# 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:** 39
**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, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/761 "2011-05-12T14:41:37Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > 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? It’s not. But in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no chance of the child’s survival in any event, so the choice you offer is non-existent. ---
**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, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/762 "2011-05-12T14:41:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I will answer, even though it isn’t addressed to me. I contend that the fetus receives “contigent personhood” at the moment of viability outside the womb. At this point a woman no longer has the right to terminate unless her health is severely jeapordized. This is because the fetus could survive without her - the moment before it could not. Obviously this is very difficult to determine precisely, but medical science can guide us. At birth the fetus becomes a fully-vested human being and receives full protection under the law. The difference between the moment after birth and before should be obvious - the ability to survive without biological support from the mother. ---
**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, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/763 "2011-05-12T14:43:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not. But in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no chance of the child’s survival in any event, so the choice you offer is non-existent. I intentionally snipped out the ectopic part of her post, and only kept the “survival of the mother” part. There are plenty of non-ectopic pregnancies, ones in which the baby could survive but the mother would die. These are the cases I would like addressed. I don’t see an easy way to reconcile full personhood at conception with allowing abortion to save the life of the mother unless you do somehow grant a higher priority to the mother. ---
**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, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/764 "2011-05-12T14:43:39Z")
Exactly. There is no brighter line than between (inside my body) / outside my body. \*I \* make the calls on what happens _inside_ my body. ---
**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, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/765 "2011-05-12T14:44:09Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > 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? In the case of a tubal pregnancy the baby would not survive anyways. So why should the mother die as well? ---
**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, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/766 "2011-05-12T14:45:46Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I will answer, even though it isn’t addressed to me. > > I contend that the fetus receives “contigent personhood” at the moment of viability outside the womb. At this point a woman no longer has the right to terminate unless her health is severely jeapordized. This is because the fetus could survive without her - the moment before it could not. Obviously this is very difficult to determine precisely, but medical science can guide us. > > At birth the fetus becomes a fully-vested human being and receives full protection under the law. The difference between the moment after birth and before should be obvious - the ability to survive without biological support from the mother. Does anyone know up to which point of gestation abortion is allowed? There have been babies who have been born at 22-23 weeks and survived. Would the pro-choicers be ok about abortion at 23 weeks? ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/767 "2011-05-12T14:46:24Z")
With all the back and forth on how verbally intrusive pro-life protesters are to women as they are walking to the clinics, I wonder if any of the people who act as escorts have ever considered buying noise-cancelling headphones for the women they are escorting. Never having used them, I’m not sure how effective they are at blocking out conversation, but I would think they would be of some help. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/768 "2011-05-12T14:46:31Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. And I contend that it doesn’t. What makes your contention more valid than mine, other than religious/spiritual beliefs? The woman is DEFINITELY a human being. I don’t think that the embryo warrants that title yet. Yes, it might grow up to be a human being. But it might be so genetically flawed that even with the best maternal care, it develops into something with no brain. It might spontaneously miscarry. A zygote won’t always develop into a human, or into a viable human, despite what the unclassy one has to say. Of my three pregnancies, two of them were miscarriages, although since I had conceived while using birth control, the zygote/embryo might have been defective, and that’s why I miscarried. Just saying that ALL conceptions are automatically human from the moment of fertilization seems to be an easy out. Yeah, it’s harder to decide when a fetus is viable, and that line keeps getting pushed back as time goes by, but I think that it’s better to look at the bigger picture, rather than just saying “This is wrong, every time”. ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/769 "2011-05-12T14:46:45Z")
Ooops, never mind. ---
