# 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:** 137
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2721 "2011-05-31T19:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Omg a Black Conservative** > "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. I didn’t imply it because it was irrelevant to my point which you have manged to avoid by pulling “between a woman and her doctor” out of the context of the specific question in the poll. Given the **only** two choices offered in those questions,\*\* I asked this\*\* > [@](#): > > 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”. **You** avoided giving any direct answer with this. > [@](#): > > 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. The specifics of just how liberal , or what restrictions are meant under the former is irrelevant, given the two choices. I repeat, by any reasonable standard the choice was between your specific restrictions , and something that could only be more liberal. If you’re suggesting the two choices essentially reflect the same restrictions that’s obviously nonsense. This too is an attempt to avoid a direct answer and avoiding the actual point. > [@](#): > > 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. Again you’re avoiding the clear implications of the only two choices given. According to you the general public wants the woman and her doctor to be restricted to those hard cases, which were offered as one choice. And yet they didn’t choose those restrictions when they were specifically listed and offered as one of two choices. You’re suggesting that they want the choice to be between a woman and her doctor, with those restrictions legally enforced right? That would mean in that question and those examples I gave, the two choices were essentially the same thing. That doesn’t make any sense. So, please address my question and those examples directly. > [@](#): > > 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. This still doesn’t make sense to me. Are you suggesting they can only choose one trimester rather than offer their opinion on all three? Even in the example you posted in #1497 the 1st trimester is much higher, and the option of “depends” which might include “on the reason” is very low. If a simple majority agrees abortion should remain legal with strict restrictions, then I’d expect that to be a consistent number for all trimesters. Given the restrictions I would think the trimester becomes far less relevant, with few possible exceptions. I’m also assuming that this simple majority agree with the “embryo the same as 9 month fetus, or newborn” concept, which would also indicate the trimester doesn’t matter. The human life is the same from conception to birth right? So, with the value of human life being the same throughout gestation, and the hard case restrictions in place, a simple majority would support abortion equally in all trimesters. {with minimal exceptions} That leaves less than a majority to spread between the trimesters, and a % of those would want it illegal in every case. I fail to see how a majority could disagree on trimesters if a simple majority agrees it should remain legal with hard case exceptions. Consistently, every poll that deals with trimesters show the 1st as dramatically higher than the other 2 , especially the third. That indicates to me that the general public sees the 1st trimester much differently. > [@](#): > > In this case, they’re proof. And well documented proof, too. They’re not just because of your claim. Can you provide any credible cite that indicates polls can and should be regarded as proof? IMO, you’re ignoring what is widely accepted about polls. That’s why I provided the link showing that experts that deal with them recognize their flaws and dubious nature. For the sake of brevity that’s all I’m dealing with for now. If we can address these, we can move on to the other issues in later posts. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2722 "2011-05-31T20:04:41Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > She had the identity of someone already banned. I don’t know the rules about revealing the info. I PM’d Tuba and got the info, but I don’t know if we are allowed to post it publicly. > > I looked up the person she was a sock of and the posts were nearly identical in style. > > ETA: The last comment was a reference to how every time someone called her out for not being “classy” she would say “that’s not what my username means!”. I see. Thanks. Funny how it works. I was posting on another site and let my frustration get the best of me and spelled out “fuck” rather than f\*\*k. It wasn’t directed at another poster. I was summarily banned and my emails inquiring about the rules and possible reinstatement went unanswered. Today, using a friends computer , I find I can post there , so I assume they ban the IP. Just goofy. Sure made me appreciate the SDMB, and reasonable guidelines. That site also had posters constantly accused of having several identities they were posting under at the same time which seemed odd. ---
**Author:** ![Azeotrope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/0ea827/32.png) [@Azeotrope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azeotrope)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2723 "2011-05-31T20:08:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see. Thanks. Funny how it works. I was posting on another site and let my frustration get the best of me and spelled out “fuck” rather than f\*\*k. It wasn’t directed at another poster. I was summarily banned and my emails inquiring about the rules and possible reinstatement went unanswered. Today, using a friends computer , I find I can post there , so I assume they ban the IP. Just goofy. Sure made me appreciate the SDMB, and reasonable guidelines. No kidding, on another board (that’s not exactly a hive of activity) I posted to a thread that was maybe 3 months old and got my ass chewed for necroposting, even though there were plently of other posts on that board that were more than 3 months apart and the rules said nothing about necroposting. