# 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:** 134
**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 30, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2661 "2011-05-30T18:46:51Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > She missed posts 2640 and 2641 as well. Oh, how they burn…the irony, the hypocrisy. Oh, the first time she shouted about why Jewish law should pertain to her and why it be forced on her, irony detection went out the window. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2662 "2011-05-30T19:23:49Z")
> [@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. Why shouldn`t I. Everyone else is allowed to be a jerk. Also she said his name is usama in the newspaper and did not acknowledge bib was a typo. ta-ta ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2663 "2011-05-30T19:35:20Z")
I see unclassy is here to do one of their “hit and run” posts. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2664 "2011-05-30T19:51:34Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > In the news papers I have read it is spelled Usama!!! Oh sure, YOU would think that. You, who thinks that sperm cells are human life! 😉 > [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Oh, the first time she shouted about why Jewish law should pertain to her and why it be forced on her, irony detection went out the window. Still my favorite posts in this thread. ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2665 "2011-05-30T20:12:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Wait, what? I don’t have the right to protect my body?? So you think that abortion is a matter of self-defense? Just to nip this in the bud: > [@](#): > > Self-defense is most often characterized as the use of force in warding off an attacker or an aggressor. Justified acts of self-defense are typically like this characterization. However, it is possible, as an aggressor, to defend oneself against someone who is retaliating in self-defense. Paradigmatically, acts of self-defense involve the use of force in resisting, warding off or repelling a direct active threat. Thus, the use of force in self-defense is distinguishable from other acts of self-preservation (e.g., taking another’s blood or food supply in an emergency) in which the use of force is essentially aggressive rather than defensive. Force used in self-defense is also distinguishable from force use against a nonthreat in the corse of self-defense (where, e.g., I deflect a missle to a bystander or use a bystander as a shiel). Nevertheless, disagree can arise over the conditions under which someone is a thread such that the use of force against them is self-defense. For instance, acts of self-defense are commonly held to repel present force, and “present” us usually interpreted so as to allow for anticipation of a blow. But it is open to dispute just how imminent the threat must be for anticipatory for to be self-defense, as distinct from a preemptive strike. Further, self-defense is possible against a conditional threat (e.g., one posed by duress); bu the use of preventative force against in direct threat (e.g., against the institutate of a “contract” on one’s life) would not normally be regarded as self-defense. There is general agreement that one acts in self-defense in warding off an involuntary active threat (e.g., an insane person wielding a knife). But the use of force against a passive threat-- someone who threatens one not as an agent, but as an object might-- is problematic. It seems natural to say that I act in self-defense in, say, deflecting someone who has been thrown at me or who will crush me by falling on me. This may or may not also extend to my repelling someone who is suffering from a highly contagious disease. But the of force in removing someone who is, say, stuck in an escape route, can seem insufficiently a caose of resisting, warding off, or repelling its subject to be self-defense. **The use of force against someone whose mere existence or presence endagers one (e.g., a competitor for limited air suply) is highly dubious as claimed self-defense**. [Link](http://books.google.com/books?id=gL4Pa1TxP00C&pg=PA1554&lpg=PA1554&dq=The+use+of+force+against+someone+whose+mere+existence+or+present+endagers+one+(e.g.,+a+competitor+for+limited+air+suply)+is+highly+dubious+as+claimed+self-defense&source=bl&ots=GIoflYBP0x&sig=_bKRBmEt7tS4Namf6Iy1B15lEn8&hl=en&ei=06fjTfqkE8Hb0QGi5vGxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) Good luck explaining how you could categorize abortion as a matter of self-defense. > [@](#): > > 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. What country do you live in where the morality of the many is not in some way forced upon the few? > [@](#): > > 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. Did you really just call the above a straw man? How ridiculous is that. You live in the U.S., allegedly, and there ain’t a state in the union which allows abortions in the 3rd trimester for the frivilous reasons a woman can obtain an abortion in the 1st trimester. Everyone here knows this. > [@](#): > > 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? Because, as we all know, (1) the majority of abortions are done because of the mother’s health (\<6%) and (2) I’ve totally said the above. _nods head_ ---
**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 30, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2666 "2011-05-30T20:15:04Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Why shouldn`t I. Everyone else is allowed to be a jerk. Also she said his name is usama in the newspaper and did not acknowledge bib was a typo. ta-ta But you contribute nothing else. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2667 "2011-05-30T20:17:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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_. Millions of American women ever year have an abortion for reasons which are completely unrelated to “their body”, but rather reasons which are gender neutral and classify as lifestyle choices (i.e., “don’t want to be a parent”, “want to have a career”, “want to go to school”, etc.). The vast majority of abortions are done for absolutely no reason relating to the fact that it’s the woman’s body. Anyone who pays any little amount of attention to abortion knows this. [Here](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf) is data compiled by Guttmacher detailing the qualitative reasons why women abort. The three biggest given reasons for having an abortion are because having a baby would change her life (i.e., would interfere with her education, would interfere with her career or she has other children to care for), because she can’t afford it or