# 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:** 41
**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, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/801 "2011-05-12T15:35:06Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Would anyone like to answer this question? Which question? Very, very few elective abortions are performed after 12 weeks - the vast majority to protect the health of the mother. Some states ban them at 20 weeks, others allow them later. You may have heard about so-called “partial-birth abortion” bans - these are all designed to eliminate abortion beyond the 20-24 weeks. I have already stated that I oppose elective abortion beyond those required to protect the mother’s health beyond the point of viability. If current medical tech places that at 22-23 weeks, the so be it. If future medical tech moves this date forward, fine by me. ---
**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, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/802 "2011-05-12T15:35:47Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > One limit currently in the news is Indiana’s new law which bans abortion after the 20th week. Many states allow them later. So then are the pro-choicers on this thread also ok with abortions after viability? many of you are claiming that abortion is not morally wrong because you are killing something that would not survive outside the mother right? Then you must believe that abortions should be illegal after viability. It is possible for a 23 week old fetus to survive in the NICU with special machines etc. ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/803 "2011-05-12T15:36:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I would mind. I don’t believe this audience would be particularly sympathetic to my belief" Your belief not only in the suffering of nonexistent people, but that it somehow outweighs the suffering of actual people? Yeah, you’re probably right. So yeah, you probably _shouldn’t_ have brought it up, since it’s kinda silly. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/804 "2011-05-12T15:39:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps this is why I don’t look to your comfort as a touchstone on these issues. It’s not hard at all to say that the death is an unintended side effect, because that’s precisely what it is. > > Our entire legal system is predicated on the same concept: _mens rea_, the guilty mind, is a necessary component of almost every crime. If you throw the power switch to turn on the light, and unknown to you that also closes a circuit that electrocutes a person, you’ve committed no crime at all. The precise same action, with the same switch, is murder if you intended for the death to happen. > > What you intend as a result of your actions is absolutely critical in determining whether they are permissible. I understand your point, and disagree. If you know the light switch is connected to the electric chair, and you choose to flip it anyways, you are morally culpable even if your primary intent was to turn on the light. Since these are obviously personal ethical and moral beliefs, at least somewhat tangent to the discussion at hand, and wholly unlikely to be fully explored at this time, I’ll retire from this line of discussion at this point. ---
**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, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/805 "2011-05-12T15:41:25Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Your belief in the suffering of nonexistent people? Yeah, you’re probably right. So yeah, you probably _shouldn’t_ have brought it up, since it’s kinda silly. No, I refer to our society as a whole, and how I believe it’s diminshed when we kill human beings. A good example is the death penalty: we don’t need it to protect our society; we do it as vengeance and call it justice. But in doing so, we throw what amounts to bits of sand in our souls… we edge imperceptibly nearer to disregard of what it means to be human. Again, I can’t prove that, and I recognize it’s merely my belief about what would make us better as a society. But in no event am I discussing non-existent people. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/806 "2011-05-12T15:42:56Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So then are the pro-choicers on this thread also ok with abortions after viability? I am not, as long as the mothers life isn’t in danger. ---
**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, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/807 "2011-05-12T15:43:08Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So then are the pro-choicers on this thread also ok with abortions after viability? In my estimation the consensus opinion among pro-choicers is the one that I articulated up-thread. Free access prior to viability, limited but unfettered access (health of the mother, prehaps rape/incest) after viability. Some will obviously disagree, but I believe this is the majority opinion. It’s basically the Kang (or was it Kodos?) position - “Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others”. ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/808 "2011-05-12T15:46:36Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > I am not, as long as the mothers life isn’t in danger. Then you do think abortions should be illegal past a certian point at least. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/809 "2011-05-12T15:52:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. The problem is you’re starting with an assertion that simply isn’t backed up by either medical facts or recorded human history. Other than that my objection is this. If we approach it from the aspect often preached by anti abortionists, a reverence for human life, I can’t help but think of the great need for that reverence in so many areas, concerning the people already in the world and the children born daily into this world. There is so much need already in the world that working hard to bring more rather than address the need already present seems like a bad use of resources. For those who feel as you do, that human life begins at conception, the choice you personally make is clear, and investing time and resources into \*\*helping \*\* women who are facing a difficult choice is admirable. It’s good for women to not think termination is the only choice available. Trying to change their minds through harassment and and pressuring them with religious beliefs and guilt is despicable. So is passing laws to create more obstacles , and to willfully remove needed services in order to prevent some abortions. There’s nothing about that that displays a reverence for human life. It’s simply a reverence for their personal ideology. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/810 "2011-05-12T16:26:02Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > 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? I imagine many would be likely to accept a position that banned post-viability abortions, if the exceptions for “life/health of mother” and “fetal development incompatible with survival outside the womb” remain in place. (in the latter case, I’m talking about rare conditions like “complete lack of brain tissue” and such".) We’ve already seen that in this thread. Even in the current world, post-viability abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions. 90% happen before week 12, in fact. That’s not even getting into what percentage of late-term abortions are elective as opposed to required for the life/health of the mother. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/811 "2011-05-12T16:33:23Z")
**Bricker** , can you look at my post 749 and answer the questions: I’m genuinely curious about the implications of your stated views in non-pregnancy contexts. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/812 "2011-05-12T16:34:14Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Then you do think abortions should be illegal past a certian point at least. Correct? Again, not if the mothers life is in danger but yeah. Life support is a thing, my objection to Pro-life is that it treats the mother like a thing. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/813 "2011-05-12T16:35:37Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So then are the pro-choicers on this thread also ok with abortions after viability? I’m okay with it. Bring it on, troll. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/814 "2011-05-12T16:42:46Z")
Aside from Bryan…(since I’m not sure what he is.)…any other people out there ok with abortion after viability. ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/815 "2011-05-12T16:53:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I absolutely agree that you’ve articulated a defensible position. > > But surely you agree it’s not an objective one – by which I mean it’s not one that is derived from some provable scientific truth. You’ve chosen to predicate decisions on what causes the least suffering. But why must I accept this standard? Minimizing suffering may not be necessarily objective but it’s the most practical and concrete. Wouldn’t you agree that we base our basic human rights on minimization of suffering? Pain and suffering are real phenomena. Pain is complex but it can be studied. Even suffering can be quantified to some extent. Calling an embryo a person is much less rational. In fact, minus the weak unique DNA argument, it contradicts any rational identification of a person. > [@](#): > > Yes. And I readily acknowledge that this standard of mine is also bereft of objective proof. I believe, but cannot prove, that any human life is worthy of legal protection – that we as a species suffer a moral diminuation when we allow ourselves to watonly kill that which we identify as also human. Of course, our entire history as a species is filled with doing just that – but I also believe that as we continue to develop standards, we reject more and more of that mindset. > > I seldom say this, precisely because I cannot prove it. I simply believe it. Again, this is incredibly abstract. You want to deny women the right to control their bodies because of an abstract belief that it will diminish our morals. Somehow, our society who loves war and punishment, will be further diminished because we didn’t save fertilized eggs or early embryos. Not only do you have no evidence that this is true, it makes little sense in the natural world. > [@](#): > > As you believe that the correct hallmark is to choose the path of least suffering. I agree with you, in a sense – I simply believe that over the longer term, more suffering will result from your method than mine. Again, you have no evidence that it will cause more suffering. In fact, it could be argued that less suffering has occurred since abortion was made legal. That’s why the government can’t get involved in this issue. There is little evidence for any of your assertions. There’s lots of science to support mine. And my assertions are much more simple. The arbitrary identification of a person based on a unique set of DNA and nothing more is not enough to force women to lose the control of their own bodies. All arguments of diminishing morals and respect for ‘human life’ are based on some kind of religious or supernatural ideologies with no facts to support their benefit to society. ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/816 "2011-05-12T17:00:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I refer to our society as a whole, and how I believe it’s diminshed when we kill human beings. > Again, I can’t prove that, and I recognize it’s merely my belief about what would make us better as a society. But in no event am I discussing non-existent people. Yes, you are discussing non-existent people. Science clearly does not support your contention that embryos are people. You have to concede this point or concede that you want to take away women’s rights based on a supernatural belief. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/817 "2011-05-12T17:03:18Z")
> [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > We make no other legal prohibitions about what people do with parts of their own bodies. Not true - you can’t sell your organs. (Of course, I think you ought to be able to if you want - what do you own more?) ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/818 "2011-05-12T17:06:22Z")
Ironically, you CAN sell your uterus, or at least the use of it. It’s called surrogacy, and lots of people do it. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/819 "2011-05-12T17:39:39Z")
> [@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. That’s not really a very compelling argument legally. How do we know when a minor becomes an adult? At 17 and 364 days he’s a child, one day later he’s an adult. How do we know when you can legally drive a car? One day you can’t, the next you can. How do we know when you can legally drink? Etc., etc. I’m sure there are lots of other examples. It’s not unusual for us to draw a line between one state and another, and often if you just looked at the person you wouldn’t be able to pinpoint anything that indicated that they had changed from one status to another. And the question isn’t really ‘when is it human?’, it’s ‘when is it a separate person whose rights are either equal to or supersede mine?’. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/820 "2011-05-12T17:46:23Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Ironically, you CAN sell your uterus, or at least the use of it. It’s called surrogacy […]. There’s another way, but it’s only legal in Nevada. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=42)