# 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:** 133
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2641 "2011-05-29T22:21:50Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > 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? And yet you’re convinced that anyone in this thread who disagrees with you must be an atheist. :dubious: You remind me of the mean old biddy at my mom’s retirement home who talks shit about everyone who works there and then lectures her tablemates on how to get into heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2642 "2011-05-29T22:32:32Z")
**Because I don’t have anything better to do** \* I checked out how many of classy’s last 300 posts have been in this thread. The total came to 205, which means they have over two-third’s of their posts here. It also means that one-third of classy’s posts have infected various other threads. If you want to see more of classy’s style check out the Kirk Cameron/Stephen Hawking thread. classy is in rare form in that one too. \*See, I added that first phrase because if and when classy chooses to grace us with their presence again, and if classy deigns to comment on my post here, I wanted to get it in before they did. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2643 "2011-05-29T22:48:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, let’s see… inside your body vs. not inside your body… And that’s important because…? Constantly repeating the same thing without explaining _why_ it’s important isn’t going to cut it. > [@](#): > > 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. You can’t break it down any more than to beg the question? Errr, no. I think you can. Well, you _could_ if you had an actual argument. > [@](#): > > 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? Nope. > [@](#): > > 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. Incorrect. The argument would be you dragged him in, so you can’t kick him out _if_ doing so would kill him. There’s nothing dishonest about that. Do you think I should be able to drag someone into my condo against their will, and then kick them out during, say, a rather viscious hurricane? > [@](#): > > Because a state where the citizen’s bodies don’t belong to them is a bad thing. I’d like to know where one can live to be able to do to and with one’s body as one pleases. Such a state (and I’m not talking just a state in the U.S., but a state as in a county, country, territory, etc.) does not exist. But moving on, that doesn’t explain _why_ it’s a bad thing. I really find your knack for refusing to justify your claims, rather treating them as self-evident, amusing. > [@](#): > > 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. So you think slavery is a good thing, seeing as how allowing people to own a slave is better than not allowing someone to own a slave? More freedoms versus less freedoms and all that. I’d like to know where you can live where you can have unabatated “individual freedoms”. > [@](#): > > Well, now I have to object to the extrapolation of how a dozen students are treated to all pro-choicers. I said nothing about all. I just said pro-choicers. If you want to take that to mean all then, by all means, go right ahead. > [@](#): > > 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. [Pay more attention.](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110425/groups-warn-that-harper-will-put-abortion-rights-at-risk-110425?s_name=election2011) > [@](#): > > Several women’s health groups are urging voters to consider Stephen Harper’s track record on abortion when they go to the polls on May 2. > > Abortion rights advocates held a news conference today at the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Toronto. > > They say that despite the prime minister’s promise not to reopen the abortion debate, women’s reproductive rights will be restricted if the Conservatives are re-elected. > > New Brunswick Morgentaler representative Simone Leibovitch says Harper will be under tremendous pressure from his caucus, the majority of whom are opponents of abortion. > > The women’s groups say Harper has made the same promise in the past, only to cut funding from the International Planned Parenthood Association. > > And during the G8 summit last summer, the government excluded abortion money for women in developing countries from its G8 maternal-health initiative. ^ > [@](#): > > You’re not good at it. No, I’m _great_ at it. Get it right. > [@](#): > > 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. I’ve never seen any pro-lifer use the word ‘cute’ in reference to the unborn being dismembered. Have you? > [@](#): > > 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. Well, first of all, _why_ is it a bad thing? Society ‘forces’ people to do things they might not want to do quite regularly without any ill effect, which brings me to my second point. I’d like to make a point I’ve made many times only to have ignored just as many times. You are misusing the word ‘force’. How can you be ‘forced’ into a naturally deriving consequence of an action? Can I be ‘forced’ into supporting a child that is mine? Can I be ‘forced’ into paying any of my bills? The answer? No, I can’t, because the assumption is that by choosing to engage in the action, I accepted the consequence of those actions. Only in abortion does this seem like a foreign concept. Go figure! > [@](#): > > So do you have only the rights the government lets you, or is it incumbent on the government to justify its laws? If they entail the right to act, yes. > [@](#): > > And now I’m curious what, if any, distinction exists between “the the States” and “to the people”. I dunno’. But if there is a distinction, it’s most certainly not in the way you used it. > [@](#): > > 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. What the hell are people’s rights? Rights that some person believe they have? Because if that’s the case, then I now declare that I have the right to rob banks. Also, the 10th Amendment is about \*\*state’s rights[/b or, more specifically, the state’s ability to govern themselves so long as they were not in conflict wit > [@](#): > > 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. How about decisions which don’t involve another individual? Because, you know, all of those would be more ‘personal’ than abortion. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, you know, there was the whole health care thing last year… > [@](#): > > 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. You know what? I’m perfectly fine in instituting a ban on paper with no real enforcement, since that will effectively drive down the abortion rate (people are less apt to engage in activity when it’s illegal than when it’s legal). And since you’re fine with that, then it seems we have no problem. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, fearmongering. If I ask you what those specific consequences are and why they would occur, yet you cannot explain either to me, then how are you not fearmongering? > [@](#): > > As for the “status” pre-_Roe_, what about it? You ask what the penalties would be. > [@](#): > > 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”. And if that’s the case, then what problem do you have with making abortion illegal since, in effect, nothing would change? > [@](#): > > Well, yes, they have the financial options to secure an abortion despite any petty roadblocks thrown in their path. It has nothing to do with the ability to procure an abortion, but rather the fact that they’re more likely to want an abortion because “having a kid would interfere with their career/education”. Abortion attitudes and all that (though the difference education makes is slowly subsiding). > [@](#): > > If a woman is poor, having an extra child is likely to _keep_ her poor. [citation needed] Children don’t cause poverty nor do they cause one to remain in poverty. > [@](#): > > …so…? Even if true… so? Well, for one, it totally proves the whole idea that women aren’t using abortion as a form of birth control line that pro-choicers like to use as false. I think that’s a pretty big deal. > [@](#): > > 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. Even though you’re drastically overestimating what’ll happen (especially if the effective price of an abortion rises, which it would), sure. And, as you said earlier, “So…?” > [@](#): > > I don’t see the benefit, I admit. Why not keep abortion legal _and_ promote contraceptive use. Because one works against the other. Legalized abortion [increases **risky** sexual activity](http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/jklick/32JLS407.pdf) and [increases the number of pregnancies there otherwise would be by causing women to not use contraceptive methods they would normally in the absence of abortion easily accesible abortion](http://www.springerlink.com/content/b41t86264u67245p/). > [@](#): > > 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. Which would be true if, like, 99% of Catholic women weren’t already using, or had used, some form of contraceptives. > [@](#): > > 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. So, assuming what you wrote out as true, poor women who are already poor would remain poor. How does that **increase** poverty? > [@](#): > > So your filing system consists of a big random pile, does it? A big random pile of not-so-random abortion related ‘facts’ stated by politicians. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, one, I’m still waiting for someone to bet me that come July legal abortions will still occur in South Dakota. Amazing how quick people are to make predictions but no one wants to step up to the plate and stand by that prediction. But I digress. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m totally willing to bet the above won’t happen. Anyway, on a slightly related note, I’m pretty sure South Dakota is a lot be > [@](#): > > No, I don’t. Now it’s my turn to play the “show me where I said that” game. You came in on the tale end of a conversation between me and Cosmosdan and tried to butt in with a “Well, women are good at oppressing women” or whatever it was line. > [@](#): > > 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… > > ..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. Oh? Is that so? So you mean all those writings about women being allowed to work outside the home in the 19th century was really women looking to oppress other women? So you mean all those writings about women being allowed to own property in the 19th century was really women looking to oppress other women? So you mean all those writings about women being allowed to vote really women looking to oppress other women? Or are we playing some kind of game where you get to decide which viewpoint constituted oppression and which one didn’t? 'Cuz, ugh, that would be dishonest if you were. > [@](#): > > 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. Running away? Because you’re wrong? For shame. [QUOTE=Cat Fight] Okay, okay, uncle, uncle! You win for the most ridiculous statement ever made regarding abortion, maybe even human nature, on the Dope. [/quote] Ah, yes. Because it doesn’t sound right to you, then it must be wrong. Amirite? Taken from a [link](http://www.springerlink.com/content/b41t86264u67245p/) I provided earlier: > [@](#): > > The empirical results also provide support for the hypothesis that increases in abortion costs not only reduce the number of abortions, but also reduce the number of pregnancies by altering women’s sexual/contraceptive practices. Makes sense when you think about it. Ever looked at the pregnancy rates bewteen women in South Dakota and women in New York? Man, it’s amazing the stuff you can find on the internet 😃 ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2644 "2011-05-29T22:51:39Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > IMO, you need to decide whether you’re describing the status quo, or defending your position. You don’t make it clear when you’re switching back and forth, if that’s what in fact you’re doing. That is disingenuous. There’s a difference between the legal status quo and what some anti-abortion extremists are doing to change it. The status quo is closer to my position than either end of the debate. I’ve said I oppose what these people are doing more than once. Something that might help would be responding