because she doesn’t want to be a single mother or is having relationship problems. Only 12% of all women who obtained an abortion mentioned mentioned, say, something like health concerns (which would be linked to her body) as a reason for having an abortion. So please, spare me. I don’t really know who you’re kidding. Well, maybe besides yourself and the few people who’d rather not look things up (which seems to be a rather large amount of people, actually). The whole “her body” line is a complete red herring, for the majority of abortions aren’t done for any reason relating to it being “her body”, but rather her not wanting to care for a child in the future. At any rate, that _still_ doesn’t answer my question. You can try to speak around it all you like, but it’s not going to disappear. (Oh yeah, and before I forget I feel I must ask; what would you say if I were a female who had given birth to multiple children?) > [@](#): > > 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? Except it’s not, since someone who enters your house only because you put him or her there, by definition, cannot be a burglar or an intruder > [@](#): > > Please answer “yes” or “no” to the above. _points 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. Murder is always a felony. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, the fetus is the kidnapper, due to the fact that it holds the woman hostage against her will as a result of the woman acting in a manner by which led to the fetus existing. > [@](#): > > 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. Because you treat it as self-evident and needing no justification. Nice arguing technique you’ve got there. > [@](#): > > 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. How about this? How about you answer my question (since I’ve asked it first and have asked it about a gajillion times), then I’ll answer yours? I think that’s quite fair, don’t you? > [@](#): > > 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. No. I’d much rather see you actually-- you know-- defend your position instead of treating it as self-evident. If that’s the way debate around here works, then I’m going to start making a bunch of statements and then claiming that I don’t need to justify them because I view them as self-evident. I wonder how well that would go over? > [@](#): > > 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. Because if you assert that one cannot to do and with their body as they please, then you have to justify why it’s okay to let one do to and with their body as they please regardless of the effect it has on another, but not in another instance. This is typically where you respond “Because one is outside of the [woman’s] body while the other isn’t!”, and where I ask you “Why is that important?”, thus creating an impasse because you refuse to justify why it being the woman’s body is important other than you want to treat it as being important. > [@](#): > > 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. You said more individual freedoms are better than less individual freedoms. If this is so, then you should also agree that allowing someone the freedom to own a slave is better than disallowing the freedom to own a slave. There’s nothing childish and self-centered about that. I’m just taking what you write to its natural conclusion. As it is, the point of my illustration was to prove that “more individual freedoms” are not better than “less individual freedoms”. Both you and I know this, so there’s no need to further hinge on this point. > [@](#): > > 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. So now we’re right back to the point I made initially; what greater justification does the state need than to protect the life of those over which it presides? Essentially, you’ve said time and time again that this isn’t a good justification, yet you seem willing to grant the state that justification in every instance _sans_ abortion. How does that work, exactly? > [@](#): > > _snips stuff about “X believes Y” to save post room_ Well, you know, a few years ago there was a headline in a newspaper which read “Americans Re-Elect GWB as POTUS” or something to that effect. I sure as hell know I didn’t vote for him, and I’m sure that 99.9999% of people who read that headline didn’t think that every American voted for GWB. Same deal here. You’re the one who took that statement to mean _every_ pro-choicer. That’s your problem, not mine. > [@](#): > > 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. Now try “pro-life cut unborn dismembered”. > [@](#): > > 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!” Again I say, “So what?”. Society “forces” people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t want to all the time. > [@](#): > > 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. You mean “no legal rememdy outside of breaking the law and/or being penalized”, right? Because there’s a lot of such instances. > [@](#): > > 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. Incorrect. Let me help you out here. What actually happens under an abortion ban is that the state tells the woman that because she chose to engage in the action leading to her being pregnant, that she consented to the consequences of those actions. As a result, unless something outside of what’s normally expected to happen during pregnancy occurs, she is implicitly consented to becoming pregnant and is therefore held responsible for the life she helped to create. Nothing “forced” about that. > [@](#): > > 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”? Because if a pregnant woman is left alone without outside influence, one of two things will naturally happen; she’ll either miscarry or she’ll give birth. Kind of a difference between that and an artificially induced termination, you know. > [@](#): > > 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. So you mean the state stepping in to protect the lives of the unborn is unwarranted and unecessary? > [@](#): > > 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? My answer was very simple. You only has a right to act in a certain manner because the law allows you to do so. > [@](#): > > So it’s “I dunno, but you’re definitely wrong” ? Okay, then… I might know where your neck ends and your head begins, but I sure know it isn’t your elbow 😉 > [@](#): > > You have the right to make that declaration. Freedom of expression, and all. > > I wouldn’t advise taking it further than that, though. So then, knowing this, what is this “people’s rights” thing you were talking about? > [@](#): > > 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. Again, I never said abortion was the biggest issue in American politics, but