# 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:** 140
**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 3, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2781 "2011-06-03T02:32:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Fortunately, this is bullshit. If simple majority vote determined the law, the U.S. would still have segregation. Well, it’s **a lot** better than making something legal/illegal based on a plurality 😉 (Yeah, I didn’t forgot about the above responses. Just really had to add that in.) ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2782 "2011-06-03T05:45:47Z")
[Good news](http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/injectable-birt.php) [Bad news](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/scott-walker-wisconsin-men-badgercare-family-planning_n_870430.html) ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2783 "2011-06-03T09:19:03Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > [Good news](http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/injectable-birt.php) > > [Bad news](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/scott-walker-wisconsin-men-badgercare-family-planning_n_870430.html) And that’s why I still thank the stars every day that I live in Australia. We might have some whacko nut-jobs who picket abortion clinics with cameras, but no pollie in his/her right mind here would even _dare_ to suggest cutting funding to clinics that provide such services. They’d be laughed out of parliament here. Seriously. :rolleyes: ---
**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 3, 2011, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2784 "2011-06-03T12:25:54Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > [Good news](http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/injectable-birt.php) A reversible chemical vasectomy that lasts ten years, huh? Heck, it should be offered free to parents of 14 year-old boys. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2785 "2011-06-03T16:09:05Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > In order to argue that Americans would leave abortions legal until viability. Now, normally, I’d point out to you that because no group has a majority, that abortions would only be legal where the aggregate of the first two groups is larger than the latter group, and illegal when the aggregate of the latter two groups is larger then the first, but **EVERYTIME I POINT THIS OUT, YOU IGNORE IT**. So I figure, “Why bother?”. You just stick your finger in your ear and go “La, la, la, la, la! I can’t hear you!”. Because it’s an irrelevant distraction from my point. > [@](#): > > I’m tempted to find where I said something along the lines of me not being interested in non-specific polls but rather those polls which specifically ask Americans whether or not abortions should be legal or illegal in a specific circumstance Sure, you can post a link and be selective of which data you choose to use, and I’m free to call you on it , which I’ve done. Once you cite something the available data is available for anyone reference. You don’t get to be selective of what data other posters use. The fact that it’s from your own cite makes it even better. > [@](#): > > No, what it means is that non-specific polls aren’t good to use. Which is what I said-- oh-- ages ago. But feel free to ignore that. Like you once again ignored a direct question? Another select reading of your own cite. I asked you to show me anything which backed up your claim that any polls can constitute proof. You failed. What it says is that more specific polls repeated on a regular basis are better. What it doesn’t say is that more general polls should be disregarded completely, which is what you did in your selective reading of your own cite. > [@](#): > > Yet, for some odd reason, you’ve shyed away from specific polls in favor of generalized ones which don’t define their parameters? Yeah, that makes sense. I didn’t shy away from them. I just showed you the data you had ignored since that was my contention. I also claimed polls were generally regarded as dubious and never as proof. Your most recent cite reinforces that point, but you still can’t bring yourself to admit it. > [@](#): > > There is not a single poll where “legal for any reason” is the majority. Not one. But there are numerous polls that place your assertion in doubt, which was my point all along. I acknowledged some time ago that the polls indicate a move toward a more conservative view. You took it to an extreme that the data doesn’t support. > [@](#): > > All right. See the problem here is that because you can’t prove what I say is untrue, you go out and find a poll which is overly generalized such as “Do you support making abortions harder to obtain?” and take this as proof that the majority of Americans don’t support restrictions on abortion. I don’t have to prove anything. YOU made an assertion that you can’t back up. I take those numerous polls I cited as data you ignored {which is true} and a strong indication that your assertion is in doubt. I recognize that as a general moral opinion, the public doesn’t appear to support abortions for career or school, or for financial hardship. Whether they will actually support that as a matter of law and enforce it, is another matter. You’ve hung on specific polls and the wording to make an assertion that was too strong for you to support. My point from the very beginning was that polls don’t work that way, and now, your own link about polls says I’m right. > [@](#): > > I mean, really? That’s not going to work, because you need to define what “Making abortions harder to obtain” means . It probably means, harder to obtain than they are now, which would mean , “more restrictions” > [@](#): > > Such a statement means different things to different people and doesn’t square with certain facts. For example, Americans tend to view parental consent laws favorably (70% support), yet these would make “Abortions harder to obtain”. They also tend to support waiting periods and spousal notification laws, which would also make abortions “harder to obtain”. So what do you say about that? What I’ve said all along. That the polls contain conflicting data that has to be interpreted. It’s your assertion that they prove something. They don’t. > [@](#): > > Either those polls which ask Americans which restrictions they’d specifically support are wrong, or those polls which doesn’t delve into specific restrictions but rather generalized statements don’t tell the full story. Hmmm… I wonder which it could be. I really do. Once again. Polls don’t work that way, as I’ve already explained and your own link does as well. There’s an important difference in definition between Less detailed/more detailed, less informative/more informative, and right/wrong. Were they focusing on the motive for abortion in giving an answer, or the legal/illegal aspect? Does it PROVE, what the public thinks, or is it just a general indicator of attitude? It’s the latter. Just as I’ve said all along. > [@](#): > > Except you haven’t, and are content to use general responses as proof that the public won’t support specific bans or restrictions on abortion which, for the record is false. Once again, you sidestep my actual point that I’ve repeated several times to misrepresent my argument. I haven’t claimed to prove anything. Kindly stop posting this nonsense. I’m aware that polls don’t constitute proof. You however, have made a claim of proof that you can’t support. Your last attempt supported my claim ABOUT THE NATURE OF POLLS. Not your claim that they are proof. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2786 "2011-06-03T16:52:10Z")
[Here’s a story](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-02-military-funerals-freedom-of-speech-protests_n.htm) in USA Today about laws passed in 7 states (and pending in 14 more) to create or expand buffer zones around military funerals, aimed at the Westboro Baptist Church. Said a Republican state lawmaker in Oregon, Representative Kim Thatcher: _“They can protest away, but it doesn’t have to be in everybody else’s face.”_ Thatcher is identified elsewhere as a “pro-life” legislator. I have not heard of her and other “pro-life” lawmakers stating that anti-abortion rights advocates “can protest away, but it doesn’t have to be in everybody else’s face.” Seems to me that if you tolerate harassment in a clinic setting where vulnerable people are seeking health care, you have to tolerate upsetting people at funerals as well. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2787 "2011-06-03T18:05:40Z")
I’ve made the point several times that **OMG** s so called logical conclusions are not actually logically. In post 2670 I got more specific as to why. \*\*OMG \*\* responded in post 2697. Ill start with something simple I asked this question in post 1934 > [@](#): > > 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? and in response I got this > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Omg** > 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. I asked it again pointing out that the biologically enslaved portion of the argument was ignored, and got essentially the same response, addressing slef awareness, but leaving out the physical enslavement part. This is something **Bryan** has pointed out repeatedly as well. **OMG** addressed one aspect of my question and ignored the other, which was a **necessary condition** of the question. Abortion/pregnancy has a unique combination of necessary conditions. Discussions in this thread about Self awareness, bodily autonomy, the value of human life, personhood, etc, can be discussed separately, but you cannot come to logical conclusions by selecting one of the necessary conditions and comparing it to another situation that does not have the necessary conditions. Arguing that if a lack of self awareness justifies abortion that means you support killing newborns is illogical, because it ignores other necessary conditions of the issue. { a lack of self awareness, **and** growing inside someone’s body.} Arguing that using bodily autonomy to justify abortion means you can logically rape and murder others, is illogical for the same reason. In short, the bulk of **OMG** s that are claimed to be “logical conclusions” simply aren’t. The game is to try and separate the the necessary conditions that make up the abortion issue and argue them individually with a superficial appearance of logic. It’s a fail. It’s not logic. > [@](#): > > To be a person you need to be aware. > Newborns aren’t aware. > Newborns aren’t persons. > > That’s a perfectly valid and logical argument. It doesn’t matter whether or not YOU think awareness is the only relevant factor. It only matters whether or not the individual defining newborns as non-persons thinks awareness is the only relevant factor. No, it only has a passing resemblance to a logical argument. !st there’s the issue of degrees of awareness. Is a newborn more aware than a 1st trimester embryo or a fetus with no developed brain? Then there’s the issue that in this discussion topic, nobody is arguing that a newborn is not a person, or that personhood hinges ONLY on awareness. > [@](#): > > Read the fucking thread, especially the arguments of pro-choicers who have been busily arguing that the right to bodily autonomy is absolute. Even if that’s so, a lack of logic on their part doesn’t make your argument more logical. My guess is in most cases you’re hanging on semantics to make their argument more absolute than it is if examined. > [@](#): > > The location of those you’re acting against, therefore, is irrelevant, as preventing one from acting against an entity simply because you want to should he be inside of your body is fundamentally no different than preventing one from acting against an entity simply because you want to should be be outside of your body. Again, you’re leaving out one of the necessary conditions of a discussion of abortion, which makes your argument a logical fail. > [@](#): > > You’re going to have to explain to me how you can, in one breath, argue that “pregnancy is a unique situation which deserves its own rules and considerations” then turn around and argue that "abortion should be legal because in no other instance can you be ‘forced’ to give sustenance to someone. Haven’t I already? It’s okay to consider imperfect analogies and existing legal and moral precedents. That doesn’t make the abortion issue less unique or complex. > [@](#): > > Apparently, it only deserves its own rules and considerations when it comes to aborting. Wouldn’t that be, obviously? > [@](#): > > Which doesn’t explain why said logic should only be applied to abortion and not elsewhere. Bodily autonomy comes up in lots of issues. The way in which it comes up in abortion is a unique one. > [@](#): > > Oh, you’re not? Really? I think you need to examine your arguments. So you think the right to an abortion, which is rooted in the notion of bodily autonomy, doesn’t entail the right to act against another regardless of the effect it has on that entity? Really? Then why can a woman have an abortion and do just that? The only way you could argue differently-- possibly arguing that abortion is a form of self-defense, or self-preservation of one’s right to bodily autonomy-- would require a hell of a lot of mental gymnastics, as you would be essentially arguing that the mere existence of an entity is grounds to act against that entity. But such a statement is pure nonsense (see: one of my responses a bit earlier), though I’d love to see you try to rationalize it. Go ahead. Amuse me. Here’s another thing you like to do. You assume you’re correct and then set rules by which others are required to argue. If they don’t you win by default. It’s a great way to stroke your ego, but a disingenuous way of arguing. As I’ve already said, 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. In the balance of all the combined issues, choice wins, especially before viability. A woman is acting for herself, about her body, which unavoidably affects the embryo, or fetus. In reverse, to insist on the embryo’s right to life, necessarily means the physical enslavement of the woman, against her will. We cannot choose either way without an undesired consequence, and yet we must choose. According to you, physical enslavement against her will is the better choice. According to the law, the rights of citizens we actually have outweighs the rights of citizens we might have. I happen to agree. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2788 "2011-06-03T18:11:53Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > [Here’s a story](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-02-military-funerals-freedom-of-speech-protests_n.htm) in USA Today about laws passed in 7 states (and pending in 14 more) to create or expand buffer zones around military funerals, aimed at the Westboro Baptist Church. > > Said a Republican state lawmaker in Oregon, Representative Kim Thatcher: > > _“They can protest away, but it doesn’t have to be in everybody else’s face.”_ > > Thatcher is identified elsewhere as a “pro-life” legislator. I have not heard of her and other “pro-life” lawmakers stating that anti-abortion rights advocates “can protest away, but it doesn’t have to be in everybody else’s face.” > > Seems to me that if you tolerate harassment in a clinic setting where vulnerable people are seeking health care, you have to tolerate upsetting people at funerals as well. That’s interesting isn’t it? I’d love to see someone use that same argument on her, about anti abortion protesters. I’m unsure why a clinic can’t file harassment charges for protesters who verbally accost their clients. As much as I despise the WBC freaks I hate to see buffer zone precedent set. In a couple of towns the locals have dealt with them fairly effectively on their own, outnumbering them and standing between them and the funeral with flags, so nobody had to hear or see them. ---
