# 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:** 70
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1381 "2011-05-16T18:40:24Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Those are the ideas I have picked up from several “pro-life” books I’ve read. They all consider pregnancy a minor inconveience, think any woman can hand her child over for adoption with no egative effects, and think there is no reason to have an abortion. Which of those books you read purported to be the authority from which all pro-life people take their guidance? At best, you might demonstrate that some pro-life people would answer in the way you have. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1382 "2011-05-16T18:42:23Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > It is possible to define “person” based on functions and not reach that logical conclusion. For example purposes only: “A ‘person’ is a being of species _homo sapiens_ who is not dependent on being physically attached to the organ systems of another _homo sapiens_ for their survival.” > > Or even “A ‘person’ is a being that has been born.” > > We recognize a legal distinction there all the time. For example, if I shoot a man who is charging me with a raised knife, the legal system will properly judge that I am not guilty of murder because my intent was not to kill them, my intent was to protect myself and killing them was an side effect of the act of self-protection. > > In the same way, it is coherent to say a woman getting an abortion does not intend to kill the fetus, she intends to not be pregnant, and killing the fetus is a side effect of not being pregnant. > > It’s certainly not because you have a keen grasp of logical and legal principles. Are those your definitons of personhood? Her intent is not to protect her life aside from where her abortion is medically necessary. it’s not the same thing at all.Keep trying. Killing the fetus is the only way to end the pregnancy. It is the intent. You can’t even argue a point without resulting to insults can you? No you can’t. Who are you trying to impress by constantly trying to prove you are smarter than I am. Really? Could it be because you are insecure? ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1383 "2011-05-16T18:49:03Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Of course her intent is to kill. Unless she is a moron she knows that the fetus cannot survive outside her body so she does have the intent to kill. Killing the fetus ends the pregnancy. There is no other way to end the pregnancy today than to kill the fetus. > I don’t know why I bother. Please bother to respond to the list of scenarios presented in post #1359. They are quite compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Hentzau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df788c/32.png) [@Hentzau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentzau)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1384 "2011-05-16T18:54:53Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You can’t even argue a point without resulting to insults can you? No you can’t. > Who are you trying to impress by constantly trying to prove you are smarter than I am. Really? Could it be because you are insecure? It isn’t a difficult thing to prove as long as you continue to help them by doing things like using “resulting” when you mean “resorting.” ---
**Author:** ![Hentzau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df788c/32.png) [@Hentzau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentzau)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1385 "2011-05-16T19:24:05Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > I’d like to save both but if I had to choose it would be the girl. The embryos could potentially get destroyed/thawed out when the freezer is unplugged:D Thank you. You answered my question, even though your answer was an attempt to dodge it. You’d save the girl. You’d allow to die, or risk the death of by your attempt to re-write my scenario, 500 of God’s Little Snowflakes rather than allow one girl to die. Why? The same reason anyone would. Because the girl is a human person and no embryo is and on a visceral level, below the level of whatever conditioning or indoctrination you have received from wherever you go for it you know that. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1386 "2011-05-16T19:28:52Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Are those your definitons of personhood? No: hence, for example only. I don’t really think personhood is terribly relevant. > [@](#): > > Her intent is not to protect her life aside from where her abortion is medically necessary. it’s not the same thing at all.Keep trying. > Killing the fetus is the only way to end the pregnancy. It is the intent. No, it is not. EVEN IF the only way to end the pregnancy is to kill the fetus, that does not make it her intent, from a moral, ethical, or legal standpoint. Again, you need to understand the principle of double effect. This, incidentally, is the same ethical standard the Catholic Church uses to (logically!) justify abortion in the case of tubal pregnancy. The intent is to end a potentially fatal pregnancy, and the death of the fetus is justified because it is not the intent of the primary action, which is valid and moral in and of itself. Also, if you want insult-free debate, start a thread in GD. This is the Pit, and I am insulting you for my own amusement WHILE instructing you in the actual rules of logic. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1387 "2011-05-16T19:49:50Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Most abortions are not done due to the extreme circumstances yo have presented above. Do you have a cite for your number of “most”? At any rate, the OP was about protesters at a clinic, who do not know (or care?) about the circumstances of why someone is going into the clinic. So do you approve of those who protest in front of a clinic, even though they are yelling and shoving pictures of aborted fetuses in front of women who ARE facing those very circumstances? Or doing this to women who may be going in for birth control so that they DON’T have to get an abortion? Do you support these protesters? (this is what the OP is about). ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1388 "2011-05-16T19:55:39Z")
As long as they don’t use violence I support it. I don’t see a problem with showing them pictures of fetuses. Hopefully a life can be saved. They are doing far less harm than the women who are going to the clinic to end their pregnancies anyways. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1389 "2011-05-16T19:56:49Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > This is the Pit, and I am insulting you for my own amusement WHILE instructing you in the actual rules of logic. That’s nice. I’m glad I could provide you with some form of amusement:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1390 "2011-05-16T19:57:54Z")