a bigger issue than gay marriage. And since you mentioned healthcare, I feel it fair to point out that, without a doubt, the biggest fight of the healthcare law then and now was and is abortion. > [@](#): > > 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). But since nothing would change with them on the books, then what would be the big deal? You wouldn’t even know they existed! Seems to me like you shouldn’t argue about that. > [@](#): > > 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. Works for me, since most of the “investigating” would be done at the state level. Well, unless you get a notorious abortionist who is injuring, maiming and/or killing a large number of women. Then the FBI/CIA would probably get involved 😃 > [@](#): > > 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. I’ve noticed that you keep mentionining South Dakota. Why? South Dakota is, probably, what pro-choicers should model themselves after. > [@](#): > > 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. A law which would reduce the abortion rate can’t be called _useless_. If it had no discernable effect on the abortion rate, then you could call it _useless_. > [@](#): > > 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… Well, that and how poverty would increase. Probably something else I can’t be bothered to go looking for now. > [@](#): > > 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_. [You’d be wrong](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-abortion-states_x.htm). > [@](#): > > The problem I’d have with making it illegal just for the sake of making it illegal is described above. Except it wouldn’t be made illegal just to be made illegal, but rather made illegal to reduce the abortion rate-- which it would, as people are more apt to engage in an action when it’s legal than when it’s illegal. > [@](#): > > 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. You shouldn’t be mystified by it. If the claim that having children causes poverty was true, you should be able to find some kind of study which backs up this claim. Yet, unsurprisingly, you can provide nothing, simply because it’s not true and is a very big oversimplification of the causes of poverty. > [@](#): > > 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. Ummm, no. The safest and most efficient form of birth control would be, say, a condom (assuming you’re not allergic to them), the pill or an IUD. Anyway, I’m saving this response for future posterity, so the enxt time someone gives me the whole “No pro-choicer thinks of abortion as birth control!” line, I can quote this. > [@](#): > > “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. It’s only callous if you discredit the existence of the unborn. > [@](#): > > So improve the education. A common pro-choice saying which has been proven to not exactly be that effective (especially since states in which pro-choicers tend to dominate have higher abortion rates than do their conservative counterparts). > [@](#): > > 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. I do hope both Irish Girl and Brown Eyed Girl read the above. > [@](#): > > 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. Really? I thought they’d much rather jam a coat hanger into their uteruses, since that’s usually how the rhetoric goes. > [@](#): > > 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. For argument’s sake, I’ll give you this point (though it’s not true that abortions ban mean more poverty). > [@](#): > > _snips stuff about a token bet for the sake of room_ Well, that one individual (don’t remember his/her name) flatly stated that come July abortions will be illegal in South Dakota. I said I’d take that bet, but (s)he never responded. Now, if you want, I’d be totally willing to make that bet with you, where you’re betting that come July abortions will be illegal in South Dakota and me betting that come July abortions will still be legal in July. > [@](#): > > 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. So, in other words, you’re not willing to put your money where your proverbial mouth is? That’s a shame. > [@](#): > > They are. Great. So you agree, then, that the same way all those early feminists were trying to oppress other women by making abortion illegal, they were also trying to oppress other women by ensuring they could vote, own property and even work outside of the home, yes? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2668 "2011-05-30T20:19:41Z")
Osama Usama Sama Sama Osama U Sama Osama U CL, CL you’re a right wing nut Sama Osama U Clusterfuck! ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2669 "2011-05-30T21:22:11Z")
Here. Let me sum of the way this argument has gone. Me: “Americans would restrict abortions to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects.” You: “You’re wrong!” Me: “No, I’m not. Here is the proof.” You: “It doesn’t say that!” Me: Then show me anything which shows that Americans would allow for abortions outside of the ‘hard’ cases." You: “Here, look! This poll says that Americans would leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor. Therefore, you’re wrong!” Me: “What does between a woman and her doctor mean?” You: “It means that Americans would leave the decision between a woman and her doctor.” Me: “But what does that mean? Does it mean Americans would **always** leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor? Or does it mean that Americans would leave the decision up to a woman and her doctor in certain circumstances?” You: \ Me: “As only approximately a quarter of Americans support unrestricted abortion, between a woman and her doctor cannot mean _always_.” You: “I never said always, so you’re just making stuff up!” Me: “No, but you implied it. At any rate, as you’ve acknowledged that between a woman and her doctor doesn’t mean _always_ or, more specifically _unrestricted_, then we need to find those circumstances in which Americans would allow the decision to be between a woman and her doctor and those cirucmstances in which they wouldn’t. Do you have anything else? You: “Yeah, look at this poll! Always/most of the time is ahead of sometimes/never! Ergo, you’re wrong.” Me: “But what constitutes most of the time/sometimes?” You: “Huh?” Me: “What cases constitute most of the time/sometimes?” You: “I don’t know.” Me: Well, if you don’t know, then how can you say I’m wrong? Different polls have different ways of defining most/sometimes. Unless you know what the poll is using to define each category, you cannot say I’m wrong.” You: “Yes, I can!” Me: “How? By your own admission, you don’t know what circumstances are contained in each category. Without knowing this, you cannot say I’m wrong in saying that