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2724 "2011-05-31T20:24:54Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Please don’t! > > I tried PMing you the facts but you don’t do PMs. > > Le Sigh. Well, I didn’t know I had to enable my PM box. Here I thought I was just really unpopular. It’s enabled so I’m sure the PM’s will be pouring in now. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2725 "2011-05-31T22:38:18Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > At least, I don’t any uniform disdain among anti-abortion rights activists for the idea of supporting mothers after giving birth. You’re kidding! Pro-lifers are damn near always republican, who are famous for shooting down social programs and their ideas of “small government” nearly always mean taking money away from welfare programs and education. They are the ones who bitch and moan about “welfare queens” and such. That is not the language of the left. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2726 "2011-06-01T01:32:01Z")
This is not a thread to be tossed aside lightly, it should be hurled with great force. Gotta be the greatest single-thread troll of all time here. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2727 "2011-06-01T01:58:30Z")
55 pages, and I only read the last few. I can’t imagine what filled the earlier pages… ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2728 "2011-06-01T02:02:20Z")
Well, I was mocked for using such fancy words as “flippant”. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2729 "2011-06-01T02:03:51Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > This is not a thread to be tossed aside lightly, it should be hurled with great force. Gotta be the greatest single-thread troll of all time here. Hey, this thread had some intelligent coherent moments. Mostly from me. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2730 "2011-06-01T02:18:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Hey, this thread had some intelligent coherent moments. > Mostly from me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2731 "2011-06-01T02:55:44Z")
I liked the part where I abruptly switched sides and put together a more coherent pro-life philosophy than the actual pro-lifers who contributed. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2732 "2011-06-01T02:58:19Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I liked the part where I abruptly switched sides and put together a more coherent pro-life philosophy than the actual pro-lifers who contributed. _Idle Thoughts and [1 other person](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php) like this_ ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2733 "2011-06-01T03:13:23Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Well, I was mocked for using such fancy words as “flippant”. You should be mocked for using such fancy words as “mocked”. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2734 "2011-06-01T03:25:03Z")
_Our long internet nightmare is over._ ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2735 "2011-06-01T03:26:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You should be mocked for using such fancy words as “mocked”. Forsooth, sir. Doth thou mocketh me? For shame, friend. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2736 "2011-06-01T03:42:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Meh, I don’t care if “their body” is the first priority or the fiftieth or even if it never occurs to the women to name “my body” as a reason. Her reasons are none of my concern. Well, at least you’re honest about it, which is more than most pro-choicers, who seem content to ignore the fact that women overwhelmingly have abortions for reasons not related to their bodies. > [@](#): > > It might be mildly interesting to know what are the most common reasons are, but I see no value in arguing for a ban because the reasons don’t match some arbitrary significance test. It was in the [link](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf) I gave you. But you don’t have to go back and look. I’m kind enough to just post the data here (you’re welcome): > [@](#): > > TABLE 3. Percentage distribution of women having an abortion, by their most important reason for having the abortion, 2004 > > Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong: 25% > Can’t afford a baby now: 23% > Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/ > children are grown: 19% > Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems: 8% > Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young: 7% > Would interfere with education or career plans: 4% > Physical problem with my health: 4% > Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus: 3% > Was a victim of rape: \<0.5% > Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: \<0.5% > Parents want me to have an abortion: \<0.5% > Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: \<0.5% > Other: 6% > Total: 100% > [@](#): > > So? I don’t see forcing her to act against her own interests benefits anyone. It sure as hell benefits the kid who gets to live. > [@](#): > > Your question doesn’t have to disappear, but I apparently can’t give you the answer you want, and that’s going to keep happening every time you ask until one or both of us loses interest in the thread. It’s not that you can’t give me the answer I want, it’s that you can’t give me an answer _at all_. There’s a stark difference between the two. > [@](#): > > Um… Mazel Tov? Oh… I thought you would give my argument more credence, since you seemed to imply that because I’m a guy my opinion is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I see you left off “trespasser.” No, I didn’t. For all intents and purposes, burglar, intruder and tresspaser are being treated to mean the same thing. > [@](#): > > But even then, you “putting” someone in your house does not, as far as I know, entitle them to indefinite lodgings. Of course not. And luckily for you, no one is claiming that the unborn be given indefinite lodging. > [@](#): > > Anyway, you did not answer my simple “yes or no” question with a yes or a no. Of course I didn’t, because it’s a false dichotomy (well, at least as it relates to the question posed, anyway). > [@](#): > > Uh, yeah… but the phase “felony murder” has a specific meaning I invite you look up. Which doesn’t change the fact that murder is always a felony. You cannot get charged with murder and have it be a misdemeanor, which was the point. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that’s inherently more ridiculous than your attempt to analogize abortion with kidnapping and murder. Except it’s not ridiculous. Your problem, and it is a problem whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is that you assert that abortion is non-analogous to either kidnapping (which it wasn’t being compared to) or murder because neither kidnapping nor murder involve the unborn being inside of the woman’s body. Of course, this goes back to you needing to justify why it being the woman’s body is important, which you’ve failed to do, as “Because it is!” isn’t a valid justification. > [@](#): > > That is entirely correct, or at least it’s as “justified” as most issues involving personal freedom and liberty. Then your argument is unsupportable and you realize it’s unsupportable, which is why you refuse to try to justify it and instead want to treat it as a self-evident statement. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ve given you the best answer I can - what kind of answer did you want? An actual response? I mean, seriously. Here is the debate. Me: “If bodily autonomy entails the right to act, then rape and murder are perfectly justified.” You: “No, they’re not because those instances involve someone being outside of the woman’s body.” Me: “Why is location of the one you’re acting against important?” You: “Because it is!” Me: “But why?” You: “Because it is!” Me: But why?" You: “Because it is!” Me: “But why? ‘Because it is!’ isn’t a response.” You: “That’s the best response I can give.” Me: “So the best response you can give is a self-evident statement which relies on itself as proof?” You: “Yes.” Me: “And you see nothing wrong with that?” You: “No. That’s the best response I can give.” The simple fact is that you have no argument. Really, you don’t. > [@](#): > > Well, pregnancy is a unique enough circumstance that I see no problem having special rules for it. Then you should also have no problem rescinding the woman’s “right to bodily” autonomy during pregnancy, since it’s a unique circumstance. > [@](#): > > If you want to me to justify this admittedly arbitrary distinction, well… I figure there’s enough evidence that giving women control over their reproductive choices is a net benefit. A net benefit? Really? Are you going to be like that other guy who never came back who wanted to argue utility? I mean, if you want we can go down this route, though it won’t benefit you to do so. It’s amazing just how many social ills abortion contributes to. > [@](#): > > _snip my body stuff_ Yet when someone asks you why location is important, you just respond “Because it’s in your body”. But since you’re content to continue to do that, let’s try a different angle. Let’s assume that, for whatever reason, all you know about abortion is the following. Assuming two individuals, either you’re the aborter, in which you live but the other dies, or you’re the aborted, in which you die but the other lives. Without knowing which you are, and someone asks you whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, which would you choose? > [@](#): > > Well, that’s my _default_ position. Certainly there are some individual freedoms which, if exercised, could cause society itself to unravel, in part or in whole, to the detriment of all individuals. The point is that I’ll accept a limitation on individual freedom if shown a good reason for it, and so far reasons relating to abortion are elusive. So preventing one human from killing another isn’t a good reason to restrict abortion? Again I point out that if that’s your position, then you can’t say that murder should be illegal. > [@](#): > > No, the term is “slippery slope” and you must have really laid on the grease to get from “maximize individual freedom” to “legalize slavery”. Where, to ask the obvious, did the slave’s individual freedom go during this transition? Number one, a slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Number two, if as you’ve asserted more freedoms are better than fewer freedoms, then how can you say that the freedom to own a slave (more) is not better than not being allowed the freedom to own a slave (fewer)? Didn’t you say that more freedoms are better than fewer freedoms? …Oh, and what about the slaves individual freedoms? They have none. > [@](#): > > As with your “check higher authority” statement, I predict the above statement can and will be used against you if ever you post in a thread complaining that the Democrats or Obamacare or whatever is infringing on your rights. You’re basically arguing for authoritarianism, one flavour of which is, yes, communism (if not in theory, at least in practice). If you ever find, or can find, a thread with me complaining about Democrats, feel free to bring it to my attention. But good luck ever finding one. > [@](#): > > I daresay to protect the freedom over which it presides. There’s a conflict in this case, arguably of “life” against “freedom”, and given the natures of the lives involved (i.e. fetuses/children whose own mothers don’t want them) and the freedom involved, I side with the latter, and I’m willing to shift priorities when a significant benchmark is reached (i.e. birth). Wait wait wait wait… You think “freedom” trumps “life”? Let’s ignore abortion for a moment. Show me an issue where this is the case? You can save yourself the trouble, though, because it doesn’t exist. So explain to me why abortion should be any different? (Oh, because it’s different, right?) > [@](#): > > If I can propose a ridiculous slippery slope right back at you - if the state’s overriding priority is to maximize the number of citizens by any means necessary (i.e. “life” takes precedence over all), then all women 15-34 should be imprisoned, forcibly inseminated once a year and made to deliver babies for the state. If the woman’s life or health is destroyed after her fifteenth child, at least it’s a net “life” gain for the state. The population of the U.S. can grow dramatically, maybe even catch China and India by the end of the 21st century. Why should it do this? Who cares? It’s LIFE! That’s not a slippery slope; that’s a straw man 😉 The argument isn’t that the state’s overriding priority is to maximize the