to what I say instead of categorizing me as the opposition and arguing against that. I know it’s more difficult, but I think you have the game to step up to it. ---
**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 29, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2645 "2011-05-29T22:51:55Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > I’m not sure what religion classy is. They refused to tell me when I asked that simple question, claiming they didn’t believe I asked honestly, and told me it was none of my damn business. > > My guess is also that classy is on the rolls of some Christian denomination, but perhaps is not all that involved in it. Behaving as classy does would alienate them from even some of the fundies. Remember His4Ever? She was a frothing-at-the-mouth maximumly Fundied-out Christian who (1) was abusive to other posters, especially those who didn’t agree 100% with her, (2) alienated other Fundamentalist posters, and (3) demanded everyone else follow her interpretation of Scripture while publicly not following it herself. I’m not sure why; however, the poster to whom you refer reminds me of her somewhat. ---
**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 29, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2646 "2011-05-29T23:00:36Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Are you Baker’s mommy? No. Does _your_ mommy know how you behave in public? > [@](#): > > You need to get a better grasp on your own stupidity. And how, _exactly_, am I stupid? Let’s leave aside for the moment the issue of my attempt to communicate politely with you. > [@](#): > > Quit the preaching imbecile. You left out _to the_ in the penultimate position of that utterance. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2647 "2011-05-29T23:01:49Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Remember His4Ever? She was a frothing-at-the-mouth maximumly Fundied-out Christian who (1) was abusive to other posters, especially those who didn’t agree 100% with her, (2) alienated other Fundamentalist posters, and (3) demanded everyone else follow her interpretation of Scripture while publicly not following it herself. I’m not sure why; however, the poster to whom you refer reminds me of her somewhat. Interesting, very interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2648 "2011-05-30T01:31:41Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] > Well, let’s see… inside your body vs. not inside your body… And that’s important because…? Constantly repeating the same thing without explaining _why_ it’s important isn’t going to cut it. [/QUOTE] **OMG** , how many times are you going to ignore because \*OUTSIDE \*your body it doesn’t usurp your right to bodily autonomy? This has been explained so many times in this thread and you just refuse to acknowledge it. Around here, that’s affectionately referred to as willful ignorance. ---
**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 30, 2011, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2649 "2011-05-30T01:49:54Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > **OMG** , how many times are you going to ignore because \*OUTSIDE \*your body it doesn’t usurp your right to bodily autonomy? This has been explained so many times in this thread and you just refuse to acknowledge it. Around here, that’s affectionately referred to as willful ignorance. Aside from the fact that said right doesn’t exist, and even where pro-choicers assume it exists, it’s not absolute and can be violated based on some moral view of the unborn (i.e., “once the fetus reaches viability, the woman loses her right to have an abortion just because” or “once the fetus becomes sentient, abortion becomes impermissible”, etc.), simply saying “inside/outside” doesn’t work. You see, nothing has been explained. It’s just same people saying again and again and again “Because it’s important!” without explaining why it’s important. The adamant refusal to even attempt to justify your point concedes all sorts of moral ground. Just because you choose not to understand any of this doesn’t mean someone else is being “willfully ignorant”-- something pro-choicers in this thread would know about. It means you’re content to try to treat your argument as self-evident without having to justify it-- which, if you tried to, you’d quickly run into all sorts of less-than-palatable outcomes. It’s pretty simple stuff, really. …And you never did answer my question. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2650 "2011-05-30T04:42:38Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Aside from the fact that said right doesn’t exist, Wait, what? I don’t have the right to protect my body?? > [@](#): > > and even where pro-choicers assume it exists, it’s not absolute and can be violated based on some moral view of the unborn (i.e., “once the fetus reaches viability, the woman loses her right to have an abortion just because” or “once the fetus becomes sentient, abortion becomes impermissible”, etc.), simply saying “inside/outside” doesn’t work. The inside/outside is important because you are trying to force your morals on a woman’s body. And that’s all there is to it - simply because you have decided that a fetus is a human and should have all those same rights doesn’t mean you have the right to force anyone to maintain pregnancy past whatever magical date you decide to come up with. Oh, and throwing out that strawman about “once the fetus reaches viability, the woman loses her right to have an abortion just because” makes you look like you are desperate. If nothing else, abortions are freaking expensive so the possibility that a woman would have a late abortion “just because” is almost nil. > [@](#): > > You see, nothing has been explained. It’s just same people saying again and again and again “Because it’s important!” without explaining why it’s important. The adamant refusal to even attempt to justify your point concedes all sorts of moral ground. You don’t understand the importance of being able to eject a fetus you don’t want and/or may be killing you and/or is going to die at birth anyway? Really? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2651 "2011-05-30T06:08:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Omg a Black Conservative** > 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 😛 incorrect analogy, It’s more like you left the door open and they came in uninvited. They don’t get to stay just because you left the door open. ---
**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 30, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2652 "2011-05-30T06:42:59Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And that’s important because…? Constantly repeating the same thing without explaining _why_ it’s important isn’t going to cut it. I take it you’ve never had something inside your body that you wanted removed. Well, a million American women a year _do_ and I rather doubt the importance issue is such a baffling mystery to _them_. > [@](#): > > You can’t break it down any more than to beg the question? Errr, no. I think you can. Well, you _could_ if you had an actual argument. Well, if you can’t or won’t recognize that having an unwanted object in your body is undesirable, I’m not sure _how_ to break it down further. A million American women a year find themselves in this situation, so it’s hardly some bizarre alien concept I just dreamed up. > [@](#): > > Incorrect. The argument would be you dragged him in, so you can’t kick him out _if_ doing so would kill him. It’s a silly argument, trying to add some absurd wrinkle to what is otherwise a pretty straightforward and commonplace situation - a trespasser/burglar/home invader is in your house. Do you have to right to have him removed or not? Please answer “yes” or “no” to the above. As a sign of good faith, I’ll address your variation: in the scenario you describe (if I read it correctly), a kidnapper has abducted someone, then deliberately releases them into a deadly situation (i.e. forces them out of the hideout in freezing temperatures or a vicious hurricane, forces them out of a van on a crowded roadway, etc.) with what I’ll assume could be called depraved indifference to their fate. Were the kidnapper to come to trial (and I’ll cheerfully admit my ignorance on this matter), I’d assume they’d be charged with kidnapping and felony murder, with the “felony” being the kidnapping itself. However, I don’t see why one would bother trying to apply this to a pregnant woman “kicking out” a fetus. If one _must_ draw parallels between the two situations, arguably it’s the fetus who’s the kidnapper. In any case, I see no contradiction between legalizing abortion and punishing kidnapping and felony murder. The “inside the body” thing is a significant enough distinction for me. If you disagree, that’s fine. Of course, then I’d ask if you seriously believe women who get abortions are as bad as people who commit kidnapping and felony murder, and if they should be punished similarly. Or perhaps abortion should be treated as kidnapping and felony murder in the fourth degree, or some similarly lower level of severity. Or perhaps some other option I invite you to describe. > [@](#): > > I’d like to know where one can live to be able to do to and with one’s body as one pleases. Such a state (and I’m not talking just a state in the U.S., but a state as in a county, country, territory, etc.) does not exist. But moving on, that doesn’t explain _why_ it’s a bad thing. I really find your knack for refusing to justify your claims, rather treating them as self-evident, amusing. I find this truth to be self-evident, and by the philosophy you embraced earlier, since you _want_ me to be wrong, you cannot be trusted to _say_ that I’m wrong, since your individual desire has created individual bias. You’d have to check with higher authority. Anyway, sure, no nation of complete and total individual freedom exists (with the possible exception of some micronations that have a population of one). I don’t see what relevance that has. I figure the woman has the right to an abortion but not to, say, smoke crack in a children’s library. I fail to see why this is evidence of inconsistency, at least in any rational sense of the word. > [@](#): > > So you think slavery is a good thing, seeing as how allowing people to own a slave is better than not allowing someone to own a slave? More freedoms versus less freedoms and all that. I don’t where you’re getting this from. You can’t just make up a contradiction and attribute it to me (or you _can_, but I’m under no obligation to take it seriously). If anything, it strikes me a particularly childish and self-centered argument to make - “If I have freedom, why am I not free to own slaves?!” - completely indifferent to the concept that other people have freedom, too. > [@](#): > > I’d like to know where you can live where you can have unabatated “individual freedoms”. I don’t live in such a place, and never claimed to. What I’ve said several times is that I feel the state must justify its laws, it’s not for the people to justify their freedoms. There are a great many perfectly just laws on the Canadian books (and a few I’d question as ill-advised or obsolete) but I’ve never argued there should be no law. > [@](#): > > I said nothing about all. I just said pro-choicers. If you want to take that to mean all then, by all means, go right ahead. Heh, childish. Let’s assume you belong to a particular ethnic or racial group called _X_, and I said “_X_ believes _Y_”, despite your claims that you didn’t believe _Y_, that you knew other members of _X_ that didn’t believe _Y_ and _Y_ itself was a specious, possibly offensive, claim. All I’d have to do, apparently, is say “hey, if you want to take my statement about _X_ to include you, a member of _X_, that’s _your_ choice.” I wouldn’t even have to justify my attribution of _Y_, since I can ignore your objection to _Y_ - you’re just _choosing_ to object. > [@](#): > > [Pay more attention.](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110425/groups-warn-that-harper-will-put-abortion-rights-at-risk-110425?s_name=election2011) Well, I’ll express my concern in writing to my member of parliament when the issue starts getting more serious attention, but thanks for keeping me up to date with your report from four weeks ago. Harper’s on record as saying the issue will _not_ be reopened during his administration, but, heck… he’s a politician. I would like some extra detail on this cutting of abortion funding in foreign aid packages. If the report is accurate, I’m rather disappointed. It’s the kind of scummy move I’d expect from an American politician. > [@](#): > > No, I’m _great_ at it. Get it right. Heh, dream on. Unless that statement was meant to be self-deprecating irony, in which case I remain unimpressed. > [@](#): > > I’ve never seen any pro-lifer use the word ‘cute’ in reference to the unborn being dismembered. Have you? It would not shock me in the least, truth be told, and I don’t feel like culling pro-life websites for an example. I googled “pro-life cute unborn” and got 782,000 hits and that’s about as far as I’m willing to pursue it. Thing is, I recognize that a minority of extreme pro-lifers exist, and that among the pro-life population are differences of opinion and ranges of stridency. If you catch me saying “pro-lifers believe _Y_…” I invite you to call me on it, at which point I’d gladly add the necessary qualifiers because I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to assume that any but the most generic statements could possibly apply to all pro-lifers. I assume, for example, that pro-lifers don’t like abortion. Anything more specific than that, though… > [@](#): > > Well, first of all, _why_ is it a bad thing? Society ‘forces’ people to do things they might not want to do quite regularly without any ill effect Well, the “ill effect” of an unwanted pregnancy and eventually child isn’t something I’m comfortable just dismissing, as though I was shouting at a woman “So you got an unwanted pregnancy, huh? Stop whining! Walk it off!” I don’t know of a lot of cases where a citizen is completely trapped by the state with no legal remedy possible… I guess going to prison counts, but even then there are appeals, paroles, clemency applications, pardon applications… I suppose all these could be denied, though. > [@](#): > > …which brings me to my second point. I’d like to make a point I’ve made many times only to have ignored just as many times. You are misusing the word ‘force’. How can you be ‘forced’ into a naturally deriving consequence of an action? Fine. What’s actually happens under an abortion ban is the state denies a medically safe remedy to a perceived problem of considerable personal impact for limited benefit and seeks to criminalize something that should be a matter of personal choice. Saying “force” is just easier. Besides, what’s “unnatural” about an abortion? Gynecologists aren’t aliens or anything. Are other medical procedures unnatural, too? Someone could be denied cancer treatment and the “naturally deriving consequence” is a rapid and painful death. Would it be fair to say that death was “forced” ? Anyway, under an abortion ban (or with the kinds of barriers South Dakota is erecting to form an _effective_ ban), the state is intervening with the “force” of police, courts, and jails behind it. For the most part, that’s okay - the state “forcing” people not to rob banks, for example - but in the case of abortion, the intervention is (I figure and the current example in Canada supports) unwarranted and unnecessary. > [@](#): > > Can I be ‘forced’ into supporting a child that is mine? Can I be ‘forced’ into paying any of my bills? The answer? No, I can’t, because the assumption is that by choosing to engage in the action, I accepted the consequence of those actions. Odd, I would have said “yes, you can”, and considered these as examples of those “force” situations you mentioned earlier. The courts can garnish your wages, put your assets into receivership etc. to cover your child support and bills. There are various strategies an individual can try to use to minimize this, I guess, bankruptcy and whatnot… it’s not exactly my field of expertise. > [@](#): > > Only in abortion does this seem like a foreign concept. Go figure! Well, feel free to stop paying bills to a creditor that is inside your body. And if you’re paying to support for a child you didn’t want (and possibly that the woman you impregnated didn’t want either), you can blame the politician who banned abortion. > [@me](#): > > So do you have only the rights the government lets you, or is it incumbent on the government to justify its laws? > > > [@you](#): > > > > If they entail the right to act, yes. I’m going to have to ask for some clarification on this. What, for instance, does the “they” in your reply refer to? Whose “right to act” is being invoked? Basically, I just don’t understand your answer, and I don’t think it was that complicated a question. > [@](#): > > I dunno’. But if there is a distinction, it’s most certainly not in the way you used it. So it’s “I dunno, but you’re definitely wrong” ? Okay, then… > [@](#): > > What the hell are people’s rights? Rights that some person believe they have? Because if that’s the case, then I now declare that I have the right to rob banks. You have the right to make that declaration. Freedom of expression, and all. I wouldn’t advise taking it further than that, though. > [@](#): > > Well, you know, there was the whole health care thing last year… So, health care, gay marriage, the war on terror… yeah, there _are_ a lot of issues that get kicked around at American election times more than abortion. > [@](#): > > You know what? I’m perfectly fine in instituting a ban on paper with no real enforcement, since that will effectively drive down the abortion rate (people are less apt to engage in activity when it’s illegal than when it’s legal). And since you’re fine with that, then it seems we have no problem. Oh, I wouldn’t be fine with that. I’m not “fine” with pointless laws written only to mollify pro-lifers (or mollify anyone, really - I’m not big on mollification; sometimes you need it to make a pest go away but it risks letting the stupid think they accomplished something). I asked you a few times (as I often ask pro-lifers on this board) what kind of ban you’d be satisfied with, and in other threads I’ve proposed the creation of “The Federal Abortion Enforcement Agency”, with the absolute and sole jurisdiction to regulate, investigate and prosecute