the majority of Americans would allow abortions in the ‘hard’ cases but not cases outside of that. I can point you to specific polls which spell out each category which show this, while you can show me nothing contradictory.” You: “I just did!” Me: “When?” You: \ Me: “Again I ask you, how does this prove me wrong?” You: “Because always/most of the time is ahead of sometimes/never!” Me: “But you’ve already admitted that you don’t know what circumstances are in each of those cases, so you cannot possibly say I’m wrong unless you know the circumstances in each case, something you’ve said you can’t do. So can you or can’t you?” You: “I can’t.” Me: “Then I’m not wrong, and you need to provide something which breaks down abortions by specific circumstances which shows that Americans would allow abortions outside of the hard cases.” You: “I just did.” Me: "When? You: “When I…” Me: _rolls eyes_ Now on to the responses! > [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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? I’m convinced that you really don’t understand what I write out. Here, let me simplify this for you. I said that that as a general rule Americans would restrict abortions to the first trimster, but not leave them unrestricted. Rather, they would only allow abortions in the ‘hard’ cases (i.e., rape, incest, maternal health and fetal defects). Therefore, looking at whether or not first trimester abortions should be legal, you’d get the people who say ‘yes, in the hard cases’, ‘yes, in the first trimester always’, ‘yes, in the second trimester always’ and ‘yes, in the third trimester always’; in the second trimester you’d get none of the aforemtioned 'yes, in hard cases and none of the 'yes, in the first trimester always, though you’d still have the ‘yes, in the second trimester always’ and ‘yes, in the third trimester always’ groups; in the third trimester, you’d only get the latter group. That’s how you get a 50%+ spread. I’ve said this before, but a little understanding goes a long way. > [@](#): > > All polls are dubious and not proof. In this case, they’re proof. And well documented proof, too. > [@](#): > > 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”. Is that so? Would that be why you refused to answer my question which asked you what “between a woman and her doctor” means? Yeah, I think so. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, see, I also asked you this question before, but how many people go around saying that the decision to have an abortion should be between anyone but a woman and her doctor? There isn’t a single person-- pro-choicer or pro-lifer-- in this thread who has said such a thing. > [@](#): > > Once again you’re misrepresenting my words and your phrasing makes it even more obvious. I didn’t say that. No, but you’ve **very strong** implied it, by asserting that “believing abortion should be between a woman and her doctor” to be a pro-choice position. > [@](#): > > Oh? That’s not what you’re saying? Then what does between a woman and her doctor mean? Between a woman and her doctor in “morally acceptable” situations? That’s the only alternative you have, which is what I’ve been saying and have been pointing out what those “morally acceptable” situations are. Funny 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. …Yeah, see. I went over this in one of my previous responses which you **TOTALLY BLEW OVER** , so I’m going to have to go over them again. > [@](#): > > 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. I facepalmed. I guess you think that if you repeat yourself over and over and over again while ignoring the things I post, that you’ll magically become correct in your assertions. Just so you know, you won’t. Yeah, I’ll be getting to this **again**. > [@](#): > > Don’t have to. I used the data from links you provided which is more than you did with your cherry picking. Yeah, this is a lie. Just like you accused me of ignoring some other poll when I, in fact, totally referenced it earlier, right? Just because you can accuse me of cherry picking, and just because you don’t know how to read a poll, doesn’t mean I’m cherry picking. > [@](#): > > 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. Who knew that pointing out that Americans, when given certain situations in which abortions should be legal/illegal, consistenly agree that abortions should be legal in the hard cases while illegal in all others to be letting my biases get in the way? Seriously. Do you even think before you type out? You keep giving me this line, but when asked to provide proof of the contrary, you fail to do so. In fact, what you do is try to find polls which say nothing of what you assert them to say and then assert that they back up your claim and contradict my position, though when I ask you what they mean, you tell me “I don’t know” or simply pretend like you didn’t see the question. How does that work? I mean, really. > [@](#): > > 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. No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it’ll forever be a lie. And as you **FLATLY** ignored this before (quite possibly because it completely contradicts the above stated lie), I’ll quote this again: > [@](#): > > [One refrain sometimes heard in the abortion debate is “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I would not impose my beliefs on others.” **In fact, for a majority of Americans, their personal judgement about the morality of abortion and their views about its legality are in general alignment. Moreover, very few Americans appear conflicted in the described way.** According to Gallup’s May 2001 survey on abortion, only 5% of all Americans simultaneously believe abortion is morally wrong and that it should be legal in all or most circumstances. > > Most of those saying abortion is morally acceptable (72%) believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while a somewhat larger number (87%) of those who say abortion is morally wrong believe it should be legal in only a few or no circumstances. As shown in the chart below, the relationship between one’s personal belief about an issue and one’s attitudes toward how society should treat it is fairly consistent across a variety of issues, with two exceptions. A relatively large number of those saying abortion is not morally wrong, nevertheless feel abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances (26%) – putting them into the “generally illegal” category. A similar degree of inconsistency is seen among those who believe that doctor-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, is morally wrong, with 27% of this group nevertheless believing it should be legal.]