number of citizens by any means necessary, but rather that the state’s overriding priority is to ensure that the lives of those it presides over are protected. > [@](#): > > Now, there are ways to preserve and protect life _without_ forcing women to have babies they don’t want. Universal health care, for starters, but that’s a whole other thread. Banning abortion is a lot more effective. > [@](#): > > _snip Americans and GWB_ Incorrect. The difference is that… Well, there is no difference. You assumed “pro-choicers” mean “all”. > [@](#): > > Anyway, fine, whatever. From now on, I’ll just ignore your “pro-choicers claim/feel/believe…” statements because they’re pretty much all been over-simplified and over-generalized. Heck, you can easily find a pro-choicer willing to say all kinds of crazy stuff, and if you want to extrapolate from “that pro-choicer said…” to “pro-choicers say…” I can’t stop you, anyway. Overgeneralized, you say? Perhaps you should pay more attention to what pro-choicers type out or the arguments they make? Too many times in this thread have I heard something like “Oh, you’re just generalizing” when a simple internet search will prove otherwise. Or you can just look at this thread. Either or (though you should look online). > [@](#): > > And I feel society needs a better reason than any anti-abortion argument I’ve seen thus far. I just don’t see the value in forcing someone a woman to have an unwanted child. I recognize the biological unfairness to a man in this, in that he can’t prevent a woman from aborting his child, nor can he avoid liability if the woman delivers his child because she wanted it and he didn’t, but I see no easy way to resolve it. So let me make sure I understand all of this correctly: (1) Protecting human life is not a good reason to ban abortion. (2) There is no value in forcing a woman to have an unwanted child. (3) There is value in forcing a man to be liable for a child he didn’t want. Is that right? > [@](#): > > Without “outside influence”, most Americans (at least those in the cities) would rapidly starve to death. I don’t see why a woman getting medical assistance somehow invalidates anything. Heck, what if she’s growing a “natural” abortifacient herb, then eats this herb to end her pregnancy? Does that count as “outside influence”? I’m sure you know the difference between a naturally occurring abortion (i.e., a miscarriage) and an artificially induced abortion. > [@](#): > > Against the will of the person carrying that unborn? Yeah, pretty much. Her choice is the determining factor, as I see it. So your argument, again, boils down to protecting human life being subverted by the will of the invidual looking to kill that individual, yes? > [@](#): > > And I don’t really object to criminal enhancements that make sentences harsher for men who deliberately kill or injure their pregnant wives or girlfriends, if the intent was to stop the pregnancy and the woman effectively “got in the way”. Then you’re being selective in your application. > [@](#): > > And that is just so _classically_ authoritarian, and familiar. There’s a passage in Ayn Rand’s _Anthem_ that seem relevant. The novella is set in some kind of post-apocalyptic pseudo-communist regime. The hero/narrator has found an ancient manhole cover with a descending ladder, an obvious artifact of the oft-rumoured pre-catastrophe Unmentionable Times (talking openly about the Unmentionable Times is punishable by “three years in the Palace of Corrective Detention”) and wants to explore it. His friend is skittish: > > So, congratulations, OMG… you’re an Ayn Rand antagonist. Great to know. So then, I guess, is everyone who realizes that you only have the right to, say, vote because the government says you do, is an Ayn Rand antagonist. > [@](#): > > I kinda thought the biggest fight was about overall funding, actually. Or that Republicans were eager to defeat anything proposed by Democrats, _because_ it was proposed by Democrats. Were there Republicans who said they’d support the bill if the abortion aspect was left out? I cheerfully admit, I wasn’t keeping track. Nope. Wouldn’t have passed without some anti-abortion provision. > [@](#): > > I’d have absolutely no reason to trust that it would end there. How long before states demand the right to enforce the toothless ban? How long before vigilante action occurs, using the ban as justification? So what’s the point in arguing a toothless ban if you wouldn’t accept that toothless ban? Seems rather odd to me. > [@](#): > > Nope, that’s not part of the deal. Only the Federal Abortion Investigation Agency is authorized to investigate. Any evidence gathered by state or local law enforcement without the written permission of the FAIA will be tossed before any case can come before the Federal courts, and such cases can only be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney working for the FAIA, though with a budget of only $5 a year, the FAIA cannot afford to hire any. Unauthorized investigations are a civil rights violation and the full weight of the Federal government must be brought down on state agencies who flout the law. This prosecution is the responsibility of the Attorney General and not the FAIA. The budget for the FAIA cannot be increased with a 90% yes vote from both houses of Congress _and_ the signature of the President. > > When I say toothless, I mean ironclad toothless. Works for me, because with only a budget of $5 the FAIA can’t afford to bring suit to any state effectively forcing the ban. > [@](#): > > You recognize that such incompetence exists, right? Do you think the incidence of this kind of incompetence will increase, decrease, or stay the same after an abortion ban? And then he’d go to jail and all would be well until the next guy (or girl) shows up. Kind of like it is now whenever some abortionist kills someone. > [@](#): > > Really. I invite you to elaborate. Lower pregnancy rate and lower abortion rate. > [@](#): > > Well, I’m okay with calling something “useless” if it offers no benefits and creates additional problems. If this varies from my earlier uses of the word, so be it. It would lower the abortion rate, which is what pro-choicers _claim_ they’d like to see happen **and** it would, for example, cause the incidence of