve? I don’t understand. Why you support it? Please tell me what is so unique about family planning in the Netherlands that the successes (and failures) of its’ policies shouldn’t be considered. I’ll repeat what I said earlier. A grain of salt does not mean dismissal. But other countries have unique circumstances and cherry picking the policies you like without considering the history and demographics of those countries is naive. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure ‘push’ means what you think it means. How is respecting a woman’s (and her doctor’s) ability to make decisions with regard to her own life ‘pushing’ her into later abortions? If anyone’s pushing, it’s those who are actively making earlier term abortions incredibly difficult to access. And why doesn’t the status of the fetus matter if a woman’s health and well-being is at risk? Considering the state of the fetus as completely irrelevant to the decision making process isn’t just respecting those decision factors. > [@](#): > > I’ve given this a great deal of thought and, frankly, I can’t think of one. You are welcome to provide me with some real-world scenarios, however. I appreciate the opportunity to challenge my own positions. > > The fact is, I don’t believe in the existence of T-1 abortions and I see no benefit to society in legislating against it or even basing an argument on the hypothetical. I can comfortably accept that there is a damn good reason for each and every post-viability abortion. Further, I see no societal benefit to extending legal personhood to unwanted zygotes/embryos/unborn fetuses and providing them with legal rights that born persons are not granted. I can understand that position. It’s pretty much essential if your position is that the rights of the mother make the rights of the fetus irrelevant. Since I consider that fetus a person, I am obligated as a member of society and to my moral position to make sure the law reflects that status. > [@](#): > > Off-topic, but as tangentially related to bodily autonomy, I also support voluntary organ and blood donation; I oppose military conscription; I oppose legislation selectively banning personal drug usage; and I oppose legislation regulating voluntary euthanasia. Pretty much, I don’t appreciate the government and/or religious organizations dictating what one can and cannot do with respect to one’s own body. > > To be perfectly clear, I see a fetus as an extension of one’s body. Once it is no longer part of an existing person (i.e., it is born), it becomes an individual person unto itself. And I believe that it is ridiculous to think that suddenly the non-person fetus becomes a person simply because it was delivered. People can spin all the what-ifs and “then you must believe X” scenarios they like. It boils down to whether you think it’s a person or not. I do, you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2620 "2011-05-29T06:32:51Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > My favorite part about this thread is that one side is so bad that **margin** , **curlcoat** , and I are on the other side. So, is it Kumbayah time yet?? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=130) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=132)