**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 4, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2789 "2011-06-04T02:06:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If that’s the concept you were trying to express, you did so in an especially unclear fashion, and even this allegedly clarified version isn’t very helpful. If it’s not helpful, then how would you know what I was trying to express and how it would be different from what I said initially? > [@](#): > > Good thing I’m not doing that. That would be stupid. Rather, why would I want to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want? What purpose does that serve? Wouldn’t it be optimal to let her pick the timing and number of her children? I fail to see why the state is presumed to be a better judge than the woman. Perhaps she doesn’t have this child now, finishes her education, gets some financial security, builds a stable marriage, and has a wanted child later under better conditions. Perhaps she just doesn’t want children, ever. Perhaps she’s already had one or more children and doesn’t want another. Well now you’re just ignoring the existence of that child, for whatever reason. > [@](#): > > Okay, for abortion - infinitely. For the generic “bodily autonomy” aspect… not infinitely. The state can, after all, search one’s body (even invasively) under certain conditions. The state could conceivably conscript one into military service, with the attendant risk that one’s bodily autonomy will be violated by enemy bullets. In states that practice capital punishment, the state can jam a needle into one’s arm and administer lethal chemicals. There are demands I recognize that the state can make, given the right circumstances. Trouble is, you so casually flip between the specific and the generic that I need to sprinkle my replies with qualifiers and conditions. So then why can’t a state demand a woman remain pregnant, even if it’s against her will? > [@](#): > > No, because the overriding situation above all, as far as I’m concerned, is whether or not she chooses to continue the pregnancy. I’m more concerned with preserving her individual liberty than I am with population counts. If population counts dropped to critical levels, I might reconsider, but it’s not likely. So then all of this other stuff you’ve been going on about is irrelevant and the entire issue is one about bodily autonomy? I mean, I’ve known this for a long time, and have stated as much, but I just felt the need to state it one more time since you made it so obvious. Also, I must say that you are quite the communist to even consider banning abortion as a matter of the survival of Canada as a nation. Who knew? (I did!) > [@](#): > > I don’t see how an issue of law can be a scientific fact, but your poor choice of words aside… so? It’s a quirk of the law, same as if you ran over a person who was walking to a bridge with the intent to jump off. All this does is suggest that the fate of the fetus is not your choice, which is what I’ve been saying all along. It’s not (or at least it shouldn’t be) your choice nor the choice of any person who wants their beliefs written into law. Well, one, the law can be, and usually is, based on simply scientific facts. _Usually_. Two, this isn’t a quirk in the law. It’s a contradiction. The unborn aren’t considered persons under the law yet they’re considered persons under the law. How does that work? They either are or aren’t, either in which case abortion is illegal or causing the death of an unborn child is neither manslaughter, homicide nor murder. You can’t have it both ways. > [@](#): > > I’m curious how you could explain how you can rape someone without using their body. And again, before you extend this back to abortion, I remind you of the “inside the body” qualifier, which I find satisfactory even if you do not. I don’t care if you find it a satisfactory answer. It’s not a satisfactory answer. It’s, at best, a self-evident statement made in the absense of a justification and, at worst, a circular argument. It’s seriously akin to me arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It’s not going to fly and you refusing to justify it just shows how weak your own argument is. > [@](#): > > You can tell yourself that, but really I’m just trying to weed out the repetition. There is literally nothing you have written that moves me to reconsider a pro-choice stance, nor to recognize the validity of a pro-life one. At best, I recognize a fundamental disagreement, which I expect will not change if this thread goes to 60 pages or 600. I believe I said this before, but this is not a fundamental disagreement. This is an instance of you refusing-- and I do mean absolutely refusing-- to justify your position. This is your argument in a nutshell: “A woman should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body, and because the rights over one’s body are important, then she should be allowed to have an abortion”. That is a complete **NON-ANSWER** and it doesn’t even give the guise of being anything other than a non-answer. What makes it even worse is that you, just above, admit that the government can do violate one’s right to bodily autonomy which, if true, really begs for you to justify why it being the woman’s body as it relates to abortion is important. But I’ve asked this question of you many times, and each time I’m met with just about as much of a non-answer as I was prior. I mean, really. What is that? How not to debate 101? > [@](#): > > If it’s all that ridiculous, I couldn’t possibly imagine why a million American women a year get abortions. It would have to be some kind of massive fluke, wouldn’t it? By your argument, women cannot be trusted to make this kind of decision, therefore it should be taken from them. So your argument is now based on the _number_ of women who do something every year? Are you arguing that the more people who engage in an action per year, the less ridiculous arguments for making that action legal are? If that’s the route we’re going, then I’d be willing to bet that, every year, there are far more thefts than there are abortions. Would you thusly judge the ridiculousness of arguing that theft should be legal based on the number of thefts that occur per year? Since millions of people engage in it. > [@](#): > > That is correct, is it not? Women cannot be trusted to make this kind of decision? I figure this is the distilled version of all your posts in this thread, though I invite you to correct me if I am wrong. In as much as I would argue that the millions of aforementioned thieves can’t be trusted, yes. > [@](#): > > Please proofread before you post - the above paragraph is nonsense. You’ve “yet to see any pro-choicer argue that the unborn should be allowed to use the woman’s body” because that’s that exact opposite of the pro-choice idea. Nobody, fetus or otherwise, gets to use a woman’s without her consent (barring the state exceptions mentioned above, plus a few other possibilities) So the reason I’ve yet to see any pro-choicer argue that the unborn should be allowed to use the woman’s body is because pro-choicers don’t make that claim? Wouldn’t that-- you know-- explain why I haven’t seen pro-choicers make that claim? …Yeah. QED. > [@](#): > > If a born person (say, a rapist) is trying, the woman could have that person arrested, or even use force to defend herself. If it’s an unborn person, her choices are more limited - to either aborting or waiting. And I don’t see why she should be forced to wait, especially considering the physical hardships that pregnancy entails. But remember, pregnancy is a unique situation and, as a result, cannot be compared to other situations 😉 (Or does that argument only apply in the case of abortion?) > [@](#): > > I don’t care. I consider this a civil rights issue, so even there was a 95% majority wanting to criminalize abortion, respect for individual freedom can trump it. In the particular case of the U.S., get a constitutional amendment if you want abortion banned that badly. How can abortion be a civil rights issue when you deny the child the right to live? That doesn’t make much sense. Merely claiming it’s a civil rights issue doesn’t make it as such. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you’re expecting. My answer is… if you’re pregnant, I respect your choice to either abort or have a third child. It’s the same answer I’d give to any woman regardless of how may children she had. > > If I knew the woman personally, if I knew some specifics about her particular situation, I might be able to offer more specific advice. > > I don’t know what you’d think your gender or number of children would matter to me, nor how you can plausibly claim I refused to answer. I’d just give the same answer. Let me explain it to you then. I’m now a woman. I’ve given birth to two children. I’m here arguing as I have been. What are you going to say? Are you going to give me the whole “well, you don’t know what you’re talking about because you’ve never been pregnant!” line? Are you going to argue that because I’ve given birth to two children that my arguments holds more weight than if I hadn’t? What are you going to do? If nothing will change, then there’s no point in you trying to act as if I’m “discounting” pregnancy. > [@](#): > > Please. I don’t care what your background or gender is - your arguments are weak. I would dismiss these arguments from anyone. I would hope that a person with some academic or professional training in gynecology/obstetrics, social work, demographics, etc. would have better arguments, giving me more of a challenge, but even that’s not guaranteed. I can imagine, for instance, a brilliant medical doctor with decades of experience saying that they became pro-life the moment they heard a fetal heartbeat for the first time, or some such emotional claim. I’d dismiss that with far less effort than I’m using to dismiss you. There’s nothing weak about my arugments. Perhaps you should examine your own, since you’ve already admitted that you’re content to treat your own assertions as self-evident thusly needing no kind of backing to them. You can’t argue with someone who from the outset refuses to justify his position. Oh well. It’s still infinitely fun to point this out. > [@](#): > > Even if it mattered to me… none? You’re speaking with absolute certainty about the beliefs of a group of humans? That’s absurd on its face - any group of humans, no matter how disciplined and united, is going to have some individual variation. This is actually not true. It depends on the size of the population. If it’s a large group, then what you say would be true. However, it’s simply not true in this instance _because_ the number of people who have survived abortions is actually relatively small. Quite small, in fact. So small, that virtually all cases of one surviving an abortion are well-documented. So yes, none. Pro-choice groups would be all over someone who survived an abortion who spoke in favor of abortion. Or maybe they wouldn’t, because that’d just be weird… > [@](#): > > Besides, I’d assume your statistics are based on people who say “My mother tried to abort me and now I’m against abortion”, while ignoring anyone who might say “You know, my parents shouldn’t have had children…” No. It’s easy to be in the latter group because, as you’ve evidenced, you’re far more likely to say what should have been done or what should be done if you were never done to, but it’s a lot harder to support that thing if it was done to you and you survived it. > [@](#): > > And just for laughs, I googled that phrase: “my parents shouldn’t have had children” and got some hits. Not many, but enough I figure to dismiss the significance of your big bold none, even if I gave the opinions of such people special weight, which I do not, and won’t bother talking about them again. If such a person happens to show up in this thread, claiming to be an abortion survivor, they’ll get no points from me for that, but only on the value of their pro-life arguments. So let me get this straight. You’re putting people who think they should have been aborted into the same group as people whose mother’s actually tried to abort them? REALLY? Because, well, if you’re treaing the two the same, I would have to question just your honesty. Either that, or I would have to question your reading skills. > [@](#): > > More credence to the murdered, raped and thieved. Unless there’s an “inside the body” issue at play, of course. I will continue to point out that you’re not making any argument. You’re back to the “inside the body” thing, which you’ve yet to justify or to explain why is important. It’s a disingenuous way to argue, to put it mildly. You cannot say that being “inside the body” matters, yet when people ask you why it matters either fail to explain why it matters or just state “Because it does”. > [@](#): > > Even then, though, the assumption is that unchecked murder, rape and theft don’t just hurt the immediate