contraception use to go up, the incidence of STD’s to go down and result in a higher adoption rate. How are any of those things useless? > [@](#): > > Then the U.S. is even worse off than I thought, though I’m kind of curious how many politicians who claim they’d ban abortion would really do so, and how long they’d last in office if they tried. Why does that make the U.S. worse off? Anyway, I’d say many of them. Again, most people don’t care about abortion, but of those who do pro-lifers care more than do pro-choicers. So if I had to guess, I’d say ‘long time’. > [@](#): > > Well, I’m still not seeing the benefit this offers. Is your country so hard-up for babies that you need to force (or “pressure” or “trick” or “influence” or whatever you want to call the hypothetical effect of a toothless ban) women to have them against their will? Well, mine isn’t, but yours is 😃 > [@](#): > > It very well might be, but it’s not the claim I was making. Errr, I’m pretty sure you did. > [@](#): > > Yeah, probably. Or abstinence, even. Or limiting oneself to oral sex. Whatever. Or anal. But, you know, I thought I’d just mention those things pro-choicers wouldn’t call “ridiculous” to expect people to stick to. > [@](#): > > You have my absolute and unhesitant invitation to do so. I only ask that you spell my name correctly. When have I spelled it incorrectly? > [@](#): > > No, it’s _foolish_ to discredit the existence of the unborn. If the unborn didn’t exist, this whole issue would be moot. Of course it’s foolish, but that doesn’t stop pro-choicers from discrediting their existence. For example, you, who has argued that a woman has an absolute right to abort regardless of the effect it would have on the unborn or how developed it is. > [@](#): > > Of course, the mere fact of their existence doesn’t move me to give them rights at the expense of their mothers. Indeed it doesn’t, which is why no one has said that she should have to give birth at her expense. [quote] Should it matter to me if they have qualms about my lack of qualms? No. Rather I was hoping they’d see your comment. > [@](#): > > I gather this is you trying to be facetious. No, that was a serious comment. Apparently, you’re unaware of how “coat hanger abortions” are a rather popular rallying cry of those on the left. Just ask your local congressmen who are inudated with coat hangers every time abortion comes up. I just figured that I should point out to you that, as per those pro-choicers women wouldn’t resort to RU-whatever the numbers are in favor of jamming a coat hanger into their uteruses (or is it uteri?). > [@](#): > > Well, more poor people, the same limited resources… I’d take that to mean more poverty, but you’re free not to. Except that doesn’t happen. Typically, children are an impetus that makes one try to better themselves for the sake of those children. Well, unless you want to adopt the decidedly conservative\* notion that people in poverty who have children are happy to live off the system. > [@](#): > > I should offer a money wager to some anonymous internet acquaintance? I don’t think so, and I’m not comfortable betting money (ESPECIALLY with some anonymous internet acquaintance) that someone will commit murder. It doesn’t have to be money. Just something rather innoculous. And why aren’t you comfortable with it? You brought it up. It seems silly to bring something > [@](#): > > No, because your question is poorly written and I said I wouldn’t be discussing the 1859 thing further. It wasn’t poorly written. I want to know which 19th century idea the early feminists promoted to be deemed as trying to oppress women and which ideas, not. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2737 "2011-06-01T04:19:37Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > It sure as hell benefits the kid who gets to live. If your screen name is any way accurate and you’re American, then you’re in favor of slavery for women, where your ancestors—the women that is----were once treated exactly as you want to treat women now. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2738 "2011-06-01T07:25:17Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Well, at least you’re honest about it, which is more than most pro-choicers, who seem content to ignore the fact that women overwhelmingly have abortions for reasons not related to their bodies. You really need to proofread before you hit \. I’m one of those pro-choicer who’s content to ignore the that women have abortions for reasons not related to their bodies, because I don’t care _what_ reasons they have. If they want to end a pregnancy, that’s good enough for me. The only person who has a need to know why a woman is choosing to abort is her doctor, I figure, and only if there’s some medical issue he or she should be aware of. And this isn’t the first time you’ve expressed something that suggests a complete misunderstanding of what you’re responding to. > [@](#): > > It sure as hell benefits the kid who gets to live. Getting born to someone who doesn’t want them? In any case, I’ve weighed that benefit versus her benefit, and I figure it’s better to give her the edge. And not that I need to, but I can see other possible problems depending on her situation: [ul][li]She’s young, not yet finished her education… if she aborts this pregnancy and waits a few years, the children she might eventually have will be getting born into a more economically stable household.[/li][li]She’s older, already has children, the economic situation is a touch precarious… if she aborts this pregnancy, her existing kids will not have their situation made even more tenuous.