([Public Opinion About Abortion -- An In-Depth Review](http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#6)) Now please, pretend like you didn’t see this and repeat the same lie again. > [@](#): > > They clearly value women’s right to choose, and are more accepting of abortions in the 1st trimester. Again, I feel the need to quote myself. > [@](#): > > This is true as a general rule, but not as an absolute standard. Americans would **not** leave abortions legal and unrestricted in the first trimester, contrary to what you want to imply. I had to do a bit of digging to find a poll which asked respondents whether abortions should be legal in the first three months for any reason, for only specific reasons or not at all and came up with this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 31-Aug. 4, 2008. N=808 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. > > > > “Which of these positions best represents your views about abortion? A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants one in the first three months of pregnancy, no matter what the reason. Abortion should be legal ONLY in certain circumstances, such as when a woman’s health is endangered or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, even if the mother’s life is in danger.” > > > > Always Legal in First 3 Months/Legal in Certain Circumstances/Illegal in All Circumstances/No Answer or Unsure > > > > 7/31 - 8/4/08: 46/40/10/4 > > [Link](http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm) > > That doesn’t lead to unrestricted abortions in the first trimester, for the simple fact that where always legal has fewer respondents than certain circumstances and illegal in all. What it means is that where always legal and certain circumstances agree (in this case issues of maternal health and rape/incest), that abortion will be allowed because the two groups outnumber the illegal in all group, and that were certain instances and illegal in all outnumber always legal, abortion will not be permitted because they outnumber the latter group. > > The **only** thing I could find which showed that Americans favored unrestricted abortions in the first trimester was from a study of GSS data on abortion done 11 years prior (1997), which found that: > > > [@](#): > > > > A factorial experiment examined the effects of the wording and sequence of survey questions on the measurement of attitudes toward abortion. When a first-trimester pregnancy is specified, 55% of respondents agree that a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason, compared with 44% when no pregnancy duration is stated. > > If you can find something more recent than that and more recent than 2008, I’d love to see it. Otherwise, you have no argument here. Unsurprisingly enough, you ignored that. > [@](#): > > That’s also reflected in a clear support for upholding Roe vs Wade. Wait. I’m going to have to quote myself _yet again_: > [@](#): > > Because the majority of people don’t want to make abortions flatly illegal, but rather leave it de facto legal but place restrictions on it. You seem to be operating under the assumption that not wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade means supporting abortion on demand. This is untrue, and quite so, though that’s probably hard for you to understand. > [@](#): > > 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. So is the fact that you don’t read my posts and ignore those things which contradict your claims. But that’s your schtick, so I’ve grown used to it. > [@](#): > > I didn’t ignore it. There is conflicting data , which is why your cherry picking doesn’t constitute proof. Yeah, no there isn’t. Either you don’t understand what you post, or you don’t understand what I type out. Or else you have a piss poor grasp of the English language. I haven’t figured out which yet. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes you did ignore, and with good reason, that reason being because you can’t find any poll which says “Americans would allow for unrestricted abortions during the 1st trimester”. The absolute closest thing to this you could find was “Americans believe that abortion should be a decision between a woman a doctor”, which I’ve responded to not only in this one, but my previous posts as well, though you’ll probably come back five days later and pretend I never typed it out. At any rate, I lol @ your accusations of me ignoring stuff. This is proof that you don’t read. I did your work for you and found what you were incapable of finding, which was **one** study from 1997 that said Americans would allow unrestricted abortions during the 1st trimester that I brought up (only to have you ignore). So please, do try again. > [@](#): > > Ah yes, another boring “I’m right no matter what you say” post. This is a case of you not posting anything which contradicts what I’ve claiming, even further evidenced by the fact that when I ask you to show me something, for example, which breaks down abortions by specific case which would show that Americans are comfortable with abortions outside of the hard cases, you fail to produce. I noticed how you cut the portion of my post out which flatly stated that you **cannot** show that the majority of Americans would allow for abortions because a woman doesn’t want a child, because she is having relationship problems, because she wants to have a career, because she wants to go to school, because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby, etc. I wonder why? It couldn’t possibly be because no such poll, study or virtually anything which agree to the above exists? I think so. > [@](#): > > 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. lolwut? Again I have to ask you this, but what does “illegal in most”/“illegal in few” constitute? The only way you could possibly argue the above is to know what each category entailed, but you can provide nothing detailing which each category entails which shows that Americans would support abortions for cases outside of this. For example, one of those polls I posted categorized “most” as rape, incest, fetal defects and the health of the mother, while another categorized that as a few. It’s not **that** hard to understand. In fact, it’s quite easy. It’s odd how you call my posts “blatantly evasive” when you continue to tell me what circumstances are held in the “most”/“some” categories. Disengenuous, much? > [@](#): > > 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. Oh, but I do. You keep telling me all this stuff I’ve ignored, yet when you examine my posts, you find that I indeed didn’t. Go figure. > [@](#): > > 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. Uh-huh. So is this a way to try to gracefully exit while saving face? 😃 ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2670 "2011-05-30T21:59:46Z")