victims, but undermine the society as a whole (if the effect was truly limited to just the victims, I’d be okay with letting them or their families exact private revenge). I don’t see abortion undermining society. Excuse me? If I were to murder some hobo with no family and no friends, that doesn’t undermine society. Hell, if someone wanted to be a utilitarian, they could possibly argue that I increased utility be decreased depending on the system. It does, however, harm that individual, which is why murder is illegal. The effect on society is irrelevant. And as you seemingly agree that abortion causes the unborn to be an immediate victim, then it shouldn’t be legal. > [@](#): > > Yes and, frankly, every time you say it, I trust your judgement less and less. By your argument, the fact that you are engaging in this internet discussion means you can’t be trusted to do so rationally. It further suggests that nobody can ever do anything rationally. It’s not an idea I find, heh, rational or plausible. Errr, no. For example, let’s say I were to break this forums rules and use a gay slur against you. If my actions could be rationalized by myself, then I wouldn’t get in trouble for using a gay slur as the fact that I found it okay would mean that it was okay. However, they would not be deemed. I have to abide by the rules of this forum and can only operate within those set guidelines. It’s not a hard concept to understand, and I know I’ve explained this before, so I don’t see why you don’t. > [@](#): > > How many potential adoptive families are there in the U.S. per year? Call it X. How many babies will you save through an abortion ban? Call it Y. For the first few years of an abortion ban, X steadily drops as the families get their adoptees. Y however increases by the hundreds of thousands every year. Right off the bat, I see a problem with your approach. How do you plan to resolve it? Orphanages for the children who will be abandoned? Perhaps, more gently, significant boosts in government support for single mothers? I eagerly await your ideas. We’ll get to this below, because you’re operating under a few incorrect assumptions. > [@](#): > > Okay… if I choose to allow the action, then me and the other person will either fight to the death or one of us will be randomly killed or something… Okay… I would not choose to allow the action. > > Of course, the illustration has no relevance to abortion as long as a certain critical element is omitted. No, it’s called a veil of ignorance. Granted, we’re assuming either “always legal” or “never legal” in this instance, but it helps is showing that the action of abortion is either generally morally right or morally wrong. And by your refusal to accept it, I see you view it as morally wrong. > [@](#): > > As I understand it, the pro-choice position will remain the norm in Canada for as long as enough Canadians feel (as I do) that this is not an issue that should be recriminalized. It’s been fully legal for over 20 years, there have been no ill-effects. Eventually, I guess, the issue will seem so normal to Canadians that a politician who suggests recriminalizing abortion will get a reaction similar to a politician who suggests maybe it was a mistake to give women the vote, i.e. advocating something viewed as ridiculous on its face. It’ll remain the norm until there’s an open debate about abortion in Canada. Either that or until all those little Canadian girls who idolize Justin Beiber grow up and adopt his points of view. So… However long that is. > [@](#): > > Sure, I do. Or, more accurately, it’s easy and self-evident that a walking talking slave has rights (in fact I’m kind of curious by what chain of events, no pun intended, you think modern Americans could eventually become slaves in the first place), but rather less so for a fetus. You’re assuming a fetus has rights and freedoms in the first place, and for all the times you’ve falsely accused me of begging the question, this is something of a whopper. A slave, by virtue of being a slave, is being considered to have no rights. That was the stipulation here. As a result, you cannot say that allowing someone to own a slave to be worse than not owning a slave, since disallowing them from owning a slave would result in fewer net freedoms than would allowing him to own a slave. > [@](#): > > What considerations did you have in mind? The ability to use the mother’s body whereas the others cannot. After all, you cannot say that pregnancy is a unique situation yet treat the unborn like you would a born individual who uses the woman’s body. > [@](#): > > If this is a roundabout way of asking if I think it’s okay for a woman to kill her fetus but not her baby… yes, I think it’s okay for a woman to kill her fetus but not her baby. I’ve been saying this for years. I’ve said it ten or more times in this thread alone. That’s not what I’m asking. You said pregnancy should be given special considerations, yes? If so, then why do you not afford the unborn special considerations that the born do not get, instead choosing to treat it like everyone else. In this way, you’re not arguing that pregnancy is a unique situation, but just abortion. > [@](#): > > So your Supreme Court is irrational? That’s a disturbing thought, or it would be if your claim wasn’t ridiculous and blatantly self-serving on its face. Well, unlike you, I realize that SCOTUS is often times wrong in their conclusions. A brief look at history will tell you this. Do you think SCOTUS is always right? Furthermore, it’s not self-serving. Murder is not murder based on where the individual is killed, but rather the circumstances surrounding his or her death. To say killing someone a minute before they’re born is not murder but a minute afterwards it is, when both were done for the same reasons, is nonsensical and irrational. Yet, in practice, this is what the law says. ---
**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 4, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2790 "2011-06-04T02:09:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Simple math says it won’t. The number of abortions per year will rapidly exceed the number of potential adopters, so unless you plan to start exporting surplus babies, your forced supply will rapidly outstrip your demand. Well that’s just untrue. > [@](#): > > Let’s just spitball some numbers. > > **X** = number of extra babies born per year after an abortion ban, even a “toothless” one = ~400,000 ? > > **A** = number of families or individuals seeking to adopt a baby the year abortion is banned = ~1.6 million (taken from [this site](http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm), representing a 1995 number of women who had taken concrete steps toward adoption) > > **A[sub]I[/sub]** = Annual increase in the number of adoption seekers = I dunno… 100,000 per year? > > So after four years, **A** drops to zero; all the families who had taken concrete steps toward adopting have adopted. Over those four years, 400,000 new families sought to adopt and are satisfied by all the babies born in year 5. > > Now what? **X** will exceed **A[sub]I[/sub]** (which I expect is already a _very_ liberal estimate) by 300,000 per year. What are you going to do with the surplus? Hope for the best? Hope that the mothers who didn’t want them will take care of them? Punish the mothers if they don’t? Assume 90% of the mothers adapt and better themselves or whatever. Now you’ve got a possibly manageable 30,000 abandoned/abused/neglected children. Yay, won’t that be fun? > > If you’ve got any kind of hard statistics to replace my ballpark estimates, I invite you to fill them in. None of this is true, precisely because abortion and adoption aren’t considered to be substitutes. That is, women don’t abort babies they’d otherwise adopt out. I believe I said this before. [The empirical results show that the decision to place a child for adoption is negatively related to a woman’s labor force participation, the size of Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments and the unemployment rate, and is positively related to her marital status, education, and religious affiliation. The price and availability of abortions are found to have no statistically significant effect on the adoption decision.](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1993.tb00866.x/abstract) [One implication of the results in this paper is that to have an abortion or relinquish an infant for adoption are not considered to be substitutes by women with unwanted pregnancies and that for poor women with unwanted pregnancies either an abortion or raising an infant is preferable to relinquishing an infant for adoption.](http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0306-8293&volume=35&issue=3&articleid=1662839&show=abstract) So no, you won’t get an influx of children put up for adoption, much to your consternation. This is precisely what I mean when I continue to say that your assertions simply aren’t born out of evidence and, frankly, border on (baseless) fearmongering. > [@](#): > > Heck, haven’t **you** cited some stats that show a major reason women choose to abort is economics? Yeah, here it is: > > Are they lying? Will forcing a baby on a woman who claims to not be able to afford a baby _improve_ her situation, or is likely to worsen it? > > Yeah, they must be lying. They want abortions, therefore they can’t be trusted to have rational reasons for them. So let me make sure I understand this correctly. Your proof for the assertion that making abortion illegal would increase poverty is the fact that 23% of women who obtain an abortion do so for a given reason? Really? You know, I was expecting something that-- you know-- looked at the poverty rate, say, post-Roe vs. pre-Roe, and performed some kind of statistical analysis to view whether or not the Roe decision had an effect on the poverty rate. Because, you know, _that_ would be proof. But I’ve asked for such a thing many times now and you’ve failed to produce, so I can only surmise that you _can’t_ produce it. …And could you at least work on your straw men? > [@](#): > > I cheerfully stipulate that you are 100% correct, and I don’t care. Even if all these wonderful things came to pass, there are still negatives that outweigh them that you have not and will not consider. Such as? Notice we keep going in this circle. You say there are negatives, I ask what those negatives you, you tell me what you think they are, I ask for some kind of empirical evidence which would leave one to accept what you say as plausible and you provide none. I mean, really. As the saying goes “put up or shut up”. As it is, since you’re unwilling to put up, then you should at least shut up about this “negatives that outweigh them” line. > [@](#): > > I figure banning abortion would be a big step in that direction. A big juicy repressive step. Anyway, some parts of Nicaragua are better off economically than some parts of the U.S. I figure Nicaragua’s not a bad example, since it’s a country where abortion was once legal and now isn’t. It’s actually not that easy to find countries who do this. So before you tried to cry foul about slippery slopes, yet here you’re creating a slippery slop even slipperier (is that even a word?) than the one I created? I figure your example would be more apt if, you know, you were going to compare two similar bans (again, few in the U.S. want to ban abortion in its entirety) and to another developed country, instead of to a developing one, which is languishing far behind when it comes to medical technology. > [@](#): > > Most countries don’t go _backward_ on civil rights. Which is why abortion on demand isn’t exactly the progressive idea 😉 I can vaguely picture some kind of _Children of Men_-type scenario where an epidemic of some kind causes fertility rates to drop to near-zero. I’d expect quite a few civil rights to get suspended under such conditions. [/quote] You don’t have to get to zero; you just have to get below the replacement rate and have your levels of immigration taper off. Since that’s what will happen in Canada in a few decades time, then it’s nice to know you’ll support restrictions on abortion then. A shame it would take such drastic measures, but I’m not one to complain. > [@](#): > > It can be used very well, it turns out. Unfortunately, it cannot. > [@](#): > > Seriously, what kind of question is that? If something is not absolute, it can’t be used at all? If it’s only true 99.99% of the time, it’s effectively untrue? It’s a very good question. How can you argue that X should form the basis of policy Y if, by your own admission, X can be deemed to be irrelevant in certain cases? Why couldn’t this be one of those instances in which X is irrelevant? > [@](#): > > And the fact that you’re okay with that undermines your credibility, as far as I’m concerned. You would turn citizens just trying to live their lives into desperate criminals, and for what? To put them in their place? And how does it undermine my credibility? > [@](#): > > Can’t prove it, huh? You can’t prove that your freedom, your life and your not-being-raped-hood is important to you. Well, fortunately, there are people who will protect these on your behalf. I just thought I’d made use of the line of arguing you do. > [@](#): > > You’re assuming that. I’ll continue to choose neither. Of course, the stipulation was that you had to choose one. I don’t know why you refuse to answer it. I know what I’d choose-- to be “forced” to remain pregnant. What about you? ---
**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 4, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2791 "2011-06-04T03:41:00Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Because it’s an irrelevant distraction from my point. So something you brought up would be an irrelevant distraction from your point? Then \*\*WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE? > [@](#): > > Sure, you can post a link and be selective of which data you choose to use, and I’m free to call you on it , which I’ve done. Once you cite something the available data is available for anyone reference. You don’t get to be selective of what data other posters use. The fact that it’s from your own cite makes it even better. I’ll just quote this. We can go at this all day. I made a claim-- a specific claim. I said that Americans would leave abortions legal in the ‘hard’ cases (rape, incest, maternal health, fetal defects) and ban all the rest of abortions. You said that claim