[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > It’s not that you can’t give me the answer I want, it’s that you can’t give me an answer _at all_. There’s a stark difference between the two. Oh, I’m sure this is untrue, but in all honesty I’ve lost track of what your question is. Something about “if bodily is integrity is important, why can’t I commit rape/keep slaves/rob banks…” and I don’t feel like searching backward through multiple specious accusations of “you didn’t answer my question” to find the original text. What _is_ your question, in its final form? > [@](#): > > Oh… I thought you would give my argument more credence, since you seemed to imply that because I’m a guy my opinion is irrelevant. Well, there are indeed aspects where you being male _would_ render your opinion irrelevant, i.e. if you were the father of the fetus, you don’t really get a say in whether or not the woman you’ve impregnated gets an abortion. But I don’t recall ever saying or implying that discussing the issue, or voting on the issue (if it came to that) or voting for or supporting politicians who’ve expressed a view on the issue was irrelevant because you are male. That would be a very odd thing for me to suggest, since I’m male. Anyway, your question seemed odd. I’d’ve made the same arguments to you if your username was **OMG a Black Conservative Woman with Kids**. I was willing to make same arguments to classylady, who claimed to be female and I think to have kids… but she (?) was too obviously a troll and an idiot and now it’s moot. > [@](#): > > No, I didn’t. For all intents and purposes, burglar, intruder and tresspaser are being treated to mean the same thing. Well, after I take a fresh shot at your question, how about you taking another shot at _mine_, which was, essentially, “do you have the right to remove a burglar/trespasser/intruder from your home?” And I don’t care about your need to embellish the hypothetical by probing how the intruder got there in the first place. It’s a straightforward question, faced by lots of Americans every day who didn’t kidnap anyone. I suppose I could dig up some statistics on calls to 911 about trespassers and burglars and intruders and whatnot, but I think I’ll just assume it happens a lot, a few thousand times a day across the U.S. > [@](#): > > Of course not. And luckily for you, no one is claiming that the unborn be given indefinite lodging. So now we’re going to quibble if “nine months” counts as “indefinite” ? Fine, if there’s an trespasser in your house who announces his intent to leave on some date nine months in the future, are you helpless or can you remove him on your timetable instead? > [@](#): > > Of course I didn’t, because it’s a false dichotomy (well, at least as it relates to the question posed, anyway). It’s a simple question. I figure after you answer it, _then_ we might probe how the trespasser got there and what, if any, responsibility the homeowner has. > [@](#): > > Which doesn’t change the fact that murder is always a felony. You cannot get charged with murder and have it be a misdemeanor, which was the point. Misdemeanor? I don’t understand what you’re talking about, because I suspect you don’t know what “felony murder” means. It’s not a lesser form of murder or an excuse for murder or a get-out-of-jail-free-card for murder or whatever you seem to be claiming. The definitions slightly vary by venue, but the gist is that felony murder is a killing committed during a felony, which will treated as first or second degree murder even if the killing would not otherwise qualify as first or second degree, i.e. a person robs a bank. Their _intent_ is to get money. If during the robbery they fatally shoot a bank employee _even if there was no premeditated intent to do so_, they can be charged with felony murder, i.e. first- or second-degree murder. In venues where the felony murder rule is in effect, it’s degree and the list of qualifying felonies will be defined by law. This list typically includes major felonies like kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, etc. So, yes, if you kidnap someone and then throw them out of the hideout into a hurricane and they die as a result, you can indeed be charged with felony murder if your venue recognizes it, which will be equivalent to being charged with first- or second-degree murder, depending on the local definition, even if you didn’t actually kill the person - the hurricane did. Of course, if I’ve made some errors, I invite a legal expert to offer up corrections as necessary. The point is that “felony murder” is not a misdemeanor or a slap on the wrist, or whatever it is you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Except it’s not ridiculous. Your problem, and it is a problem whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is that you assert that abortion is non-analogous to either kidnapping (which it wasn’t being compared to) or murder because neither kidnapping nor murder involve the unborn being inside of the woman’s body. Of course, this goes back to you needing to justify why it being the woman’s body is important, which you’ve failed to do, as “Because it is!” isn’t a valid justification. I invite you to actually talk to a woman, then, and ask her if a pregnancy is “important” or not. If she’s ever been pregnant, ask her about the physical effects in the later months. Quote possibly she’ll tell you about nausea and weight gain and back pain and insomnia and hemorrhoids… I invite any woman reading this thread who’s been through pregnancy to generously contribute. Now if the child is a wanted child, great. But to force a woman to go through that for an _un_wanted child? Why? > [@](#): > > Then your argument is unsupportable and you realize it’s unsupportable, which is why you refuse to try to justify it and instead want to treat it as a self-evident statement. Oh, as arbitrary standards go, I think I’ve got a pretty good one, here. > [@](#): > > An actual response? I mean, seriously. Here is the debate. > > Me: “If bodily autonomy entails the right to act, then rape and murder are perfectly justified.” > You: “No, they’re not because those instances involve someone being outside of the woman’s body.” > Me: “Why is location of the one you’re acting against important?” > You: “Because it is!” > Me: “But why?” > You: “Because it is!” > Me: But why?" > You: “Because it is!” > Me: “But why? ‘Because it is!’ isn’t a response.” > You: “That’s the best response I can give.” > Me: “So the best response you can give is a self-evident statement which relies on itself as proof?” > You: “Yes.” > Me: “And you see nothing wrong with that?” > You: “No. That’s the best response I can give.” > > The simple fact is that you have no argument. Really, you don’t. Heh, that’s comical. For starters, we could have a debate in itself on what “right to act” means. I think you’re _way_ off on that one. But in any case… yes, “inside the body” is a