abortion anywhere in the U.S. and whose budget was permanently fixed at $5 per year. So abortion’s illegal on paper, and there is absolutely no way to enforce it. I’m not “fine” with it, but if it does away with pissant death-by-red-tape efforts like South Dakota’s… I could imagine accepting it. If I was American, that is. I’m most definitely not fine with the idea of Canada changing its current status just to bring in a useless law. > [@](#): > > Yes, fearmongering. If I ask you what those specific consequences are and why they would occur, yet you cannot explain either to me, then how are you not fearmongering? Fine, call it fearmongering if you must. I can’t imagine anyone actually being scared by what I’ve written, though. Possibly the most hyperbolic thing I’ve said is that 200 American women a year might die from botched illegal abortions following a nationwide ban. Oooooh… scary… > [@](#): > > And if that’s the case, then what problem do you have with making abortion illegal since, in effect, nothing would change? Ah, but you’re only just _now_ expressing acceptance for a toothless ban. Prior to this, I either didn’t know _what_ you had in mind (which is why I asked several times) or figured you wanted to throw the issue open to the states. If this latter option comes to pass, I figure, most states will not criminalize abortion and a handful will criminalize it a _lot_. The problem I’d have with making it illegal just for the sake of making it illegal is described above. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with the ability to procure an abortion, but rather the fact that they’re more likely to want an abortion because “having a kid would interfere with their career/education”. Abortion attitudes and all that (though the difference education makes is slowly subsiding). Their reasons for wanting an abortion don’t concern me (though I point out again that you seem to be admitting that unwanted children can have a negative effect on careers and education, which is why I’m mystified by your claim that “Children don’t cause poverty nor do they cause one to remain in poverty” - surely employment and education are routes out of poverty), just that the wealthier women have the _means_ to procure an abortion and poorer women are less likely to. > [@](#): > > Well, for one, it totally proves the whole idea that women aren’t using abortion as a form of birth control line that pro-choicers like to use as false. I think that’s a pretty big deal. I’m okay with calling abortion a form of birth control. I’m not sure why anyone claims otherwise, nor why this should be a problem. It’s not the safest or most efficient form of birth control, I guess, and if a gynecologist is seeing a woman for her second abortion, I’d hope that gynecologist would offer advice on contraception or sterilization. > [@](#): > > Even though you’re drastically overestimating what’ll happen (especially if the effective price of an abortion rises, which it would), sure. And, as you said earlier, “So…?” “So…?” to the price an abortion rising (thus fewer poor women can get them) and to some women undergoing unsafe abortions? Well, that’s a bit callous, but okay. > [@](#): > > Because one works against the other. Legalized abortion [increases **risky** sexual activity](http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/jklick/32JLS407.pdf) and [increases the number of pregnancies there otherwise would be by causing women to not use contraceptive methods they would normally in the absence of abortion easily accesible abortion](http://www.springerlink.com/content/b41t86264u67245p/). So improve the education. But even if there’s a large cohort of woman under 30 (i.e. with no memory of pre-_Roe_ America) who have the attitude of “Why bother with a condom - if I get pregnant, I’ll just get rid of it”… well, it’s kinda hard for me to get worked up about that, since I have no particular moral qualms with abortion. Actually, I could imagine a woman calculating that a weekly dose of RU-486 (perhaps every Monday morning) turns out to be cheaper and with fewer side-effects than conventional oral contraceptives, i.e. it is indeed easier to abort than prevent. > [@](#): > > Which would be true if, like, 99% of Catholic women weren’t already using, or had used, some form of contraceptives. Well, when 99% of Catholic women start running Catholic-themed websites, that’ll have some relevance to my original comment. > [@](#): > > So, assuming what you wrote out as true, poor women who are already poor would remain poor. How does that **increase** poverty? A poor women with two children she already has trouble supporting (thus, three people living in poverty) finds herself pregnant. If she aborts, nothing changes. If she cannot abort, she ends up with three children and now _four_ people are living in poverty. It’s, like, arithmetic. Of course, if we want to add some extra information, we can make up a happy ending - the father of the third child has a good job, marries the women, supports her and the kids, the kids end up in college, get good jobs of their own, break out of poverty into comfortable middle class and live happily ever after. > [@](#): > > Well, one, I’m still waiting for someone to bet me that come July legal abortions will still occur in South Dakota. Amazing how quick people are to make predictions but no one wants to step up to the plate and stand by that prediction. But I digress. I’m wiling to make a token bet, but I’m not quite sure of the terms you’re proposing. Is the wager that legal abortion will continue in South Dakota past July? I’d have to read more about the situation before predicting yes or no, and there’d have to be some conditions, like what happens if the South Dakota courts (or the federal courts, for that matter) intervenes. > [@](#): > > I’m totally willing to bet the above won’t happen. Over what timeframe? Maybe the wager could take the form of: _If_ abortion is de facto banned in South Dakota because of the number of regulatory barriers, will sometime over (say) the following two years there be an irrational pro-lifer formally charged with violently assaulting a gynecologist or bombing a clinic or something else that causes death or has the intent to cause death? I don’t want to get overly goalposty on this, nor, to be honest, am I eager to bet anything of objective value on whether or not someone commits a violent felony. After all, I _am_ posting under my real name. > [@](#): > > You came in on the tale end of a conversation between me and Cosmosdan and tried to butt in with a “Well, women are good at oppressing women” or whatever it was line. They are. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2653 "2011-05-30T11:31:02Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Oh shut-up:rolleyes: Who the hell is usama Bib-Laden? Osama’s baby brother? In the news papers I have read it is spelled Usama!!! ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2654 "2011-05-30T14:56:48Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > In the news papers I have read it is spelled Usama!!! Since his name is actually in Arabic and there are not strict rules about rendering such names in English, there is some variation in how his name is transliterated. Neither Osama or Usama is wrong, Osama just became more common (in the US at least). Gaddafi’s name is similar - you see some variation in how it is spelled in English, but none are ‘wrong’ per say. So, unsurprisingly, **classylady** seems to be about as right about this as she is about everything else. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2655 "2011-05-30T16:34:17Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > In the news papers I have read it is spelled Usama!!! Really? USAMA BIB LADEN? I highly doubt that. Was the editor on crack:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2656 "2011-05-30T16:35:18Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > Since his name is actually in Arabic and there are not strict rules about rendering such names in English, there is some variation in how his name is transliterated. Neither Osama or Usama is wrong, Osama just became more common (in the US at least). Gaddafi’s name is similar - you see some variation in how it is spelled in English, but none are ‘wrong’ per say. > > So, unsurprisingly, **classylady** seems to be about as right about this as she is about everything else. You expect me to fucking believe that he went by the name BIB Laden? Really? Shut the hell up. Idiot. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2657 "2011-05-30T16:37:54Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > Since his name is actually in Arabic and there are not strict rules about rendering such names in English, there is some variation in how his name is transliterated. Neither Osama or Usama is wrong, Osama just became more common (in the US at least). Gaddafi’s name is similar - you see some variation in how it is spelled in English, but none are ‘wrong’ per say. > > So, unsurprisingly, **classylady** seems to be about as right about this as she is about everything else. She said **usama bib laden** as in the thing babies wear around their necks. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2658 "2011-05-30T17:10:45Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I wonder about your ability to form a coherent argument sometimes. You said, and I quote verbatim, “it seems to [you] that if people actually supported only the strict limitations you claim, the numbers between trimesters would be closer”. As I said, one would only expect that to be the case if everyone agreed to the strict limitations I “claim”, instead of simply a majority (\>50%) doing so, which all those polls I’ve posted attest to. I know exactly what you said. Repeating it doesn’t make it more accurate. The % spread between 1st trimester and 3rd is 51 to 53 points. How do you get that big a difference if the majority, 51% ,agrees that abortion should be legal with strict limitations? Would those restrictions vary from 1st to 3rd trimester? > [@](#): > > No, I scoffed when you called the polls I provided dubious, as I took great care to only use the ones which asked people whether abortion should be legal or illegal in certain circumstances. All polls are dubious and not proof. > [@](#): > > What does “between a woman and her doctor” mean? Does it mean that abortion should always be legal at the discretion of the woman and her doctor? Does it mean that abortion should be within the confines of the law and done at the discretion of the woman of her doctor? Or does it mean something else? It depends on how the question is framed. In this case I gave you two examples of “between a woman and her doctor” being one choice and your specific restrictions the other choice. By any reasonable standard any person of average intelligence would interpret that to mean “woman and doctor” would be more liberal , with less restrictions, than those specifically named. Why wouldn’t the majority take that opportunity to endorse the restrictions they believe in rather than support a nebulous, {your word} and likely less restrictive “woman and doctor” It seems clear that if they want the law to enforce those restrictions, they won’t be leaving the choice up to the woman and her doctor. > [@](#): > > You’re trying to pass off people believing that abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” to mean “abortion should always be legal, as it’s between a woman and her doctor” . Once again you’re misrepresenting my words and your phrasing makes it even more obvious. I didn’t say that. What I noticed in looking over a lot of polls, is that consistently abortion in the 1st trimester is more acceptable by a long shot. Roe v Wade is also supported by a long shot and it legally supports abortion in the 1st trimester, which was mentioned in some questions. Add to that the polls that favor the choice being made by a woman and her doctor over those restrictions you mentioned. OTOH, the polls do indicate the majority feels abortion is morally wrong in cases such as “don’t want another child” or “interfere with career” and as a personal moral judgement call the majority may indeed favor the restrictions you mentioned. Reconciling the different data, is best summed up in the LA times quote I posted earlier. While people have their personal opinion about what is