was false. I gave you polls in which Americans were asked specific instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal. You told me I was being selective. I asked you for proof to the contrary. You haven’t (no, you haven’t), because you can’t. It’s that simple. You see, it would be fairly easy to prove my statement wrong. All you would have to do would be to find a specific poll which laid out specific circumstances by which abortion should be legal or illegal, and find the one which says that abortions outside of the hard cases should be legal. That would be a five minute search, if that. However-- and here’s the thing-- no such poll exists, which is why you’ve yet to produce one. You could search all day every day looking for a poll which explicitly says, “When Americans were asked whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because she could not afford a child, Americans were in favor of it by \” yet you would not find it. On the other hand, within three minutes I could find you a poll where, when that specific question was asked, the majority of respondents said no. In fact, I already did. I’m not so sure how you claim my claim is false when I can provide, yet you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. It really boggles the mind when you say I can’t prove my assertion, yet I can and have pointed to specific polls which say exactly what I’m saying yet you cannot point to any which would prove me wrong. You see, being able to find a general poll with generalized responses does not constitute proving my assertion false. Proving my assertion false would be showing that another poll, which asked the same question, came to a vastly different conclusion. For example, when I pointed out to you that Americans tend to support parental consent laws for minors you claimed that there is an incongruency between polls because other polls only show that “40% of Americans want to make abortions harder”. But guess what? That’s not conflicting data. Conflicting data would be poll one asking whether or not minors should need the consent of their parents to obtain an abortion obtaining 70% in favor of and poll two asking whether or not minors should need the consent of their parents to obtain an abortion obtaining 40% in favor. That would be a conflict, as when given the same restriction, they come at two entirely different outcomes. No, what we have here is you trying to compare a poll with a very generalized question versus a poll in which a specific instance or circumstance is presented. The general poll is open to interpretation; the other poll is not. Notice that when I asked you what “harder” entails, you couldn’t tell me and just flatly ignored it. In fact, that’s what you’ve been doing for a long ass time. Because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary of what I’ve provided, you’ve instead decided that you’re going to look for generalized questions on abortion and extrapolate to mean that I’m wrong, even though you, yourself, cannot define for me what the parameters contained in the generalized questions are. For example, you keep referencing the 2009 NBC News poll as a way to show I’m wrong. When I asked you what “between a woman and her doctor” mean you keep saying “more than the other categories”. But that’s not a response. When I, for example, pointed out that few people would believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion because she doesn’t like the sex of her baby even though that would be a decision “between a woman and her doctor”, you ignored it. When I pointed out that the “between a woman and her doctor” category would also include instances where the mother’s health is at stake or fetal defects, which are hard cases, it would take away from that category and add to the middle category. When I said that “between a woman and her doctor” is a nebulous statement, and thusly needs to be defined with specific parameters so as to see when American believe abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor” and when it shouldn’t, you ignored it. Funny that. You have this odd way of arguing. You try to claim someone is wrong when they’re not. You refuse to do what others ask of you. And when someone makes a point you don’t like or can’t respond to, you ignore it. Yeah. Funny how that works. Now please feel free to ignore this one as well. > [@](#): > > I’ve made the point several times that **OMG** s so called logical conclusions are not actually logically. In post 2670 I got more specific as to why. \*\*OMG \*\* responded in post 2697. Oh, here we go. > [@](#): > > I asked it again pointing out that the biologically enslaved portion of the argument was ignored, and got essentially the same response, addressing slef awareness, but leaving out the physical enslavement part. This is something Bryan has pointed out repeatedly as well. OMG addressed one aspect of my question and ignored the other, which was a necessary condition of the question. Yeah… Much to your consternation, I really didn’t ignore anything. To quote myself from post [#2,697](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13861059&postcount=2697): > [@](#): > > See, this is one of those instances where you’re behind the proverbial eight ball. If you would have read my response, you’d clearly see that it was aimed at pointing out that self-determination doesn’t mean a lick, as you wouldn’t allow me to throw a newborn into the Hudson who is unable to exercise self-determination [even though] (s)he is no longer inside of his/her mother’s body (much like I’d doubt you’d say abortion is impermissable even if the unborn was able to exercise self-determine [while] (s)he is inside of his/her mother’s body). This went ignored, though I won’t make too much out of that. Since your response has been, essentially, “No, no, no! My argument is **REALLY** complicated and doesn’t just hinge on bodily autonomy!”, I decided to focus on on whether or not those other things you claimed were really important to your argument, in this case self-determination. Based on your argument, we can derive four conclusions. (1) A fetus incapable of self-determination can be aborted because it is inside of the woman’s body. (2) A fetus capable of self-determination can be aborted because it is inside of the woman’s body. (3) A newborn incapable of self-determination cannot be thrown into the Hudson even though it’s not inside of the woman’s body. (4) A newborn capable of self-determination cannot be thrown into the Hudson. (If you disagree with any of the above four, let me know.) Note that the permissibility of killing the unborn and/or newborn is not affected by by the unborn’s/newborn’s ability to exercise self-determination, but rather its location relative to the woman’s body. For example, the ability of the unborn child in situation two to exercise self-determination does not grant it protections the unborn child in situation one lacks. Similarly, the newborn child in situation three is not granted fewer protections than the newborn child in situation four, even though its incapable of exercising self-determination. As this is true, then self-determination does not play a critical role in your argument. Rather, your argument hinges _entirely_ on location of the child relative to the woman’s body. The very thing, mind you, I’ve said many, many, many times before and the very thing you somehow reject. (Oh, but you’ll try to come up with some convoluted response, I’m sure!) Oh, and trying to piggyback off of Bryan just isn’t going to work, not that it ever has. > [@](#): > > **OMG** addressed one aspect of my question and ignored the other, which was a **necessary condition** of the question. No, it wasn’t a necessary condition of your question. It’s the basis of your **ENTIRE ARGUMENT** , which I’ve pointed out no less than twenty times in this thread alone. > [@](#): > > Abortion/pregnancy has a unique combination of necessary conditions. Discussions in this thread about Self awareness, bodily autonomy, the value of human life, personhood, etc, can be discussed separately, but **you cannot come to logical conclusions by selecting one of the necessary conditions and comparing it to another situation that does not have the necessary conditions.** Not only is that a convoluted mess of mumbo-jumbo, and not only would it fly in the face of virtually every defense of abortion ever concocted, especially the bold, your “necessary conditions”, whatever that means, aren’t all necessary and cannot all be held to be important simultaneously. I’ll respond to this below. > [@](#): > > Arguing that if a lack of self awareness justifies abortion that means you support killing newborns is illogical, because it ignores other necessary conditions of the issue. { a lack of self awareness, **and** growing inside someone’s body.} It’s a good thing no one argued this, isn’t it? What was argued is that if you believe awareness is important to being a person and that everyone is entitled to their own definition of personhood and is entitled to act according to those beliefs, then you would be justified in killing newborns. > [@](#): > > Arguing that using bodily autonomy to justify abortion means you can logically rape and murder others, is illogical for the same reason. In short, the bulk of **OMG** s that are claimed to be “logical conclusions” simply aren’t. > > The game is to try and separate the the necessary conditions that make up the abortion issue and argue them individually with a superficial appearance of logic. It’s a fail. It’s not logic. This is the downright dumbest thing you’ve ever written out and that I’ve had the displeasure of reading. But I’ll play along. “Necessary conditions”? What the fuck are those? Actually, I don’t care because you just made that shit up. Generally speaking, the pro-choice argument will boil down to one of two forms: (A) The woman has a right to control her own body. (B) The woman has a right to control her own body up until viability. The first argument can generally be divided ito the following two statements: (1) The fetus is not a person, and as a result has no right to not be killed. (2) The fetus is a person, yet it does not have the right to use the woman’s body against her will. The second argument can generallybe divided into the following three statements: (1) Before viability, the fetus cannot be deemed an independent life since it cannot live independently of the mother. (2) Before viability, the fetus is non-sentient, and sentience is integral to being a person. (3) No one knows when life begins, and as a result viability if the best compromise at where abortion should be undefined. Now to tackle those arguments individually: (A1) I made this point before, but in what ways does a woman have the right to control her own body? Are you saying that she can do _to_ her body as she sees fit? What about _with_ her body? What if allowing her to act in any specific manner would bring harm upon another? If the argument is that a woman can do _to_ and _with_ her body so long as she sees fit and as long as it does not bring harm upon another, then this distinction should also hold true in regards to pregnancy. If, for example, one would argue that a woman should be allowed to down a 40 oz. a day within the confines of her home because such an activity does harms no one aside from her then, to be consistent, they would necessarily have to argue that a woman be disallowed from downing a 40 oz. a day because it can potentially harm her unborn child. On the flip side, if you are arguing that a woman can act in a manner she chooses regardless of the effect is has on another, as usually happens when it comes to abortion, then to be consistent you would necessarily have to argue that rape and murder are perfectly acceptable activities, even though these activities harm a third party. The only way to argue it permissible to act against the unborn regardless of the effect it has on them without also applying this logic to someone who is born is to assume that someone who is born has a right to not be acted against while the unborn does not, thus leading to the question of who is a person under the law and who is not. This will be dealt with a little later. (A2) Even if the unborn, by virtue of being a person, has no right to use a woman’s body, they do-- at the very least-- have the right to _not be acted against_. If this is the case, and it would be by virtue of the unborn being persons under the law, then abortion is impermissible for no person can arbitrarily be deprived of his or her life _without_, at least in the U.S., due process/equal protection of the law. Thusly, this is not a valid argument without redefining what it means to legally be a person. (B1) Does this mean with or without medical technology? I’m going to assume it means with medical technology. If that is the case, then as medical technology advances forward and viability is reached earlier in pregnancy, then the time limit in which abortion is allowed is also shortened. If, for example, medical technology pushes viability back to 20 weeks then abortions, then using viability as the point at which abortions become illegal, abortions would be illegal at 20 weeks. If medical technology pushes viability back to 15 weeks, then abortions become illegal at 15 weeks. If that viability is pushed back to 10 weeks, then abortions become impermissible at ten weeks. If viability is pushed back to an hour after the conclusion of fertilization, then abortions become impermissible an hour after fertilization. In the end, you would have to agree that as medical technology advances and the unborn has less of a need to use the woman’s body that it has more of a right to do so, though I’m fairly sure you’ll wholeheartedly disagree with such an assertion. (B2) Assuming this as true, then if someone loses sentience do they become a non-person? Are individuals who are asleep non-persons? Are individuals who are in a coma non-persons? Are individuals under the effects of anaesthetics non-persons? Unless you agree that said states cause one to lose their status as a person under the law, then you are not being consistent in your application sentience as a determining factor in whether or not one is a person as instead of applying it to everyone equally, you will only apply it to the unborn. Of course, that’s the inherent problem with using sentience-- or even things such as awareness or any other such philosophical concept-- to define personhood. Their very natures also require you to define some born human out of rights. Now you could argue that the difference between those individuals and the unborn is that they have been sentient in the past whereas the unborn have never been sentient, but the inevitable question is why is that important? Rights are granted not on past status, but rather on present status and reasonable expectations for the future. If, for example, some thoroughly non-sentient born individual in still considered to be a person because we know that they’ll be sentient in the future, then under what basis _shouldn’t_ the unborn also be considered a person under the law (that is, they might not be sentient today but we know they’ll be sentient tomorrow)? Fundamentally the two are no different. You’re going to have a hell of a time trying to rationalize one without also rationalizing the other. (B3) This one is just ignorance run amok. A simple glance at an embryology or biology textbook will tell we know very well when the life of a human begins. Now your inevitable response to this? Quite possibly something about it being the woman’s body which, you know, will be a total non-answer plus a good example of begging the question. But hey-- you have no logical arguments in defense of abortion, so you have to try your best to avoid any argument that’s just too hard for you to answer. Unfortunately, that seems to be all of them. > [@](#): > > No, it only has a passing resemblance to a logical argument. This statement is proof you don’t understand what a logical argument is. As long as the conclusion derives from the premises, it’s a perfectly valid logical argument. Again, you wouldn’t know what a logical argument is if it held a big flashing neon sign with said “I’m a logical argument!”