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/770 "2011-05-12T14:48:32Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > And I contend that it doesn’t. What makes your contention more valid than mine, other than religious/spiritual beliefs? The woman is DEFINITELY a human being. I don’t think that the embryo warrants that title yet. Yes, it might grow up to be a human being. But it might be so genetically flawed that even with the best maternal care, it develops into something with no brain. It might spontaneously miscarry. A zygote won’t always develop into a human, or into a viable human, despite\*\* what the unclassy one has to say. \*\*Of my three pregnancies, two of them were miscarriages, although since I had conceived while using birth control, the zygote/embryo might have been defective, and that’s why I miscarried. > > Just saying that ALL conceptions are automatically human from the moment of fertilization seems to be an easy out. Yeah, it’s harder to decide when a fetus is viable, and that line keeps getting pushed back as time goes by, but I think that it’s better to look at the bigger picture, rather than just saying “This is wrong, every time”. Yes and I’m the only one being rude:rolleyes: I am sorry about your losses though:) ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/771 "2011-05-12T14:52:15Z")
[http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162](http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162) Here’s a very interesting article that I think everyone will enjoy. ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/772 "2011-05-12T14:52:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. So you’d support the taking of the life of another person to relieve the risk of the mother who’s chosen to carry to term? ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/773 "2011-05-12T14:53:51Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I will answer, even though it isn’t addressed to me… The difference between the moment after birth and before should be obvious - the ability to survive without biological support from the mother. I’ll try, too, with the same qualification: The difference between the moment after birth and before should be obvious - the fact that before, the fetus is so attached as to be _part of a woman’s own body_. We make no other legal prohibitions about what people do with parts of their own bodies. ---
**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, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/774 "2011-05-12T14:54:26Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > In the case of a tubal pregnancy the baby would not survive anyways. So why should the mother die as well? Again, I am not addressing pregnancies in which the baby would die. I’m asking about the very real case of pregnancies with fully viable fetuses that will kill the mother if delivered to term. I think most people have an innate moral sense that it is OK to terminate in this case. I am asking why this is. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/775 "2011-05-12T14:57:04Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > 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. I didn’t, but will happily do so now. Viability is a movable concept. It’s certainly fair to say that medical science has created a viability point in 2011 that’s markedly before the viability point in, say, 1972. Are we then to argue that what is a human being is different now than it was in 1972 – that what is 1972 was a mere mass of tissue with human DNA but no legally cognizeable personhood is in 2001 a human being, worthy of consideration and protection? If so, we must accept that the great likelihood is that in 2041, viability will be even earlier – so are we now killing “people” that we don’t recognize as people now but will in 2041? Birth is, in contrast, certainly a fixed point – no argument there. But claiming that birth is necessary to create a human being flies in the face of our common sense, for precisely the same viability reasons… we know that what’s about to be born is a human baby; do we seriously argue that we may kill it while it’s in the womb but ten minutes later, having been delivered vaginally, the same killing would result in a murder charge? Does that pass the common sense test? And what of a cesearian delivery? At what point could I kill the baby in those circumstances without it being considered murder? ---
**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, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/776 "2011-05-12T14:58:32Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > And I contend that it doesn’t. What makes your contention more valid than mine, other than religious/spiritual beliefs? The woman is DEFINITELY a human being. I don’t think that the embryo warrants that title yet. Yes, it might grow up to be a human being. But it might be so genetically flawed that even with the best maternal care, it develops into something with no brain. It might spontaneously miscarry. A zygote won’t always develop into a human, or into a viable human, despite what the unclassy one has to say. Of my three pregnancies, two of them were miscarriages, although since I had conceived while using birth control, the zygote/embryo might have been defective, and that’s why I miscarried. > > Just saying that ALL conceptions are automatically human from the moment of fertilization seems to be an easy out. Yeah, it’s harder to decide when a fetus is viable, and that line keeps getting pushed back as time goes by, but I think that it’s better to look at the bigger picture, rather than just saying “This is wrong, every time”. You know, I think most anti-choicers absolutely believe a fetus is as human as YOU are. Thing is, when their feet are to the fire, I suspect they don’t really believe it’s quite as human as THEY are. Is it just as human as you if it’s YOUR life it’s fucking with? We’ve all been linked to “the only moral abortion” a million times, and for guys, with all due respect, they never really have to think it through, do they? They all stand around bemoaning having to pay child support as though **that’s** the hardest thing about having a kid. It’s not, and yet I’ve still seen it be enough to make a “pro-life” guy rethink his position, at least until after his convenience has been accommodated. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/777 "2011-05-12T15:02:20Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I think you give **Bricker** too much credit. > > He doesn’t post in this or any other abortion debate (or in debates in general) to express support for a “side”. His stated purpose is to “spoil” the expressed convictions of others if they offend his sensibilities in some way, either by being linked to a “leftist” political stance or merely being the product of deeply held beliefs (something for which **Bricker** has an extremely stunted capacity). > > Abortion debates like this very rarely change minds. What they _are_ good for is re-energizing one’s support for abortion rights; specifically, convincing me that it is worthwhile to continue to donate to Planned Parenthood on a regular basis. I don’t think that’s his intention. But as it happens, I just got a mailing from Planned Parenthood, and when the postman comes today, I’m going to stick a stamp on it and mail it with my check. In Bricker’s name, because his defense of harassing women is dishonest and nitpicky, just like his defenses of other conservative crap. ---
**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, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/778 "2011-05-12T15:09:10Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > So you’d support the taking of the life of another person to relieve the risk of the mother who’s chosen to carry to term? In situations like this they could both die you know. ---
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/779 "2011-05-12T15:11:16Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Again, I am not addressing pregnancies in which the baby would die. > > I’m asking about the very real case of pregnancies with fully viable fetuses that will kill the mother if delivered to term. I think most people have an innate moral sense that it is OK to terminate in this case. I am asking why this is. iIdon’t understand what you mean by perfectly viable fetuses. If they are viable then they will not die when removed from the mother. I think you mean fetuses that will need to be removed before viability? ---
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/780 "2011-05-12T15:11:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I didn’t, but will happily do so now. Thank you. > [@](#): > > Viability is a movable concept. It’s certainly fair to say that medical science has created a viability point in 2011 that’s markedly before the viability point in, say, 1972. Are we then to argue that what is a human being is different now than it was in 1972 – that what is 1972 was a mere mass of tissue with human DNA but no legally cognizeable personhood is in 2001 a human being, worthy of consideration and protection? If so, we must accept that the great likelihood is that in 2041, viability will be even earlier – so are we now killing “people” that we don’t recognize as people now but will in 2041? I agree that viability will move with technology, but don’t particularly see that as a problem. Many other areas of public policy change with time as well. We make decisions to terminate adults after injuries that will potentially someday be healed. We discover toxins that we readily exposed our children to in the past. Will we be considered murderers in the future? Perhaps. I still contend that the capacity for survival outside of the womb is a useful demarcation line. > [@](#): > > Birth is, in contrast, certainly a fixed point – no argument there. But claiming that birth is necessary to create a human being flies in the face of our common sense, for precisely the same viability reasons… we know that what’s about to be born is a human baby; do we seriously argue that we may kill it while it’s in the womb but ten minutes later, having been delivered vaginally, the same killing would result in a murder charge? Does that pass the common sense test? I think it does, actually. I’m not saying it is morally the right decision - in fact I’d think it very rarely is. And, since I tend to prefer the “viability” line as the point of “contingent personhood”, I don’t believe that the right to terminate 10 minutes before birth should be allowed unless necessary to maintain the life of the mother. So, in short, viability (as defined by current medical tech) is the point at which the fetus is granted some human rights, but these rights are still below those of the mother (i.e., saving the mother’s life is a higher moral priority). At birth they are on equal footing (i.e., even if killing the already born baby would save the mother, hypothetically, it is morally wrong to do so). > [@](#): > > And what of a cesearian delivery? At what point could I kill the baby in those circumstances without it being considered murder? You could kill the fetus during a C-section if it would save the life of the mother up until the point it is separated from the mother (clamping and cutting the cord). At that point they are morally equal beings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=40)