moral they are reluctant to force those on women through the law, ESPECIALLY IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER. They are less comfortable with very restrictive laws in the 1st trimester but more able to accept them in the 2nd and 3rd, which hinges around viability. As it turns out , when women are allowed to make their own choices, that’s how it falls. > [@](#): > > But guess what? That’s just the thing. You can’t do it. You **CANNOT** do it. Don’t have to. I used the data from links you provided which is more than you did with your cherry picking. > [@](#): > > …Oh, and name me any pro-lifer who has stated that the decision to have an abortion should be made by anyone other than a woman and her doctor. Oh please. If your restrictions are turned into law, then obviously several choices are taken away from a woman and her doctor. > [@](#): > > I’ve noticed something about the way you argue. You like to take general statements and then extrapolate even though you can provide no logical basis upon why one should do so, whereas I like to look at specific instances and argue based on that. This is pretty funny coming from you. I’ve made several similar comments about what you describe as taking things to their logical conclusions , and why they aren’t logical. We obviously analyze the polls differently. I at least understand that all polls are suspect and don’t qualify as proving anything. They may indicate a general trend, and they have have to be interpreted. I also understand the differences in judging the data and conclusions as “not likely, somewhat likely, less likely, more likely, and very likely” in analyzing polls rather seeing them as proof. My only objection was your cherry picking the data and passing it off as proof. It just isn’t. Now you’ve added some IMO, far fetched interpretations of the specific data I presented concerning the “women and doctors” vs your quoted restrictions. I’m also willing to admit my own bias affects how I interpret them, as yours obviously does your interpretation, whether you admit it or not. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for you to show me public support for abortions outside of the hard cases). I’ve already explained my take on the data. The majority may indeed agree with your restrictions as a matter of personal moral opinion, but they are reluctant to enforce that moral opinion on others. They clearly value women’s right to choose, and are more accepting of abortions in the 1st trimester. That’s also reflected in a clear support for upholding Roe vs Wade. Please don’t bother with some long convoluted post that amounts to " You’re wrong and I’m right" or “you ignored my proof” which is what a lot of your posts amount to. It’s ever so tiresome. For example this. > [@](#): > > Uh-huh… Now if this isn’t proof that you willingly ignore the things I write out, I don’t know what is. I didn’t ignore it. There is conflicting data , which is why your cherry picking doesn’t constitute proof. here’s another example > [@](#): > > The mother’s health: 86% yes and 10% no. > Rape: 86% yes and 10% no. > Incest: 86% yes and 10% no. > Because she doesn’t want a kid: 46% yes and 50% no. > Because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby: 46% yes and 50% no. > Because she wants to have a career: 46% yes and 50% no. > > In other words, abortions wouldn’t be unrestricted as they’d only be allowed in the instances where the ‘always’ and ‘legal in certain’ agree and disallowed where the ‘legal in certain’ and ‘never’ agree. Which is what I said the first time, which is what you ignored. You ignoring something which doesn’t work in your favor? Go figure! I didn’t ignore this either. I’ve explained my take. using your select polls and considering the others as well, while you dismiss conflicting data and just repeat the ones that agree with you. Just the fact that you keep saying polls prove anything indicates a bias that is very willing to ignore reality. Polls do not constitute proof, and that’s widely recognized. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for you to post this data that I ignored and that contradicts my claims because, at present, you’ve yet to present any of it. And quite frankly, I doubt you ever will. Ah yes, another boring “I’m right no matter what you say” post. > [@](#): > > lolwut? No, they don’t. Again I find myself asking, what does “illegal in some/most” constitute? Since you know, then it shouldn’t be too hard to tell me. And if “illegal all/most” constitutes a larger percentage of the pie than does “legal in all/most” then what, exactly, does that mean? Blatantly evasive of what you responded to. These people were given two choices only. Please explain why, given the opportunity to endorse your restrictions, they chose not to. > [@](#): > > So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You don’t. I stated it pretty plainly and you immediately misrepresented what I wrote. I only pointed out that conflicting data exists, which you ignored, polls are subject to interpretation, and you haven’t proven anything. > [@](#): > > You know, you’re a moron, and I get unbridled joy from watching you squirm about. You’re funny. I repeat, you take a message board and yourself waaaayyy to seriously. Nothing from you or the SDMB could make me squirm. It’s casual interest and entertainment at best. You are getting less interesting and entertaining with every redundant post. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2659 "2011-05-30T17:15:50Z")
**CLHP** - you are making fun of somebody’s typo 10 pages after you had a snit fit when someone did the same to you. Once again, you prove incapable of understanding irony. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2660 "2011-05-30T18:04:28Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > **CLHP** - you are making fun of somebody’s typo 10 pages after you had a snit fit when someone did the same to you. > > Once again, you prove incapable of understanding irony. She missed posts 2640 and 2641 as well. Oh, how they burn…the irony, the hypocrisy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=132) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=134)