. > [@](#): > > !st there’s the issue of degrees of awareness. Is a newborn more aware than a 1st trimester embryo or a fetus with no developed brain? So you’re redefining someone else’s argument to include _degrees of awareness_, which the original argument did not mention? Wouldn’t that be a-- you know?-- straw man? Why, yes. I think it would be. > [@](#): > > Then there’s the issue that in this discussion topic, nobody is arguing that a newborn is not a person, or that personhood hinges ONLY on awareness. No, rather individuals have been arguing that no one should have a definition of personhood forced upon them that they, themselves, do not consider true. Which, you know, if true, means that one can define a newborn as a non-person. > [@](#): > > Again, you’re leaving out one of the necessary conditions of a discussion of abortion, which makes your argument a logical fail. Again, with this utterly laughable statement. Either you’re living in your own world of your own fashioning, or you’re flat ignorant and/or lying. The [internet](http://www.deathroe.com/pro-life_answers/) is literally _rife_ with pro-life answers to pro-choice arguments, there are literally [hundreds](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vS8H6lUCQqoJ:www.coalitionforlife.com/documents/Alcorn%2520TOC.doc+Pro-Life+Answers+to+Pro-Choice+Arguments&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj3lPNMudQPvAjgglbVCM-asD8G81elmjFTQXDk5_rfnqbGRUjYD1vAFIgxIAO6nAijZkcDp2dtrfu0WRdp2IrDYqLPahNcqN6R0vSWaDO6ll_1_4rMnfMqDtpHxL98WYf_bwsW&sig=AHIEtbRpgwS07uF1JedpVvtiri0EEH68Ag&pli=1) of books written detailing common pro-choice arguments and virtually any ethics class on a college campus will deal with abortion and present the arguments in favor of abortion and their rebuttals. I just think you’re using the “necessary condition” line because you don’t know what else to write. I can’t blame you, though. If my position were as weak as yours, I’d come up with some nonsense, too. Logical fail, indeed. > [@](#): > > Haven’t I already? It’s okay to consider imperfect analogies and existing legal and moral precedents. That doesn’t make the abortion issue less unique or complex. There’s nothing complex about abortion. It’s actually quite simple. ---
**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 4, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2792 "2011-06-04T03:42:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Wouldn’t that be, obviously?.. > > …Bodily autonomy comes up in lots of issues. The way in which it comes up in abortion is a unique one. According to you, there is no other situation outside of pregnancy where a woman can be biologically enslaved or forced to give up her body to sustain another. As a result, much the same way a woman isn’t required to give up her body to sustain another in any other situation, she shouldn’t be required to give up her body to sustain the unborn. Also, according to you, pregnancy is a unique situation, cannot be compared to anything else and is deserving of its own rules and considerations. But if, as you say, pregnancy is a unique situation and cannot be compared to anything else, then whether or not someone else who is not the cause of a pregnancy can use the pregnant’s woman body is irrelevant, and the fact that a woman doesn’t have to give up her body to sustain them is also irrelevant. If pregnancy is deserving of its own rules and considerations, then whereas a woman could refuse to provide for, or even continue to provide for, one of those other individuals, the unborn can demand of her what those individuals cannot as pregnancy is a unique situation and is non-comparable to something else. Therefore, abortion is impermissible. QED. Thanks for playing. > [@](#): > > Here’s another thing you like to do. You assume you’re correct and then set rules by which others are required to argue. If they don’t you win by default. It’s a great way to stroke your ego, but a disingenuous way of arguing. You might lack this ability and all, but I’m able to examine arguments people use and, based on the way they argue, take them to their logical conclusion. You don’t like it? Then find better arguments. It’s not me “winning by default”. It’s me winning by virtue of you having no argument, or at least not one you’re willing to defend. > [@](#): > > As I’ve already said, 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. In the balance of all the combined issues, choice wins, especially before viability. A woman is acting for herself, about her body, which unavoidably affects the embryo, or fetus. In reverse, to insist on the embryo’s right to life, necessarily means the physical enslavement of the woman, against her will. We cannot choose either way without an undesired consequence, and yet we must choose. According to you, physical enslavement against her will is the better choice. According to the law, the rights of citizens we actually have outweighs the rights of citizens we might have. I happen to agree. This is a lot of nothing. People are commonly forced to do those things they’d rather not do. We err on the side of life. It’s pretty simple. Though, I did find it funny you said something about erring on the side of choice, especially before viability. Oh, I wonder how you’ll square that with one of my above responses. …Oh wait. I know how. You’ll ignore it, as you usually do. ---
**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 4, 2011, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2793 "2011-06-04T05:30:12Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So then why can’t a state demand a woman remain pregnant, even if it’s against her will? Some states do, since they’re okay with oppressing women. > [@](#): > > So then all of this other stuff you’ve been going on about is irrelevant and the entire issue is one about bodily autonomy? Yes. Other issues are irrelevant. I discuss them when you bring them up, to explain their irrelevance. > [@](#): > > Well, one, the law can be, and usually is, based on simply scientific facts. _Usually_. Two, this isn’t a quirk in the law. It’s a contradiction. The unborn aren’t considered persons under the law yet they’re considered persons under the law. How does that work? It’s law, not science. It can be as contradictory as the humans writing it make it. > [@](#): > > I don’t care if you find it a satisfactory answer. It’s not a satisfactory answer. It’s, at best, a self-evident statement made in the absense of a justification and, at worst, a circular argument. It’s seriously akin to me arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It’s not going to fly and you refusing to justify it just shows how weak your own argument is. So you say. > [@](#): > > I believe I said this before, but this is not a fundamental disagreement. This is an instance of you refusing-- and I do mean absolutely refusing-- to justify your position. This is your argument in a nutshell: “A woman should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body, and because the rights over one’s body are important, then she should be allowed to have an abortion”. States where women don’t have this control are worse off in many ways than states where women do. > [@](#): > > What makes it even worse is that you, just above, admit that the government can do violate one’s right to bodily autonomy which, if true, really begs for you to justify why it being the woman’s body as it relates to abortion is important. The state must have a compelling reason to violate an individual’s right to bodily autonomy. What is this reason as regards to abortion? > [@](#): > > But I’ve asked this question of you many times, and each time I’m met with just about as much of a non-answer as I was prior. I mean, really. What is that? How not to debate 101? I see this kind of individual liberty as a fundamental value of a liberal democracy, myself. Others may disagree. > [@](#): > > So your argument is now based on the _number_ of women who do something every year? No, I’m just trying to inject a note of reality to contrast with your empty claims. I’m not pro-choice because of some hypothetical untested idealism. Reality guided my views. Try it sometime. > [@](#): > > Are you arguing that the more people who engage in an action per year, the less ridiculous arguments for making that action legal are? If that’s the route we’re going, then I’d be willing to bet that, every year, there are far more thefts than there are abortions. Would you thusly judge the ridiculousness of arguing that theft should be legal based on the number of thefts that occur per year? Since millions of people engage in it. Harm to society of theft - measurable. Harm to society of abortion - nil. The numbers are significant only to demonstrate that _you have no idea of or regard for_ the consequences of what you propose, clinging instead to some naive notion that more babies in and of itself is a worthy goal. > [@](#): > > But remember, pregnancy is a unique situation and, as a result, cannot be compared to other situations 😉 > > (Or does that argument only apply in the case of abortion?) Name a non-abortion situation. Maybe we can discuss it. > [@](#): > > How can abortion be a civil rights issue when you deny the child the right to live? Because I’ve calculated the women’s freedom is more important than the fetus’s life. > [@](#): > > Let me explain it to you then. Yes, _please_ do. > [@](#): > > I’m now a woman. I’ve given birth to two children. I’m here arguing as I have been. What are you going to say? Are you going to give me the whole “well, you don’t know what you’re talking about because you’ve never been pregnant!” line? Are you going to argue that because I’ve given birth to two children that my arguments holds more weight than if I hadn’t? What are you going to do? If nothing will change, then there’s no point in you trying to act as if I’m “discounting” pregnancy. Your pro-life arguments carry no additional weight because of your gender or parenting. I admit I’d be a little surprised if a woman who’d had two children would describe an unwanted pregnancy in terms of “convenience”. I might write her off as some kind of self-centered nut if she said or implied things like “my pregnancies were easy, therefore pregnancy is easy for _all_ women and thus no woman should have the right to an abortion just for her own convenience.” > [@](#): > > There’s nothing weak about my arugments. Perhaps you should examine your own, since you’ve already admitted that you’re content to treat your own assertions as self-evident thusly needing no kind of backing to them. Well, there’s only so many times I can add one to one to get two before I start accepting this as obvious. > [@](#): > > It’s still infinitely fun to point this out. Just out of curiosity, if I lost interest in the thread, would you consider that evidence of victory? [quote] This is actually not true. It depends on the size of the population. If it’s a large group, then what you say would be true. However, it’s simply not true in this instance _because_ the number of people who have survived abortions is actually relatively small. Quite small, in fact. So small, that virtually all cases of one surviving an abortion are well-documented. So yes, none. Pro-choice groups would be all over someone who survived an abortion who spoke in favor of abortion. Or maybe they wouldn’t, because that’d just be weird… [/quote Well, I presume the person would be speaking in favour of legal access to abortion, not abortion _per se_. But I’ll take your word for it that the group is small and unanimous, because I don’t care. > [@](#): > > No. It’s easy to be in the latter group because, as you’ve evidenced, you’re far more likely to say what should have been done or what should be done if you were never done to, but it’s a lot harder to support that thing if it was done to you and you survived it. So it’s harder. Big deal. I’m not entertaining any more arguments relating to the opinions of abortion survivors, barring being given some reason I should. > [@](#): > > I will continue to point out that you’re not making any argument. You’re back to the “inside the body” thing, which you’ve yet to justify or to explain why is important. If something unwanted is inside my body, I want the right to remove it. I’m not self-centered - I want _you_ to have that right, too. And everyone else. > [@](#): > > Excuse me? If I were to murder some hobo with no family and no friends, that doesn’t undermine society. Hell, if someone wanted to be a utilitarian, they could possibly argue that I increased utility be decreased depending on the system. It does, however, harm that individual, which is why murder is illegal. It’s not the _only_ reason it’s illegal, but okay. > [@](#): > > The effect on society is irrelevant. And as you seemingly agree that abortion causes the unborn to be an immediate victim, then it shouldn’t be legal. You argument hinges on hobos being worthless? Well, I’ve already said I figure birth is the optimal demarcation point, and I think it’s safe to presume that even a hobo has relatives (or at least you wouldn’t know he doesn’t until _after_ starting to investigate) and that someone willing to murder a hobo will probably murder again. I don’t see the corresponding threat or significance in a woman getting an abortion. > [@](#): > > Errr, no. For example, let’s say I were to break this forums rules and use a gay slur against you. Well, for starters, I’d think it was funny. > [@](#): > > If my actions could be rationalized by myself, then I wouldn’t get in trouble for using a gay slur as the fact that I found it okay would mean that it was okay. However, they would not be deemed. I have to abide by the rules of this forum and can only operate within those set guidelines. It’s not a hard concept to understand, and I know I’ve explained this before, so I don’t see why you don’t. Because the power of the administrators of this board who kick people who violate their rules is not the merest fraction of the power of the state who can arrest and imprison people who violate its laws. Further, being deprived of a guest membership on a message board is not the merest fraction of the hardship of an unwanted pregnancy. It’s a comically feeble analogy. In any case, you’re obviously _aware_ of the rules of the message board. If you use a slur, it could only be with the willful disregard of these rules - hardly a rational act. > [@](#): > > No, it’s called a veil of ignorance. Granted, we’re assuming either “always legal” or “never legal” in this instance, but it helps is showing that the action of abortion is either generally morally right or morally wrong. And by your refusal to accept it, I see you view it as morally wrong. Actually, I view abortion as morally neutral. Protecting legal access to abortion is morally right. And, fine, under the terms of the veil of ignorance, I have to assume that if all roles were random and I couldn’t know if I was about to be an abort-er or an abort-ee… Well, my position remains unchanged. If I was the abort-ee, I wouldn’t know it, anyway. You’d be talking to someone else. > [@](#): > > It’ll remain the norm until there’s an open debate about abortion in Canada. There’s no restriction - any Canadian who wants to openly debate abortion can (or at least they should be - I’m a tad dismayed by the accounts of the hassled university students, but I don’t take this as a sign of general suppression). > [@](#): > > A slave, by virtue of being a slave, is being considered to have no rights. That was the stipulation here. It was? Rather, I think I was questioning how the slave _became_ a slave, as this represents a _loss_ of rights. Are you assuming this hypothetical is taking place in a state that practices legal slavery and has for quite some time? If that’s the case, my priorities would be to maximize individual rights by ending slavery _and_ legalizing abortion. > [@](#): > > The ability to use the mother’s body whereas the others cannot. After all, you cannot say that pregnancy is a unique situation yet treat the unborn like you would a born individual who uses the woman’s body. Sure I can. You just don’t or won’t get my point because you refuse to recognize the aspect of pregnancy that _makes_ it unique. I suppose we could construct a pregnancy simulation with a born person fulfilling the role of the fetus - his body surgically joined to hers, she forced to carry him around for months at a time… I recognize her right to end the simulation at any time, regardless of what happens to the born person as a result. > [@](#): > > That’s not what I’m asking. You said pregnancy should be given special considerations, yes? If so, then why do you not afford the unborn special considerations that the born do not get, instead choosing to treat it like everyone else. In this way, you’re not arguing that pregnancy is a unique situation, but just abortion. What special considerations for the unborn did you have in mind? And I don’t understand your last sentence. > [@](#): > > Well, unlike you, I realize that SCOTUS is often times wrong in their conclusions. A brief look at history will tell you this. Do you think SCOTUS is always right? No, but in _Roe_ they made the right decision. _Dred Scott_, not so much. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, it’s not self-serving. Murder is not murder based on where the individual is killed, but rather the circumstances surrounding his or her death. Location _is_ a circumstance. > [@](#): > > To say killing someone a minute before they’re born is not murder but a minute afterwards it is, when both were done for the same reasons, is nonsensical and irrational. Yet, in practice, this is what the law says. Sure, I guess… so what? The line has to be somewhere. If it’s at 24 weeks, using an estimate of viability as the guide, then a minute before that line it’s not murder and a minute after it… well… is, I guess, if the law’s written that way. ---
**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 4, 2011, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2794 "2011-06-04T06:27:40Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So no, you won’t get an influx of children put up for adoption, much to your consternation. Well, if not, we’ll get an influx of poor women stuck with children they can’t afford. I’d find it stupid, rather than consternating. > [@](#): > > This is precisely what I mean when I continue to say that your assertions simply aren’t born out of evidence and, frankly, border on (baseless) fearmongering. Forcing unwanted pregnancies to term increases the number of unwanted children. Anyone who is afraid of such an obvious fact is an idiot. In fact, I throw the question open to anyone reading the thread. Are my posts scary? Is anyone scared? > [@](#): > > So let me make sure I understand this correctly. Your proof for the assertion that making abortion illegal would increase poverty is the fact that 23% of women who obtain an abortion do so for a given reason? Really? Hey, it’s a fact _you_ provided. Of that 23% (representing, what, 200,000 American woman a year?), it’s safe to assume to some of them are poor, and if they have children they already think they can’t afford, their likelihood of escaping poverty decreases. Personally, I’d count this as an increase in poverty, but no matter. > [@](#): > > You know, I was expecting something that-- you know-- looked at the poverty rate, say, post-Roe vs. pre-Roe, and performed some kind of statistical analysis to view whether or not the Roe decision had an effect on the poverty rate. Because, you know, _that_ would be proof. But I’ve asked for such a thing many times now and you’ve failed to produce, so I can only surmise that you _can’t_ produce it. Surmise away, knock yourself out. > [@](#): > > Such as? Notice we keep going in this circle. You say there are negatives, I ask what those negatives you, you tell me what you think they are, I ask for some kind of empirical evidence which would leave one to accept what you say as plausible and you provide none. I mean, really. As the saying goes “put up or shut up”. As it is, since you’re unwilling to put up, then you should at least shut up about this “negatives that outweigh them” line. Nope. I’ll continue discussing the subject until the thread dies or I lose interest. I think I’ve argued my case sufficiently and demolished yours sufficiently. Yay, me. > [@](#): > > So before you tried to cry foul about slippery slopes, yet here you’re creating a slippery slop even slipperier (is that even a word?) than the one I created? What, supplying evidence that banning abortion creates problems is a slippery slope, now? That banning abortion would take away a right American woman have enjoyed since 1973 (or longer, in some states) is a slippery slope? > [@](#): > > I figure your example would be more apt if, you know, you were going to compare two similar bans (again, few in the U.S. want to ban abortion in its entirety) and to another developed country, instead of to a developing one, which is languishing far behind when it comes to medical technology. Well, let’s keep an eye on South Dakota, then, shall we? > [@](#): > > You don’t have to get to zero; you just have to get below the replacement rate and have your levels of immigration taper off. Since that’s what will happen in Canada in a few decades time, then it’s nice to know you’ll support restrictions on abortion then. A shame it would take such drastic measures, but I’m not one to complain. I gather you think the birthrate in Canada represents some kind of trump card. This is only possible if you ignore the dismissal I gave of the idea when it was first brought up, some time back. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, it cannot. I’m doing okay. No sense of doubt or nagging feelings of self-deception in what I’m saying, no forced mental shortcuts to avoid inconvenient facts. > [@](#): > > It’s a very good question. How can you argue that X should form the basis of policy Y if, by your own admission, X can be deemed to be irrelevant in certain cases? By not using _X_ as a basis for _Y_ in those cases. > [@](#): > > Why couldn’t this be one of those instances in which X is irrelevant? I’ve seen you try to argue so… unconvincingly, disingenuously, prevaricatingly, with forced attempts at humour and with ultimately little effect. Well, on me, anyway. I suppose there are some lurkers who might find your arguments more persuasive than mine. I can only hope my sympathetic lurkers equal or outnumber yours. > [@](#): > > And how does it undermine my credibility? A woman dies because of the ban you propose, you shrug it off… casualties of war, I guess. > [@](#): > > I just thought I’d made use of the line of arguing you do. By asking me to prove the obvious? > [@](#): > > Of course, the stipulation was that you had to choose one. I don’t know why you refuse to answer it. I did answer it. But, fine I’ll play along and pick one of the two choices. Yes, I’d rather be forced to remain pregnant than dead. And I’d consider the society forcing this upon me to be evil, to be changed, discarded, updated and, if need be, some of the rulers will have to be made dead, if they cannot be removed. And since I consider myself a moral man, I have no interest in forcing this kind of decision on anyone else. It would be a massively immoral thing to do, to only become thinkable in exceptionally dire (and purely hypothetical) circumstances, and your imbecilic smirking aside, Canada is not in nor approaching these circumstances. On this issue, and indeed several others, Canada is a better nation than yours, and a _far_ better nation than the one you want to create. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2795 "2011-06-04T13:00:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, I guess… so what? The line has to be somewhere. If it’s at 24 weeks, using an estimate of viability as the guide, then a minute before that line it’s not murder and a minute after it… well… is, I guess, if the law’s written that way. Right. As I pointed out a few posts ago. Pregnancy is common enough that this choice has to be made and the line drawn. The consequence of choosing either way can be seen as a negative. Abortion, the ending of a life or potential life depending on your view, or legalizing the physical enslavement of women by taking away choice. Considering the consequences of both choices it sure seems choice is the better option. It should be noted that choice results in very few “babies murdered” in the 3rd trimester except in those hard cases that OMG claims to be okay with. ---
**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 4, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2796 "2011-06-04T16:33:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It should be noted that choice results in very few “babies murdered” in the 3rd trimester except in those hard cases that OMG claims to be okay with. Indeed. Ninth-month purely-elective abortions have been legal in Canada for quite some time, but I’m not aware of any actually taking place. It’s perfectly conceivable to me (probably quite likely, actually) that a woman in the final and most uncomfortable stages of pregnancy might _demand_ an abortion, but I’m okay with trusting doctors to recognize she’s under duress and not do something she’ll later regret. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2797 "2011-06-05T16:52:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Omg a Black Conservative** > I made a claim-- a specific claim. I said that Americans would leave abortions legal in the ‘hard’ cases (rape, incest, maternal health, fetal defects) and ban all the rest of abortions. You said that claim was false. Let’s be honest and accurate about what was said by whom. You made a claim and indicated that your citing of polls PROVED it was a fact. You claimed it was PROOF several times. I called your polls dubious and explained that it is a generally understood principle that polls are unreliable as PROOF. That’s a very significant difference from what you just said. If your claim had been that the polls are EVIDENCE, that your assertions COULD POSSIBLY be true, then I would agree. I happen to disagree with your reading of the poll data but that’s a matter of personal opinion, not established fact. There’s a very significant difference between those two things. My specific complaint was your assertion that the polls PROVE anything. They do not I’ve asked you to provide any credible source that describes poll data as the kind of evidence that constitutes proof. You’ve failed. Your recent link on polls supports what I’ve stated all along. POlls are generally considered unreliable and should be regarded with skepticism. Some may be better than others, but none constitute proof. > [@](#): > > I’m not so sure how you claim my claim is false when I can provide, yet you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. It really boggles the mind when you say I can’t prove my assertion, yet I can and have pointed to specific polls which say exactly what I’m saying yet you cannot point to any which would prove me wrong. You see, being able to find a general poll with generalized responses does not constitute proving my assertion false. Once again, in maintaining you’re “I’m right no matter what” view you’re ignoring the very significant difference between evidence and proof. On this board when you make a claim YOU are required to provide evidence and/or proof. I’m not required to prove something wrong that you haven’t proved to begin with. I claimed your own links showed polls that were contrary to your assertions and you had ignored them. I showed poll after poll that demonstrated that. Your response is to refuse to acknowledge them and demand specific polls and a basic attitude that your specific polls count and the more general ones don’t count at all. That has nothing to do with either of my claims. You don’t get to stipulate what kind of evidence is allowed from a link you provided. You’ve denied the accepted nature of polls and how they work. Are more specific polls generally considered more reliable? Sure. Are general polls completely dismissed. No. Especially when you have quite a number of them indicating a certain trend. To recap; I made two claims. Polls are unreliable data subject to interpretation, and do not constitute proof. That has been demonstrated to be true , even by your own link. You have claimed repeatedly that the select polls you cited were proof and failed to provide any evidence that polls can constitute proof of anything. The point, is the NATURE OF POLLS, not the data within. I claimed the polls you linked to contained some data that seemed to contradict {not prove} the ones you selected. I’ve established that as true as well. Your contention seems to be that , “those don’t count because they’re to general” If you personally reject the general polls that’s your privilege. That doesn’t mean my claim is incorrect. Since polls are subject to interpretation I’m not interested in a lengthy discussion on the poll data. It’s sufficient to say that we disagree on the interpretation of the overall data. The more significant point is the NATURE of polls, and the accepted fact that they do not constitute proof. You made the specific claim they do, and have failed to back that claim. All the provided evidence, including yours supports what I’ve said all along. That’s all I have time for this morning. I’ll address the rest tonight or tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2798 "2011-06-06T02:31:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Omg a Black Conservative** > I’m not so sure how you claim my claim is false when I can provide, yet you cannot provide evidence to the contrary My claim is that you haven’t proven your assertion because polls do not constitute proof. That’s true, and you haven’t shown otherwise. My claim is that the many general polls I provided from your own cite, casts doubt on your assertion being factual. That’s also true regardless of your personal attitude about general polls. I only have to show the claims I actually made are correct, not ones I never made. I never claimed the polls proved anything one way or the other. I don’t have to prove you wrong on an assertion you never proved right to begin with. > [@](#): > > Notice that when I asked you what “harder” entails, you couldn’t tell me and just flatly ignored it. I think you’re confused about what I was responding to. I quoted several polls showing that the majority wanted abortions to be easier or stay the same. {rather than more restrictions} when you asked what “harder to obtain” means I responded in post 2785. > [@](#): > > . It probably means, harder to obtain than they are now, which would mean , “more restrictions” those polls appear to indicate people don’t want abortions to be harder to obtain, and it’s reasonable to think pro-life advocates do want them harder to obtain {more restrictions} than they are now. In fact recent activity in state laws being pushed or passed shows that’s true. > [@](#): > > When I asked you what “between a woman and her doctor” mean you keep saying “more than the other categories”. But that’s not a response. Within the context of that question it certainly is. More general polls have implications based on the context of the question and the choices given. When your hard case restrictions are one choice and between a woman and her doctor the ONLY OTHER CHOICE, then we don’t have to know exactly what that means to know the hard case restrictions WEREN’T CHOSEN. We can safely assume that to those questioned in that specific poll, it obviously meant something more liberal, with less restrictions. You can’t go outside that polling group to another poll of a different group, to discover the specifics of what that meant to the people in the original group. Your implication is that if we do we discover that the two choices were essentially the same thing is nonsensical. I repeat, because you stubbornly miss the point post after post, I AM NOT, claiming those general polls PROVE ANYTHING.{since I already knew polls do not} I am pointing out that the data puts your assertion in doubt, and demonstrating that data from your own cites contradict your assertion. You claiming general less specific polls don’t count, is just you making up your own rules. You don’t get to do that. > [@](#): > > Since your response has been, essentially, “No, no, no! My argument is REALLY complicated and doesn’t just hinge on bodily autonomy!” Wrong. It’s not isolated to my argument. The issue of abortion combines certain necessary conditions. To create analogies that ignore one or more of the necessary conditions is illogical. Pretty much all your arguments do that. For example, if the discussion was about bachelors, the necessary conditions might be unmarried, male, over 18. If your argument leaves out one of the three necessary conditions then it becomes illogical. If you try to make a point using a male over 18 who is married, your argument is illogical because you’ve ignored one of the necessary conditions. At that point it doesn’t matter if you call it a “logical conclusion” It isn’t , and actual logic says so. > [@](#): > > No, it wasn’t a necessary condition of your question. It’s the basis of your ENTIRE ARGUMENT, which I’ve pointed out no less than twenty times in this thread alone. Capitol letters won’t make that true. When the topic is abortion, the necessary conditions are in play. In order for your arguments to be the “logical conclusions” you claim they are you cannot ignore the necessary conditions, and that’s exactly what you’ve done. People may discuss the individual elements but because the topic is abortion all the necessary conditions are linked. Because of that I’ve ignored your regurgitation of the self determination argument. > [@](#): > > “necessary conditions”, whatever that means We were talking about logic remember. > [@](#): > > “Necessary conditions”? What the fuck are those? Actually, I don’t care because you just made that shit up. We were talking about logic remember. > [@](#): > > Now to tackle those arguments individually: No. While the conditions may be discussed separately and imperfect analogies might apply to varying degrees, you cannot come to any “logical conclusions” arguing them separately and ignoring necessary conditions in the process. So the self awareness of a newborn vs a fetus can’t work because you’re discussing one condition {self awareness} while leaving out another condition, {one growing inside the other} which is necessary to the abortion issue. So the bodily autonomy issue of a pregnant woman , vs rape or murder, also fails the logic test for a similar reason. > [@](#): > > it’s a perfectly valid logical argument No it isn’t and I’ve demonstrated it using a principle of logic. Often things can have the superficial appearance of logic and still be a logical fallacy. That’s what you’ve constructed for yourself. We might also look at the fallacies of Affirming the consequent, or Denying the antecedent, but I think Necessary Conditions displays your failings well enough. > [@](#): > > So you’re redefining someone else’s argument to include degrees of awareness, which the original argument did not mention? Wouldn’t that be a-- you know?-- straw man? Why, yes. I think it would be. No, that isn’t a strawman. I merely pointed out something relevant, rather than rewording and misrepresenting it as your argument. Another example of your misunderstanding of logic. > [@](#): > > No, rather individuals have been arguing that no one should have a definition of personhood forced upon them that they, themselves, do not consider true. Which, you know, if true, means that one can define a newborn as a non-person. bullshit. The topic has always been abortion , so discussing personhood falls within the parameters of abortion , in which the personhood of an embryo or fetus is not clearly or universally recognized by law or society in general. The rights of a newborn as a citizen, thus a person, are clearly established by law and by tradition. Your comparison is illogical for exactly the reason I’ve explained. Necessary Conditions. > [@](#): > > The internet is literally rife with pro-life answers to pro-choice arguments, there are literally hundreds of books written detailing common pro-choice arguments and virtually any ethics class on a college campus will deal with abortion and present the arguments in favor of abortion and their rebuttals. I have no idea what you think this means or how it’s a relevant point. “I like their arguments better” is not a compelling point. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2799 "2011-06-06T02:47:10Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > According to you, there is no other situation outside of pregnancy where a woman can be biologically enslaved or forced to give up her body to sustain another. As a result, much the same way a woman isn’t required to give up her body to sustain another in any other situation, she shouldn’t be required to give up her body to sustain the unborn. Also, according to you, pregnancy is a unique situation, cannot be compared to anything else and is deserving of its own rules and considerations. But if, as you say, pregnancy is a unique situation and cannot be compared to anything else, then whether or not someone else who is not the cause of a pregnancy can use the pregnant’s woman body is irrelevant, and the fact that a woman doesn’t have to give up her body to sustain them is also irrelevant. If pregnancy is deserving of its own rules and considerations, then **whereas a woman could refuse to provide for, or even continue to provide for, one of those other individuals, the unborn can demand of her what those individuals cannot as pregnancy is a unique situation** and is non-comparable to something else. Therefore, abortion is impermissible. QED. Thanks for playing. bolding mine I could point out what a convoluted illogical mess this is but instead I’ll play your game of “taking things to their logical conclusions” look at the bolded section , and we’ll assume that’s a logical conclusion. The unborn can demand of her, and when and if they do, we can consider their demands. The fact is the unborn are NOT making the demands , but those other individuals, the ones in the pro life movement, are making demands. According to your own so called logic here, they don’t get to do that. If the woman has a right to refuse the demands of those physically in need of her biologically, she certainly has the right to deny the demands of those who want to impose their morals on her. Just taking things to their logical conclusion and all. > [@](#): > > You might lack this ability and all, but I’m able to examine arguments people use and, based on the way they argue, take them to their logical conclusion. You’re able to fool yourself based on you’re need to be right no matter what, that your conclusions are logical. According to actual logic they are not. You can assert how correct you are over and over , but the principles of logic are not putty for your ego to distort. ---
**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 6, 2011, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/2800 "2011-06-06T10:54:17Z")
I’m just gonna’ snip a helluva’ lot of backtracking. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I claimed the polls you linked to contained some data that seemed to contradict {not prove} the ones you selected. I’ve established that as true as well. Your contention seems to be that , “those don’t count because they’re to general” If you personally reject the general polls that’s your privilege. That doesn’t mean my claim is incorrect. Since polls are subject to interpretation I’m not interested in a lengthy discussion on the poll data. No, you haven’t. And simply repeating how true you are won’t make you true. > [@](#): > > Within the context of that question it certainly is. Hah, no. How many times do I have to explain this to you? > [@](#): > > More general polls have implications based on the context of the question and the choices given. When your hard case restrictions are one choice and between a woman and her doctor the ONLY OTHER CHOICE, then we don’t have to know exactly what that means to know the hard case restrictions WEREN’T CHOSEN. We can safely assume that to those questioned in that specific poll, it obviously meant something more liberal, with less restrictions. I’m beginning to think that your grasp on the English language rivals that of a second grader. Here’s a question for you: What’s less than “always” and greater than “rape, incest and life of women”? Well, quite possibly “rape, incest, health of mother, life of mother and severe fetal defects” which I’ve pointed out many times before constitute the ‘hard’ cases. Now prove to me that “between a woman and her doctor” entails more than that. …Oh wait. You can’t. In fact, per your own admission, you don’t know what “between a woman and her doctor” means and what it entails. You can only assume. For all you know, “between a woman and her doctor” could also contain, say, 10% who believe that abortions should be allowed in cases where there’s a danger to her health and severe fetal defects, who would otherwise side with the “rape, incest and life only” folks if it were defined that way. Of course, you totally discount that notion because it’s, apparently, just super ridiculous. You see, the only way you could use “between a woman and her doctor” to prove my assertion wrong would be if “between a woman and her doctor” were defined to include **all** cases