significant enough difference that it alone renders your analogy to rape and murder vapid, and that’s not even addressing the whole baffling idea that the people you want to rape and murder don’t themselves have freedom. Can they rape and murder _you_? I really don’t get the link. > [@](#): > > Then you should also have no problem rescinding the woman’s “right to bodily” autonomy during pregnancy, since it’s a unique circumstance. Why would I want to do that? I would need a reason, and a better reason than “more babies”. > [@](#): > > A net benefit? Really? Are you going to be like that other guy who never came back who wanted to argue utility? I mean, if you want we can go down this route, though it won’t benefit you to do so. It’s amazing just how many social ills abortion contributes to. Feel free to list them. I’ll gladly consider them. And if their number is truly “amazing”, perhaps you’ll even change my mind. > [@](#): > > Yet when someone asks you why location is important, you just respond “Because it’s in your body”. But since you’re content to continue to do that, let’s try a different angle. Let’s assume that, for whatever reason, all you know about abortion is the following. Assuming two individuals, either you’re the aborter, in which you live but the other dies, or you’re the aborted, in which you die but the other lives. Without knowing which you are, and someone asks you whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, which would you choose? I cannot in good conscience demand that another person be forced to contribute blood and nutrition or the use of their organs for my survival. And if someone were to make such demands of me, I reserve the right to choose not to. If it’s a more generic _Saw_-type scenario where me and some other person have been chained to a giant coin which will be mechanically flipped, randomly crushing one of us unless he or I can unhook the chain that will drop the other into a vat of acid… well, I’ll weigh my options. > [@](#): > > So preventing one human from killing another isn’t a good reason to restrict abortion? Again I point out that if that’s your position, then you can’t say that murder should be illegal. Well, there are established circumstances where killing another human being is _not_ considered murder. I figure an unwanted pregnancy is a mishmash of home invasion / self-defense. Even in other circumstances, killing is not _automatically_ defined as murder, so I see no reason to define abortion as such, and I’m little curious if in the U.S. it was _ever_ defined so and punished with corresponding severity. > [@](#): > > Number one, a slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Number two, if as you’ve asserted more freedoms are better than fewer freedoms, then how can you say that the freedom to own a slave (more) is not better than not being allowed the freedom to own a slave (fewer)? Didn’t you say that more freedoms are better than fewer freedoms? > > …Oh, and what about the slaves individual freedoms? They have none. How did the slave’s freedom go from (fewer) to (none)? That represents a net _loss_ of freedom, so unless you can somehow argue that you being a slave-owner offers some critical benefit… > [@](#): > > If you ever find, or can find, a thread with me complaining about Democrats, feel free to bring it to my attention. But good luck ever finding one. I don’t intend to follow your posting history that closely, but I’ll assume a self-identified conservative will find something to complain about sooner or later. > [@](#): > > Wait wait wait wait… You think “freedom” trumps “life”? It _can_. I don’t see either winning automatically. Anyway, among life v. freedom issues in the U.S. … I guess self-defense (including lethal self-defense), the freedom to sign Do Not Resuscitate orders and refuse medical care, Oregon’s assistant suicide law, capital punishment should probably be in there somewhere… thing is, there are circumstances in which people can die and it the state doesn’t go after the people who participated for murder. The state could _investigate_ the circumstances, I guess, to be sure various conditions were satisfied. > [@](#): > > Let’s ignore abortion for a moment. Show me an issue where this is the case? You can save yourself the trouble, though, because it doesn’t exist. So explain to me why abortion should be any different? Well, I listed a few above. You can argue whether or not they’re on point, if you like. > [@](#): > > (Oh, because it’s different, right?) Pregnancy is different _enough_, I figure. It certainly has several unique features to it that I don’t feel like shrugging off. > [@](#): > > Banning abortion is a lot more effective. Possibly, but it creates more problems than it solves, and I’m not really convinced it solves _any_. > [@](#): > > Overgeneralized, you say? Perhaps you should pay more attention to what pro-choicers type out or the arguments they make? Nah. My arguments stand or fall on their own. I don’t feel the need to track what other pro-choicers are doing. I’ll assume if you’re quoting another pro-choicer, you’ll have ignored whatever compelling arguments they’ve made and cherry-picked the stupider ones. > [@](#): > > So let me make sure I understand all of this correctly: > > (1) Protecting human life is not a good reason to ban abortion. > (2) There is no value in forcing a woman to have an unwanted child. > (3) There is value in forcing a man to be liable for a child he didn’t want. > > Is that right? I’d modify (1) slightly: (1) Protecting human life is not a good enough reason to ban abortion. And (3) may seem unfair, but there’s nothing I can do about that. The value in that case is a child not being deprived. _Not_ banning abortion may help minimize cases like this, so a man won’t be liable for a child that neither he _nor_ the woman wanted. Banning abortion creates cases where neither parent wants the child but is liable for it anyway, for no benefit I can see. If they want a child later on, either together or with other people, let them. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you know the difference between a naturally occurring abortion (i.e., a miscarriage) and an artificially induced abortion. That’s a pointless quibble. If we’re limiting ourselves to what will happen “naturally”, then an urban pregnant woman with no outside help at all will probably starve (and, for that matter, spontaneously abort). Are supermarkets natural or unnatural? Heck, without what is commonly considered modern medicine, it’s perfectly “natural” for the woman to die in childbirth or as a result of it, and for the child itself to die in its first year. Just check some pre 20th-century stats. > [@](#): > > So your argument, again, boils down to protecting human life being subverted by the will of the invidual looking to kill that individual, yes? In this very specific circumstance, yes. > [@](#): > > Then you’re being selective in your application. Yes, but not _randomly_, I’d hope. And I’m open to evidence, if you have any, as to why I should reconsider. > [@](#): > > Great to know. So then, I guess, is everyone who realizes that you only have the right to, say, vote because the government says you do, is an Ayn Rand antagonist. As well as being someone I would hope Thomas Jefferson would view with contempt. I expect he’d say governments exist at the sufferance of the people, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > Nope. Wouldn’t have passed without some anti-abortion provision. Then I figure your Republicans are indeed willing to sacrifice individual liberty for pandering political gain. > [@](#): > > So what’s the point in arguing a toothless ban if you wouldn’t accept that toothless ban? Seems rather odd to me. Because assuming I _had_ to accept a toothless ban, I’d want it to be genuinely toothless. > [@](#): > > Works for me, because with only a budget of $5 the FAIA can’t afford to bring suit to any state effectively forcing the ban. Nope, the states have no power to enforce the ban on their own, nor any standing to seek such powers through the courts. It’s exclusively an FAIA matter. Any state official who tries can be hauled up on civil rights charges, such charges to be pursued by the Attorney General, to come out of _his_ budget. What did you think “toothless” meant? The Feds are toothless but the states are not? That’s not what _I_ had in mind. > [@](#): > > And then he’d go to jail and all would be well until the next guy (or girl) shows up. Kind of like it is now whenever some abortionist kills someone. By “someone”, did you mean the woman or the fetus? Or both? Your statement is unclear. > [@](#): > > Lower pregnancy rate and lower abortion rate. And why is that better than the negative results, assuming you _recognize_ negative results. If you don’t, I withdraw the question as being pointless. > [@](#): > > It would lower the abortion rate, which is what pro-choicers _claim_ they’d like to see happen **and** it would, for example, cause the incidence of contraception use to go up, the incidence of STD’s to go down and result in a higher adoption rate. How are any of those things useless? Well, I’m not sure they would happen, truth be told, and even if they did, the _rate_ of abortion doesn’t much concern me. STDs can be battled in other ways, including better education about condoms and better health care. I’ve no problem with pregnant women having the opportunity to contact potential adopters. Thing is, your claimed benefits can be had _without_ banning abortion, and none of them strike me as being of enough benefit to outweigh the problems of banning abortion. > [@](#): > > Why does that make the U.S. worse off? It suggests religion has more influence over your country’s laws than I think is wise. > [@](#): > > Of course it’s foolish, but that doesn’t stop pro-choicers from discrediting their existence. For example, you, who has argued that a woman has an absolute right to abort regardless of the effect it would have on the unborn or how developed it is. I don’t know what part of that, if any, says I’m discrediting the existence of the unborn. The unborn exists. I can’t recall implying otherwise. > [@](#): > > Indeed it doesn’t, which is why no one has said that she should have to give birth at her expense. Well, I figure the best judge of the expense is her, which is why I defend her choice. To be continued… ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2739 "2011-06-01T07:26:19Z")
> [@Omg a Black Conservative](#): > > Apparently, you’re unaware of how “coat hanger abortions” are a rather popular rallying cry of those on the left. I’m aware of it, I’d just hoped you’d address the points I raise, and not drag in something some other pro-choicer said. I don’t care about random pro-choice rhetoric. I didn’t base my arguments on it. > [@](#): > > Except that doesn’t happen. Typically, children are an impetus that makes one try to better themselves for the sake of those children. Well, unless you want to adopt the decidedly conservative\* notion that people in poverty who have children are happy to live off the system. I recognize that people mired in poverty might not have any choice but to live off the system. And it’s great if some pull themselves up by their bootstraps etc. but I don’t banning abortion as an effective tool to _force_ them to. More carrots, less sticks. And, yes, it _does_ happen that young women (teenagers, really) who have children drop out of school, miss opportunities, and not even _get_ the chance to better themselves before their daughters repeat the cycle of getting pregnant, dropping out of school, missing opportunities… > [@](#): > > It doesn’t have to be money. Just something rather innoculous. And why aren’t you comfortable with it? You brought it up. **I** brought it up? I believe the first mention of a “bet” in a conversation between you and me was in your post #2643. Anyway, if you have a stake in mind, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2740 "2011-06-01T13:56:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m aware of it, I’d just hoped you’d address the points I raise, and not drag in something some other pro-choicer said. I don’t care about random pro-choice rhetoric. I didn’t base my arguments on it. This is pretty much why I stopped talking to **OMG A Big Doofus**. He seems to think HE’s got YOU over a rhetorical barrel if someone on your side once said something stupid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=136) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=138)