# 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:** 38
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/741 "2011-05-12T13:51:57Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I don’t have to mind my own business. I have a right to my opinion and I can express it however many times I damn well feel like it. Who do you think YOU are that you can come on here and basically tell me to shut up:dubious: > This is a PUBLIC message board not a PRIVATE board that you run. Start your own board and then you can censor any posts you feel like censoring ok sweetie? It’s not your opinions that are getting on everybody’s last nerve. It’s the way you express them. The SDMB _is_ a Private board. There’s no censorship, but trolls & others who go out of their way to offend people are banned. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/742 "2011-05-12T13:54:22Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Uh, **Bricker** …Did you happen to notice the group who did that survey? NATIONAL ADOPTION INSTITUTE. > > Pro-lifers are still performing surveys that “prove” abortion causes breast cancer." > > I’d like to see a survey from an _impartial group_. > > BTW, all the experts agree that adoption is a factor in creating serial killers. [Cite](http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/). > > But the anti-abortion protestors do not bring that fact up. Because it isn’t true, that’s why. You have repeated that falsehood before on this board without adequate cites to back it up. Please stop making these FALSE statements about adoption. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/743 "2011-05-12T14:00:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Dam it. had a response almost finished, hit the wrong key and lost it. :mad: > okay, I vented. > > What’s the point of getting people who are unreachable to consider their axioms? IMO, it’s a mistake to bring up religious beliefs until the religious people do. I think it’s progress that many religious groups are trying to cloak their beliefs in non religious terms and trying to convince people they are are logical and reasonable. IMO, it’s a matter of practicality and strategy. > I’d like to put something out there that I think a lot of people miss. People are multi faceted and made up of intellect, our ability to think reason and learn, and emotions. All people. The elements of character are not dependent on intelligence. Compassion, decency, courage, honor, kindness, loyalty, etc, the intangibles, do not depend on intelligence or education. Illiterate people can have tremendous character , and highly intelligent people with great educations can be assholes. and all stripes in between. Less educated people can be very practical while very educated can be very irrational. > I think processing facts has something to do with how and facts are presented and presenting them in a relevant timely manner. > > People can be subject to propaganda and their own personal preferences but that I think that can be addressed by getting more information out there to more people. Society and religion has changed as that has happened and will continue to do so. As you say, some people are unreachable. I tend not to spend a lot of time trying to reason with those who demonstrate they’re not interested in listening. I just move on to someone else. Again, I think we’re on the same page except for how to address the problem. The point of getting people to state where they get their axioms will help pro-choice people to figure out how to combat the views. Not for the people already entrenched (they’re hopeless, IMO). More to prevent society from its continued trend. I’m interested in the source. Again, I think it’s due to widespread religious propaganda but I’m not sure. I also suspect that the religious views come from a need to control women’s reproduction to control women’s place in society but I’m not sure about that either. Also, I may be an intellectual asshole, but whether or not I’m an asshole has nothing to do with what I just said about people’s intelligence and ability to process facts. Some people can’t do it. I’m stating a fact, not making a judgment whether its good or bad. Therefore, presenting a chain of logic won’t work with everyone. Hell, even very intelligent suffer cognitive dissonance when they feel strongly about something (that includes scientists). Long-term memory and learning relies heavily on emotions. So, of course facts must be presented but we have to realize that facts are typically not good enough. One more thing about facts. As you know, many highly religious people do not differentiate between facts and beliefs. I heard a pastor this Christmas make outrageous claims about Jews, then the census during Harod, and something about Roman culture (can’t remember) and called them ‘facts’. I think you’ve been agreeing with me that calling a baby and embryo is a ‘fact’. Because presenting facts alone has limited success, I’m suggesting a widespread campaign for science and reason in general with regard to a lot of topics including the anti-choice movement. But, again, this is going to be controversial, I think we have to realize that we’ll have to make the appeals emotional. I also think that we need to appeal to the people’s religion because I still think all of this is coming from modern religious propaganda. But in order to do that, I think we need to know where they the basis of their beliefs are coming from. Religious people usually cling to tenets because they’re afraid if they lose one, the whole thing comes crumbling down. Personally, I think the best way to approach it is to say that it won’t go against their basic religion. This approach should also hold for anti-evolutionists. I’m rambling again. Hope I made my point. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/744 "2011-05-12T14:04:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yes, I’m aware of what subjective means. We’ve also seen protestors arrested haven’t we? Of course. And when protesters are arrested, it’s because their conduct breaks the law. You were the one that said that the video showed illegal conduct. But it’s manifestly clear that this is not so. > [@](#): > > What I saw in the video was on the edge. Talking to 1 person is not the issue. I assumed that was their pattern. To stand there for hours and and verbally accost every woman entering the clinic. No. “Verbally accost” is not against the law, much as you apparently wish it wer otherwise. > [@](#): > > It’s affecting not only the women but the clinic as well. The stories I’ve heard of blocking the sidewalk, keeping people in their cars, laying hands on them, don’t seem questionable at all. Lock em up. I agree. Blocking the sidewalk, keeping people in their cars, and laying hands on them are absolutely examples of criminal action, and absolutely should result in arrest. None of those actions appear on the video taken, as the video itself claims, at the “worst location in the country” for clinic protests. > [@](#): > > I’m growing increasingly fond of protesting churches that support these anti abortion folks. Protest the church offering to help save them from ignorance and superstition. The problem is church property would probably keep you from giving them a true taste of their own medicine. Just as clinic property would provide a barrier for clinic users. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/745 "2011-05-12T14:04:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Answer: first, of course, I reject your assertion that we’re discussing merely the potential to be human; I contend we’re talking about an actual human. No, I’m taking about the potential to be a human being with rights that supercede the rights of the mother to her own body. Why do you think that a fertilized egg is a human being? If you say it has unique DNA, what is it about unique DNA that makes it a human being at the point of conception? If you say that it is because it has the potential to become a human being, then we’re at square one of the question. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/746 "2011-05-12T14:16:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll take a stab at this, though I most assuredly do not speak for **classy**. > > I contend human life begins at conception. I reach this conclusion because any other answer is contradictory: first trimester? Then we say that at day 91 of the pregnancy, the fetus is human, but not at day 90? Not at minute 11:59, but at minute 12:00? The flaws in that seem obvious. > > But conception is a key point: before that, we don’t have a unique human genetic signature; after it, we do. > > You then ask: _…what is it about the potential to be human that makes it so special that the government should interfere with the woman’s right to her own body?_ > > Answer: first, of course, I reject your assertion that we’re discussing merely the potential to be human; I contend we’re talking about an actual human. Secondly – I agree that when the government forbids abortion, they are encroaching on a woman’s right to her own body. But I contend that our entire society is filled with examples of ther government interfering with how we use our bodies. I bet you, for example, would be fine with requiring that pharmacists fill prescriptions for “morning after” pills and never once blink at the idea that this is the government interfering with how the pharmacist uses his hands and his mind – both os which are reportedly parts of the body. Right? > > So the real test is a balancing one: to what _degree_ do we interfere with the right of the person to use his or her body, under what circumstances, and what competing harms or goods are we balancing against it? > > And in this case, since I contend that we’re balancing the right of a human to continue living, to be born, live as an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenage, an adult, to love, marry, and have children of his or her own… and against that we have nine months out of a woman’s life… I contend that the balance of equities falls on saving the human life and accepting nine months of interference. Beautifully said. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/747 "2011-05-12T14:20:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because I contend that human life begins at conception, and that human life is worthy of legal protection by virtue of the fact that it is human. I also stated many times that I believe that human life begins at conception. I got bashed for it numerous times. I was told to go f myself and to f off on here. It’s funny that certain people can do that to me and it’s ok but when I do it back it’s wrong. The pro-choicers don’t give a damn what I believe and that is fine. It is their choice to believe what they want. What I meant about the potential to be human was in reference to the comment that a tumor is the same as a fetus. That is thed ifference. perhaps I should have said one is human and one is not. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/748 "2011-05-12T14:23:32Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Why do you think that a fertilized egg is a human being? He answered that. To him a fertilized egg is a human because there isn’t another rational line to draw. He doesn’t like an arbitrary date (I don’t particularly either), because there is obviously a very minor difference between a 90-day-old fetus and a 91-day-old one. Personally I don’t see any problem with using “viability outside the womb” or “birth” as meaningful and rational demarcations of when a fetus becomes a fully-vested human. And yes, **classy** , you did say that you thought that fully human rights vested at conception, but you didn’t say _why_. That’s what people wanted (and want) clarification on. The reasoning matters because while a rational argument (like **Bricker** ’s, even though I disagree with it) can be grounds for public policy, an emotional or religious one cannot (or at least should not). ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/749 "2011-05-12T14:26:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Answer: first, of course, I reject your assertion that we’re discussing merely the potential to be human; I contend we’re talking about an actual human. Secondly – I agree that when the government forbids abortion, they are encroaching on a woman’s right to her own body. But I contend that our entire society is filled with examples of ther government interfering with how we use our bodies. I bet you, for example, would be fine with requiring that pharmacists fill prescriptions for “morning after” pills and never once blink at the idea that this is the government interfering with how the pharmacist uses his hands and his mind – both os which are reportedly parts of the body. Right? Would you agree that there is a difference in kind between “requiring someone to use their body to manipulate external objects” and “requiring someone to actively give up the substance of their body”? We occasionally require people to perform labor (community service and the like), we do not compel them to donate blood. Pregnancy’s affect on the body is the latter, not the former. > [@](#): > > And in this case, since I contend that we’re balancing the right of a human to continue living, to be born, live as an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenage, an adult, to love, marry, and have children of his or her own… and against that we have nine months out of a woman’s life… I contend that the balance of equities falls on saving the human life and accepting nine months of interference. Does your balance of equities extend to non-pregnancy-related incidents regarding the invasion of bodily substance of others? If I am the only person who is a bone marrow match for a person with cancer, would a just society obligate me to give up my bodily substance (much less than nine months of inconvenience) to give that person continued life? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/750 "2011-05-12T14:28:15Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I also stated many times that I believe that human life begins at conception. I got bashed for it numerous times. Did you notice that many here are bashing the hell out of you, but are conversing respectfully with **Bricker**? Does that provide you with evidence that it is not your views (common), but your manner of expression (rude, dismissive, undefended, explosively vulgar and prudishly sanctimonious by turns) that is the issue here? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/751 "2011-05-12T14:28:42Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > He answered that. To him a fertilized egg is a human because there isn’t another rational line to draw. He doesn’t like an arbitrary date (I don’t particularly either), because there is obviously a very minor difference between a 90-day-old fetus and a 91-day-old one. > > Personally I don’t see any problem with using “viability outside the womb” or “birth” as meaningful and rational demarcations of when a fetus becomes a fully-vested human. > > And yes, **classy** , you did say that you thought that fully human rights vested at conception, but you didn’t say _why_. That’s what people wanted (and want) clarification on. The reasoning matters because while a rational argument (like **Bricker** ’s, even though I disagree with it) can be grounds for public policy, an emotional or religious one cannot (or at least should not). No, no, no. He didn’t. Not a human life. A human being. A person. A person that should have rights that supercede a woman. How can a fertilized egg be a person? ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/752 "2011-05-12T14:30:29Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Did you notice that many here are bashing the hell out of you, but are conversing respectfully with **Bricker**? Does that provide you with evidence that it is not your views (common), but your manner of expression (rude, dismissive, undefended, explosively vulgar and prudishly sanctimonious by turns) that is the issue here? Thanks. I’m flattered. I’ve never been called those things outside of this message board:D Thankfully it doesn’t matter what strangers think about me. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/753 "2011-05-12T14:31:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I contend human life begins at conception. I reach this conclusion because any other answer is contradictory: first trimester? Then we say that at day 91 of the pregnancy, the fetus is human, but not at day 90? Not at minute 11:59, but at minute 12:00? The flaws in that seem obvious. So I gather from this that you don’t believe that there are ANY circumstances under which abortion should be permissible? ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/754 "2011-05-12T14:32:28Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > No, no, no. He didn’t. Not a human life. A human being. A person. A person that should have rights that supercede a woman. How can a fertilized egg be a person? He explained that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/755 "2011-05-12T14:33:06Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > No, I’m taking about the potential to be a human being with rights that supercede the rights of the mother to her own body. Why do you think that a fertilized egg is a human being? If you say it has unique DNA, what is it about unique DNA that makes it a human being at the point of conception? If you say that it is because it has the potential to become a human being, then we’re at square one of the question. No, I don’t say it’s because it has potential; I say that it’s a full-fledged human being. Why? Because, as I said before, any other answer leads to an absurdity. When do you contend that the fetus is a human being? At birth? At the second trimester? Whatever you answer, I’ll want to know why it’s isn’t a human one day before that point. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/756 "2011-05-12T14:33:33Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > No, no, no. He didn’t. Not a human life. A human being. A person. A person that should have rights that supercede a woman. How can a fertilized egg be a person? Well, and again I’m only channeling the argument as I’ve heard it before, because it has to happen some time. So you have to pick a “moment”, if you will, when person-hood is granted. Many pro-lifers point to conception as that moment. Many pro-choicers point to viability, some date within the gestation term, or birth. **Bricker** ’s argument seems to be that an arbitrary date is nonsensical because there are only negligible differences between the fetus the moment before and after you have granted “person-hood”, and such minor differences cannot bestow such rights. I can only assume he has reasons why viability and birth are not acceptable demarcations, but I don’t believe those were addressed in his post. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/757 "2011-05-12T14:34:20Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > So I gather from this that you don’t believe that there are ANY circumstances under which abortion should be permissible? I don’t know about bricker but I do. It should be allowed in the case of a tubal pregnancy. the fetus has no chance of surviving and the mother will die. Also if a Dr. determines it needs to be done to save the mother’s life then it should be allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/758 "2011-05-12T14:37:22Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Also if a Dr. determines it needs to be done to save the mother’s life then it should be allowed. This leads us to the critical question: Why is allowable to kill one human being to save the life of another? How do you conclude that the mother’s life is more valuable than the baby’s? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/759 "2011-05-12T14:38:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I bet you, for example, would be fine with requiring that pharmacists fill prescriptions for “morning after” pills and never once blink at the idea that this is the government interfering with how the pharmacist uses his hands and his mind – both os which are reportedly parts of the body. Right? You do realize that one does, of course, have the option of not being a pharmacist? And even if one didn’t, your analogy would still heartily suck. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/760 "2011-05-12T14:39:12Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > So I gather from this that you don’t believe that there are ANY circumstances under which abortion should be permissible? To the contrary, there are plenty, but they always involve the physical health and safety of the mother, where the primary goal is preserving her life and health, and the death of the child an unintended secondary effect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=39)