QUOTE] > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Except I didn’t, and a cursory glance at the way the argument went will prove this. > [@](#): > > And yet again, I point out to you how untrue and a load of BS this is. If this were true, and if people’s opinions mattered, as you say, then you would have to agree that abortion is murder (since the majority of respondents in the U.S. view abortion to be murder, with the majority of people who believe abortion is murder to equate it to killing a born child) and that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects (as those are the only cases in which abortion support is greater than 50%). If, as you want us to believe (_scoffs_), the opinions of the people matter, then why exactly aren’t you fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the people, whose opinions you say matter, determine what abortion laws are? I’m honestly mystified how you can post this example of you misrepresenting my posts as if it shows you didn’t. Not only is it a misrepresentation it isn’t even a logical one. Your phrasing above clearly shows your responding as if I made a personal statement about how I personally value other people’s opinions. As I’ve said repeatedly, I didn’t do that. I made a very general comment that people’s opinions matter because over time they do affect the law. 2ndly, Even if I had made a more personal comment {I didn’t} there’s no logic in your conclusion of what I ought to be doing. It’s just one of many examples of how your conclusions don’t logically follow the original premise > [@](#): > > It’s funny how you say people’s opinions matter, but then say that those same people who’s opinions matter shouldn’t be allowed to have their opinions influence the law on abortion. That’s called speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Or, at least, trying to. Unsuccessfully, I might add. Another misrepresentation. I never said any such thing. It’s pretty obvious that people’s opinions do influence the law over the long haul. It was people’s opinions that originally made abortion illegal , and later brought Roe vs Wade before the SC. It’s people’s opinions that are now influencing changes in state laws, which will in turn prompt a push back from pro choice advocates. > [@](#): > > Reasonable arguments? Reasonable to whom? The average person of average intelligence who doesn’t let emotional arguments and ego supersede their ability to think rationally. > [@](#): > > Simply because you refuse to take your arguments to their logical conclusions doesn’t mean I’m making them a “semantic, convoluted mess” . Except your so called logical conclusions aren’t logical. Your conclusions do not follow. You gave one example above. Here are a couple of more #1484 > [@](#): > > Except it’s not false. One of the favorite mantras of pro-choicers is “My body, my choice!” or some form of the argument. Well, assuming that’s true, then it should always be a woman’s choice to abort so long as it’s her body. And since her body always belongs to her, then she should always be allowed to abort. The unborn is quite immaterial, here. Is is not the necessary conclusion that in balancing the value or importance of two things one must be valued at nil. Such a premise is illogical. # 1584 you use your illogical on personhood/ awareness. > [@](#): > > This thread is filled with a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo concerning human personhood, but I really don’t care about them. What if, for shits and giggles, some woman decided that personhood entailed awareness and that there is nothing wrong with killing things which are not aware, which would include newborns? What then? Are you going to tell this women, even if she just gave birth to a newborn, that she cannot kill her newborn even if she does not perceive it to be a person? That would violate premise one. Are you going to force her to adopt a view of personhood which is contrary to that of their own? That violates premise two. So what do you do? To be consistent, you would have to let that individual act according to her own consciousness and according to her own beliefs since you, as you flatly stated, “I would never impose my personal views on another woman”. But everyone here knows you won’t do that. You’ll flippantly disregard all the mumbo-jumbo about not imposing your personal beliefs on anyone when faced with a situation you find less than palpable, making you nothing short of a hypocrite who doesn’t even believe his/her own arguments or at least doesn’t even apply them unilaterally. fairly typical of your style of argument you start from the premise “if awareness is the ONLY relevant factor,” to conclude, then someone supports a woman killing her newborn. Your premise is faulty because awareness is not the only relevant factor. As I’ve already explained, abortion is a complex issue that deals with several components that cannot be separated, and “taken to the logical conclusion” The attempt to do so is illogical. We can look at you “right to life vs. bodily integrity” argument in that same post and see more of your trying to discount the fact that abortion is an act of trying to balance various issues as you try to create a false and illogical absolute. The same is true of your “if bodily autonomy is the ONLY relevant factor”, then you must support rape or theft of whatever nonsense you mentioned. You refer to these arguments as logical conclusions but they are based on a faulty premise. The issues are not separate and come to an unique situation in pregnancy. > [@](#): > > You, and many pro-choicers, have this knack of using certain arguments, and then try to restrict those arguments as being valid only in the case of abortion, or only up to a certain point. Right, because we recognize with rational minds that pregnancy and abortion present a unique combination of principles and problems and the balancing of them isn’t so simple. You OTOH, try to argue the relevant issues and principles separately , forming false premises and arriving at illogical conclusion. > [@](#): > > Anyone who refuses to do so does so because they know something is inherently flawed in their rationale. Then again there are those people who, for whatever reason, are just in complete denial of the failings of their arguments. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right no matter what” We’ve seen a few round here. > [@](#): > > Find me said posts I’ve missed and I’ll gladly respond to them. See? I didn’t say you missed any. I said, Just for yucks can you find one or two posts from you where you acknowledge that someone who doesn’t agree with you made a good solid point, or one incident where you admitted an error other than a typo. However, now that you mention it, you ignored this question in your response. > [@](#): > > Yes I can because of the unavoidable and connected bodily autonomy issue. Making a law that denies abortion rights automatically means that women are biologically enslaved. Tell me one other situation where it’s okay for the law to force someone to be biologically enslaved to another? {try not to avoid this question} How about a direct concise answer? > [@](#): > > LOL! Wtf does this mean? It doesn’t even make sense. It has to do with the application of logic. When you claim you’ve proved something, it means your conclusions necessarily follows your premise. However if your premise is faulty, {because you’re leaving out relevant factors} then your conclusion isn’t logical. Also if your conclusion is only one of a variety of possible outcomes then it doesn’t necessarily follow, it only means "it could possibly follow, which is long way from proof. In that case your claim of proof is illogical. > [@](#): > > Here’s what pro-choicers in this very thread have argued (Tell me how this isn’t true, because I can provide **exact** quotes): “Others have no right to force a definition of personhood onto others!” you’re taking this out of context and trying to argue it as an absolute. That’s a false argument. Because of the subject matter there is obviously an implied “in the case of abortion” and this is asserted precisely because the definition of personhood, in regard to in uteri is not clear. Nobody is arguing that in cases where person hood is already clearly defined by law and the customs of society then people have the right to ignore those laws and customs. That’s why, this argument, > [@](#): > > All right, fine. If this is true, and individuals have no right to force a definition of personhood onto others, then this means that you have no right to force someone to adhere to a definition of personhood that isn’t there own, which means that someone who holds a definition of personhood should be allowed to act in accordance to those beliefs. So if someone doesn’t beleive that a newborn is a person and they kill that newborn, then that action is therefore justified as they were acting in accordance to those beliefs which you’ve allowed that they should be able to have. …fails. It’s a good example of your pattern of a false premise that leads to an illogical conclusion. > [@](#): > > But, as you’ve demonstrated time and time again, you reject this notion and thusly argue that people should only be allowed to define who is and isn’t a person as it relates to abortion. This isn’t really what I’ve said. I’ve said that being in a society makes it possible , and at times necessary, to come up with definitions at least in legal terms. > [@](#): > > But this leads to one asking why this should only be the case in abortion, and not everywhere, to which you thusly respond with something along the lines of something amounting to “Because one deals with the woman’s body and the other doesn’!”, Because the abortion issue is a unique combination of principles that need to be balanced. Bodily autonomy is one of them. > [@](#): > > which completely begs the question as it doesn’t explain why bodily autonomy is important to being allowed to define someone as a person or not. because the situation, existing commonly in the lives of citizens and society, requires a decision. It doesn’t guarantee a perfect solution or a permanent one. > [@](#): > > I mean, really. So what? If, as you want to implicitly assume, the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to act regardless of the effect it has on another, then whether someone is inside of your body or outside of it is immaterial. Nobody is assuming that so this is fakse and illogical in it’s disregard for relevant factors apparent in reality. > [@](#): > > If the right to bodily autonomy does not include the right to act as you see fit regardless of the effect it has on another, then abortion is impermissible because having an abortion requires violating the unborn’s right to bodily autonomy. Same as above. in # 1934 I asked a question that you tried to answer in post 1951. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*cosmosdan \*\* > Should someone who is unable to exercise self determination, and feeding off of someone’s body, take precedent over the self determination of the person who can exercise it, and is biologically enslaved to the other individual? **your** response > [@](#): > > So, then, a woman should be allowed to throw a newborn into the Hudson, yes? If you’re going to argue that an entity who is unable to exercise self-determination, on account of not having the capacity to recognize it, doesn’t have any right to self-determination then the following action is perfectly acceptable. If you’re going to argue that the latter action isn’t okay because the newborn isn’t located inside of the woman’s body, then self-determination really isn’t important as you say. You completely avoid and ignore the physical enslavement portion of my argument and talk only of self determination to create a false premise and illogical conclusion. You ignored a similar question in #1699 as well. > [@](#): > > Of course, since you’ve already stated that people can have a definition of personhood forced upon them by the law, then you agree that we can force a definition of personhood onto pro-choicers and have them abide by. ?? So all that was state the obvious that society is able to pass laws making abortion illegal. I’m sure we all knew that already. > [@](#): > > Therefore, the real argument isn’t about bodily autonomy or any of that garbage, but rather the unborn. So you care to argue that or do you want to continue to focus on irrelevant stuff? You haven’t succeeded in making any argument that the issue of bodily autonomy is irrelevant. The fact that society is able to pass anti abortion laws doesn’t remove bodily autonomy from the equation at all. If you do have some point to make about the unborn go ahead. I remain skeptical about it’s quality. > [@](#): > > You can unecessarily complicate any issue. Just because you can throw out a lot of BS, doesn’t mean an issue is complex. Life versus convenience? Life wins. See how simple that was. I think the difference is my appraoch is realistic about people and society while this comment, suggesting carrying a pregnancy to term and all that entails , is just a matter of inconvenience, is oversimplification to the point of utter nonsense. > [@](#): > > Uh-huh. Anyway, good luck with citations for the bold. A select quote from one guy in 1868 doesn’t prove this as true. Holy fuck will you please get a grip on the difference between some evidence and what actually constitutes proof. I never claimed it proved anything , while you continue to misrepresent inconclusive evidence as if it proves something, once again demonstrating you don’t really understand how logic works. You just like to insist you do as part of your “I’m right no matter what” position. > [@](#): > > So, in essence, you’re content to play a game you can’t lose? I’m not sure what you mean, but why wouldn’t I? You might consider that your strategy of never admitting an error in logic, a mistake, or conceding a point, as a discussion strategy is obviously an attempt to play a game you can’t lose. Just keep claiming victory and “I’m right no matter what” and you can’t lose. That kind of victory exists only in your head and in any fool that chooses to swallow it. Youy won’t find that many on this message board. ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2671 "2011-05-30T22:06:47Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > But you contribute nothing else. …and you IDT oops:D I mean ITD contribute the same bull shit time after time after time. You say you’re leaving and you come back for more. Can’t stay away can you. This little obsession you have with following me around is frankly getting kinda creepy:dubious: Still pissed that you can’t even get your own weird username right. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2672 "2011-05-30T22:10:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Osama > Usama Sama Sama Osama > U Sama Osama > U CL, CL you’re a right wing nut > Sama Osama > U Clusterfuck! Retard=John Mace Retard=John Mace Retard=John Mace Retard=John Mace Buzz off…show me one site that lists his name as BIB-LADEN psycho. Your little rhyme is like Dr. Seuss without any of the talent. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2673 "2011-05-30T22:12:50Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You expect me to fucking believe that he went by the name BIB Laden? Really? > Shut the hell up. Idiot. No, I expected that you were freaking out about using Usama instead of Osama, rather than freaking out over a simple and very obvious typo. That was clearly giving you too much credit. Furthermore, you said “Who the hell is usama Bib-Laden? Osama’s baby brother?” Saying they were brothers implies that you acknowledged that they had the same last name but (you thought) different first names. Now I see that you were trying to make an extremely weak ‘bib=baby’ joke, presumably to remind us to _think of the children, the poor innocent children!!!eleventy!!!_ Lame. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2674 "2011-05-30T22:14:58Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > No, I expected that you were freaking out about using Usama instead of Osama, rather than freaking out over a simple and very obvious typo. That was clearly giving you too much credit. > > Furthermore, you said “Who the hell is usama Bib-Laden? Osama’s baby brother?” Saying they were brothers implies that you acknowledged that they had the same last name but (you thought) different first names. Now I see that you were trying to make an extremely weak ‘bib=baby’ joke, presumably to remind us to _think of the children, the poor innocent children!!!eleventy!!!_ > > Lame. Yes bib as in baby. Babies wear bibs. You must have quite a few of them in your personal collection. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2675 "2011-05-30T22:22:12Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Retard=John Mace > Retard=John Mace > Retard=John Mace > Retard=John Mace Wow. So very clever > [@](#): > > Buzz off… Uh, no. > [@](#): > > show me one site that lists his name as BIB-LADEN > psycho. Your little rhyme is like Dr. Seuss without any of the talent. You really are one stupid lady! ---
**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 30, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2676 "2011-05-30T22:23:49Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > …and you IDT oops:D I mean ITD contribute the same bull shit time after time after time. You say you’re leaving and you come back for more. Can’t stay away can you. This little obsession you have with following me around is frankly getting kinda creepy:dubious: > Still pissed that you can’t even get your own weird username right. You just keep proving everyone’s comments about your lack of reading comprehension right. Or willful ignorance. Or retention defect. I have answered a variety of interesting questions that you yourself posed and you chose never to comment on them. You prove your own motives by your own words. Show me where, as of late, you’ve contributed anything beyond snark. Your right, of course, but you then own what you replies you get. When I make a typo or error I admit it just fine. I am secure in my own competency that mistakes don’t make me defensive. Yup, I mistyped my username initials. You got me there. What a win. :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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2677 "2011-05-30T22:25:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wow. So very clever > Uh, no. > You really are one stupid lady! Yes and I’ll take your word for it since you are so so smart:rolleyes: 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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2678 "2011-05-30T22:26:15Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > You just keep proving everyone’s comments about your lack of reading comprehension right. Or willful ignorance. Or retention defect. I have answered a variety of interesting questions that you yourself posed and you chose never to comment on them. You prove your own motives by your own words. > > When I make a typo or error I admit it just fine. I am secure in my own competency that mistakes don’t make me defensive. Yup, I mistyped my username initials. You got me there. What a win. :rolleyes: No. You’re still pissed about it because it make you look like the idiot that you are. ---
**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 30, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2679 "2011-05-30T22:27:46Z")
Ok. You caught me. I’m the idiot. And if these other well-written, logical, articulate posters are idiots too, then I’m in good company. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2680 "2011-05-30T22:28:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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. Sorry. No. You didn’t close the door properly and you let them in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=133) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=135)