outside of the “hard” ones. But you don’t know that as it’s undefined. As such, it doesn’t cast doubt or contradict my claim. It just means that the parameters need to be better defined. And that is _precisely_ why I asked for a specific poll detailing the instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal, as those aren’t open for interpretation as they define the instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal or what restrictions should be or shouldn’t be put into effect. Quite simple, huh? Yes, I do believe so. As it is, you have an extreme knack for trying to call into question the polls I give you which deal with abortion specifics by providing non-specific polls. That doesn’t mean polls aren’t proof. If means that the polls you use need to be more detailed and limited in their scope. For example, check out the [Pew Research Center survey. Aug. 11-17, 2009](http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm) poll. You’ll notice in one question 41% of Americans say abortions should be made more difficult to obtain to while 50% oppose. In the next question, you’ll find that 71% of Americans support parental consent laws for minors and only 19% oppose. I asked you this question before, but how do you account for the discrepency? Your response was “because polls are innacurate”. Well guess what? That’s not totally correct. You can account for the discrepency based on the fact that not every American has the same idea of what constitutes “making abortions more difficult”, whereas most every American knows what it means to require a minor to get parental consent before having an abortion. The first question is open to interpretation, and as a result you’ll get a host of different meanings as to what “more difficult” really entails, while the second isn’t. Almost no one (well, except for _some_ pro-choice advocates who don’t want to face the truth) would argue that the first poll is superior to a series of polls which ask Americans what abortion restrictions should be enacted, if any. What’s comical about this whole thing is that to try to make your “point”, of which you have none, you’re having to rely on the very same polls you discredit by calling unreliable and open to interpretation. If said polls are unreliable and open to interpretation, then why are you relying on them to disprove my claim which were based on a series of polls which weren’t open to interpretation and pretty damn reliable? Think about that one for a bit. > [@](#): > > Wrong. It’s not isolated to my argument. The issue of abortion combines certain necessary conditions. To create analogies that ignore one or more of the necessary conditions is illogical. Pretty much all your arguments do that. So I can’t create an analogy which ignores “one or more of your necessary conditions” as it relates to abortion because it’s illogical, yet your own convoluted arguments can ignore “one or more of the necessary conditions” as it relates to abortion and be logical? Hmmm, really? I don’t think so. Note how you didn’t bother responding to my point about self-determination and how it relates to abortion and cases of infanticide. Presumably, you would not argue that a newborn incapable of self-determination be allowed to be thrown into the Hudson whereas a newborn capable of self-determination be spared such a fate because (s)he is capable of self-determination. Self-determination would not be deemed important. Rather, the only thing important is that both individuals are born. On the flip side, you would not argue that a fetus capable of self-determination should not be allowed to be aborted, whereas a fetus incapable of self-determination be allowed to aborted. No, you will argue that both can be aborted regardless of whether they are capable of self-determination or not because they’re inside of the woman’s body. In other words, the only thing which matters is that neither are born. If location, therefore, is the only thing that matters, then one of two things must be true: (1) Self-determination isn’t a “necessary condition”. Or (2) Your argument is illogical because you’re ignoring a “necessary condition”, in which case an unborn child capable of self-determination cannot be aborted and a newborn child incapable of self-determination should be allowed to be killed. Of course, the first is impossible if the second is true, but would you really argue the second to be true? Given what you’ve typed, I’d say no. I’m sure you’ll ignore this, though, as you did before. > [@](#): > > Capitol letters won’t make that true. When the topic is abortion, the necessary conditions are in play. In order for your arguments to be the “logical conclusions” you claim they are you cannot ignore the necessary conditions, and that’s exactly what you’ve done. People may discuss the individual elements but because the topic is abortion all the necessary conditions are linked. It’s twice been established that you ignore your own “necessary conditions”, meaning you’re just typing out of your ass. > [@](#): > > Because of that I’ve ignored your regurgitation of the self determination argument. You ignored it because you can’t answer it without showing your own hypocrisy. You talk of logic, but that’s all it is-- talk. When it comes to actually engaging in logical arguments and applying that logic, you wuss out and claim I’m being illogical. > [@](#): > > No. While the conditions may be discussed separately and imperfect analogies might apply to varying degrees, you cannot come to any “logical conclusions” arguing them separately and ignoring necessary conditions in the process. Great. So the pro-choice argument is as such, seeing as how you can’t seperate the “necessary conditions” involved in the abortion debate from one another: “The woman has the absolute right to control her own body, but only up until viability, because the fetus is both a person and not a person, and we know and don’t know when the life of a human begins, even though we need to debate the value of that human life which the unborn may or may not be/have.” …Yeah. That’s not a self-defeating/self-refuting statement in any way. _rolls eyes_ > [@](#): > > So the self awareness of a newborn vs a fetus can’t work because you’re discussing one condition {self awareness} while leaving out another condition, {one growing inside the other} which is necessary to the abortion issue. > > So the bodily autonomy issue of a pregnant woman , vs rape or murder, also fails the logic test for a similar reason. This is sooo ridiculous. When it comes to the unborn, your argument is that is much meet all the “necessary conditions” for it to be impermissible to kill that child (i.e., “not in the woman’s body”, “aware”, “sentient”, "able to practice self-determination), but when it comes to the born, you switch your argument to where only some of those “necessary conditions” must be true in order for it to be impermissible to kill that child (i.e., “you only need to be born”). It doesn’t matter whether or not that newborn fails to meet the other criteria. In other words, you place on the unborn some rigid standard that you’re unwilling to also place on the born. That’s called picking and choosing when and where you’re going to apply your own argument. It’s also illogical and it’s intellectually dishonest. But like you’ll acknowledge that. > [@](#): > > No it isn’t and I’ve demonstrated it using a principle of logic. Often things can have the superficial appearance of logic and still be a logical fallacy. That’s what you’ve constructed for yourself. We might also look at the fallacies of Affirming the consequent, or Denying the antecedent, but I think Necessary Conditions displays your failings well enough. Get real. I bet you spent hours reading Wikipedia to try to sound smart. Absolutely none of the above quoted is true. The only thing you’ve “proven” is that the educational system in the U.S. is the pits. Ignoring large swathes of what I type out while casting aside your own “necessary conditions” proves just how little you really know or understand. > [@](#): > > No, that isn’t a strawman. I merely pointed out something relevant, rather than rewording and misrepresenting it as your argument. Another example of your misunderstanding of logic. So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You’re saying that the individual whose argument is “not aware” vs. “aware” really doesn’t mean “not aware” vs. “aware”, but rather rather means contingent on degrees of awareness, even though his/her argument doesn’t mean contingent on degrees of awareness, but rather “not aware” vs. “aware”? And you trying to redefine the individual’s actual argument because his/her argument would necessitate being allowed to kill those individuals who aren’t aware constitutes me misunderstanding logic? REALLY…!!! That sounds like you engaging in a straw man. > [@](#): > > bullshit. The topic has always been abortion , so discussing personhood falls within the parameters of abortion , in which the personhood of an embryo or fetus is not clearly or universally recognized by law or society in general. The rights of a newborn as a citizen, thus a person, are clearly established by law and by tradition. Your comparison is illogical for exactly the reason I’ve explained. So essentially, as I’ve pointed out prior, your argument exists only so long as society doesn’t get together and decide that the unborns are persons? Mind you, numerous states already defined a “child in utero” as a person, though you ignored this point before. If what you say is the case, then your argument is based squarely on what is currently, not what should be, and the moment society decides that the unborn at all gestational ages should be protected, then you will agree that they should be protected and the abortion debate will thusly end and poof into thin air, for the basis of your argument will now have shifted in favor of banning abortion. But lol… Who are **YOU** kidding? The moment that happens, you’d be up in arms screaming about “tyranny” or something to that effect, meaning my comparison isn’t illogical as it’s not based on what _is_, but rather what should be. You’re just screaming “That’s illogical!” because you’re trying to argue way over your head. > [@](#): > > Necessary Conditions. Which brings me to my next point… > [@](#): > > I have no idea what you think this means or how it’s a relevant point. “I like their arguments better” is not a compelling point. No shit you don’t understand. You keep spouting some nonsense about “necessary conditions”, but this doesn’t mean anything. Not only do you not consider your own “necessary conditions” all that necessary and bundle them all up and weight them against each other in a single statement-- as you would get a self-defeating argument, for the simple fact that all of your “necessary conditions” couldn’t coexist within the same argumen-- But there is a plethora of pro-life literature which deals with virtually _every_ individual argument made a pro-choicer. That’s not “I like their arguments better”. That’s you telling a flat out lie when you say that one is leaving out the “necessary conditions” of abortion. > [@](#): > > bolding mine.I could point out what a convoluted illogical mess this is but instead I’ll play your game of “taking things to their logical conclusions”. (1) Pregnancy is unique, is non-comparable to other situations and is deserving of its rules and considerations. (2) Someone who is born can’t demand of a woman in some facet. If someone who is born were to suddenly attach his or herself to the woman, the woman could unattach herself. (3) The unborn, by virtue of being the cause of the pregnancy, can demand of a woman in some facet what someone who is born cannot. So while the woman could unattach herself from a born individual, she cannot the unborn because the situation between the born individual attached to her and an unborn individual attached to her are different. What’s convoluted about that? > [@](#): > > look at the bolded section , and we’ll assume that’s a logical conclusion. You don’t have to assume anything, for it is a logical conclusion based on what you wrote. If, as you assert, pregnancy is a unique situation and is deserving of its own rules and considerations, then it can’t be held in the same vein as any other situation, otherwise it fails to be a unique situation deserving of its own rules and considerations. So which is it? Unique or not? > [@](#): > > The unborn can demand of her, and when and if they do, we can consider their demands. The fact is the unborn are NOT making the demands, but those other individuals, the ones in the pro life movement, are making demands. According to your own so called logic here, they don’t get to do that. I lol’ed. So let’s be clear here before I response. You’re saying that the unborn makes no demand of the woman? > [@](#): > > If the woman has a right to refuse the demands of those physically in need of her biologically, she certainly has the right to deny the demands of those who want to impose their morals on her. So are you saying because I’m not obligated to let you use my kidney, that I’m also not obligated to follow any law which looks to impose upon me a set of morality that is not my own? Haha! Now **THAT** is a completely illogical, not to mention overly stupid and nonsensical, statement. But hey… Considering who made it, it’s just par for the course, really. > [@](#): > > Just taking things to their logical conclusion and all. For you to be able to “take things to their logical conclusion”, you would have to have at least a basic understanding of logic. Unfortunately, you do not and I doubt you’ll ever gain one, either. > [@](#): > > You’re able to fool yourself based on you’re need to be right no matter what, that your conclusions are logical. According to actual logic they are not. You can assert how correct you are over and over , but the principles of logic are not putty for your ego to distort. As I say many times, we can go at this all day. You really-- I mean **REALLY** – have no idea what you’re talking about, and it completely amuses me to watch you flail about. They’re quite logical and you can put them to the test. …Well, if you would stop ignoring the things I typed out. I mean, seriously. You completely ignored me deconstructing common pro-choice arguments. What the hell’s up with that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=139) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=141)