> [@Hentzau](#): > > Thank you. You answered my question, even though your answer was an attempt to dodge it. > > You’d save the girl. You’d allow to die, or risk the death of by your attempt to re-write my scenario, 500 of God’s Little Snowflakes rather than allow one girl to die. > > Why? The same reason anyone would. Because the girl is a human person and no embryo is and on a visceral level, below the level of whatever conditioning or indoctrination you have received from wherever you go for it you know that. No. I did not say that. the embryos have not been implanted into anyone’s uterus yet. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1391 "2011-05-16T20:05:32Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > As long as they don’t use violence I support it. I don’t see a problem with showing them pictures of fetuses. Hopefully a life can be saved. > They are doing far less harm than the women who are going to the clinic to end their pregnancies anyways. What about the vast majority of women who are going there for routine gynecological care and birth control prescriptions? Does the amount of harm done to them not matter to you? > [@classyladyhp](#): > > No. I did not say that. the embryos have not been implanted into anyone’s uterus yet. So, are you ready for a final answer on whether human life begins and human rights apply at conception or at implantation? ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1392 "2011-05-16T20:08:25Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > No. I did not say that. the embryos have not been implanted into anyone’s uterus yet. Yes you did say that. The post I am quoting as your attempt to dodge yet further by adding other parts to the given scenario, specifically, _“the embryos have not been implanted into anyone’s uterus yet.”_ In this thread you had done this dodge repeatedly. You also refuse to answer questions, or offer proof of your beliefs. You are not worth the time of the posters who hold views that are opposite of yours. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1393 "2011-05-16T20:21:38Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > As long as they don’t use violence I support it. I don’t see a problem with showing them pictures of fetuses. Hopefully a life can be saved. > They are doing far less harm than the women who are going to the clinic to end their pregnancies anyways. Thanks for answering. So basically, the ends justify the means, and if the protesters cause emotional distress to lots of folks that are not having an abortion, that’s OK if they save an embryo. They can do anything they want short of violence, since saving one embryo is worth it, no matter who else they hurt. ---
**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:** [May 16, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1394 "2011-05-16T21:01:19Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I disagree–you are worse off if I evict you, but I am not violating your bodily autonomy by doing so. So forcing death upon an individual doesn’t violate their right to bodily autonomy? Now that’s just absurd. > [@](#): > > Because today, if a woman doesn’t have the intention to kill the fetus, but merely wants to be done with the pregnancy, that CANNOT be done without the death of the fetus despite the fact that it wasn’t the intent. So we’re relegated to proving that the woman’s intent is “murder of the fetus” rather than “not being pregnant”–good luck. And the mental gymnastics continues. There isn’t a single women I know of who has an abortion with the mind of being a mother to that child which is aborted. As it is, a simple fact of the matter is that women don’t overwhelmingly have abortions because they don’t want to be pregnant; they have abortions because they don’t want to be a mother to that child or because being a mother would interfere with their lives. So yes, much to your consternation, the intent of those women (which, ftr, are the majority of women) is to kill the unborn so they don’t have to be mothers to them. There are no and’s, if’s or but’s about it. > [@](#): > > Have any of them tried to defend that logically using axioms that result in contradictory behavior? It’s trivially easy to defend that logically without contradiction: “Axiom: until the moment of birth, a fetus is part and parcel of the woman who is carrying it, and is not an independent human.” Funnily enough, none of them want to take the bait. You did, though, arguing that a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy which can be violated to prevent her from acting in certain ways against the unborn. An argument, mind you, in which you’ve still failed to find the contradiction. > [@](#): > > You are ignoring the principle of double effect, which I have already established as part of my ethics: “If one performs an action that is specifically good or neutral, and the benefit from that action outweighs the bad consequences, then the bad consequences can be justified by the good caused by the primary cause.” You’re going to be hard-pressed to explain how killing the unborn for reasons which often amount to convenience is a good or neutral action, or how killing the unborn out of convenience breeds more good than not being allowed to kill it out of convenience, or even how abusing the unborn for convenience is neither a good or neutral act while killing it, is. Again, that requires a large amount of cognitive dissonance on your part. > [@](#): > > In your example, the benefit to you cutting the specific rope is negligible, but the bad consequence is profound–the death of a human. > > In the abortion example, the benefit to the pregnant mother is profound (she is no longer forced to surrender her bodily autonomy against her consent) and the bad consequence is minimal (a fetus that might potentially be a human might die.). There is no might. Does it really not bother you that you are, like, fifty years behind the curve here and have no understanding of sixth grade biology? > [@](#): > > You can disagree on the status of the fetus vis-a-vis its rights, but that’s an axiomatic disagreement and I have no problem with axiomatic disagreements, as by definition they cannot be arrived at logically. So basically you’re saying that everyone is right in their arguments so long as they believe their own axioms upon which their arguments are based to be true? Well, now. That’s just ridiculous. If we’re going to play that game, then you agree that if I want to go on a murderous rampage because my worldview dictates that others have no inherent worth, I should be allowed to, right? Right?!?!?! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1395 "2011-05-16T21:11:36Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So what is it then? A non-human embryo?:smack: Interesting snippage there. I’ll bring back the point of that post - do you not understand what the terms “beginning of a new human being” and “human development” mean? I’ll help - they mean that we are talking about something that has _begun_ to be a new human, and will develop into a human. Which means that science does not feel that it is a human at fertilization or even at implantation but merely something that might develop into a human. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > If you mean unfettered legally, I’ll raise my hand. The only fettering that I see as valid is that of the doctor, with the woman’s health and well-being at the forefront of his interest. Yes, that would be “fettering” 😉 and I do mean legally. For example, I suppose it’s legal for a woman to have an abortion at birth minus one day, but I cannot imagine that any doctor would feel that was in her best interests. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1396 "2011-05-16T21:36:39Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Yes, that would be “fettering” 😉 and I do mean legally. For example, I suppose it’s legal for a woman to have an abortion at birth minus one day, but I cannot imagine that any doctor would feel that was in her best interests. Perhaps that’s just a limitation of your imagination? If it’s legal, there will be doctors willing to execute the procedure. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1397 "2011-05-16T21:38:05Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because if you press a pro-choicer enough, you’ll inevitably run him/her into the same arguments. It’s not that much of a secret. Apparently it is to all of those in this thread. > [@](#): > > My first post on the last page. This is your first post on the last page. Do you mean your first post on the prior page? Have you not noticed how quickly this thread moves? The post/page you are referring to could be 2-3 pages back. If you really want an answer, you would simply repost the question. > [@](#): > > Oh, it’s not a loaded question. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that most pro-choicers would squirm at the the thought of a woman deliberately harming her unborn child (not killing it), yet these same individuals somehow think it perfectly okay to kill that child en utero or even to cause that child to be born dead (i.e., through the use of a saline abortion) or to die directly after being expelled from the uterus. Apparently, it’s okay to kill a child en utero (or have its death closely follow being expelled from the uterus), but it’s not okay to maim or injure that child while en utero. Makes sense, if you don’t think about it too much. Cognitive dissonance, at it’s finest. It only makes sense if you believe that the fetus can feel pain early on, which it doesn’t. You do understand that something without a working nervous system cannot feel pain, or anything else? Without a working brain, it cannot feel fear? > [@](#): > > If, as you assert here, a woman can be denied the ability to act according to her own will because of effects it will have on the unborn presently, or even on the unborn in the future, then her right to bodily autonomy isn’t absolute as she can be made to something, or prevented from doing something, so long as it is in the best interest of the unborn make/prevent her from doing something. So are you saying that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy can be subverted? Or are you saying that this only applies when the unborn can feel pain? If so, then your argument is essentially that it’s okay if a woman throws down a 40 ounce a day, so long as she causes her unborn child to die before it can feel pain. Yes? Nobody has complete bodily autonomy - in most states, attempted suicide is illegal, as would be self serve surgery. If a woman does something purposeful, such as drink herself into a stupor every day or shoot up crack AND she chooses to maintain her pregnancy until birth, the law steps in because she is purposefully creating a life that will be severely injured at birth. I am having trouble believing that you do not see the difference between flushing out a clump of cells, and attempts to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome. > [@](#): > > Amazing. So abortion is either about men controlling women or women controlling women. Uh, yeah. You want to force every woman who gets pregnant to carry to term, no matter what. How is that not control? > [@](#): > > Except it is true, and no amount of posturing on your end will make it any less true. It just means that you’d rather hold to your ignorance. Shrug. I go with science. You want to think I’m ignorant, it’s your problem not mine. > [@](#): > > This is the worst reading I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering. It doesn’t say that fertilization is the beginning of the process by which the unborn begin to turn into human beings, but that fertilization is the beginning of a human. Taking your (very liberal) reading at face value, we would have to assume that human development involves a non-human entity, in which case it’s wouldn’t be human development, but rather something else. :rolleyes: No wonder you can’t see facts. No matter how you want to twist it around, “beginning of human” does not equal “human”, except to those who want it to due to religious reasons or whatever. A fertilized egg has no human characteristics, and an early fetus looks more like a fish than a person. Sure, it’s got human DNA, but so does my left hand and my left hand does not have rights separate to me. > [@](#): > > This, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, demonstrates the futility in trying to argue with pro-choicers. Even when given something which clearly demonstrates they’re wrong, they’ll assert that they’re right. There is no amount of evidence to the contrary one could provide which will make them admit that they were wrong. Then the obvious solution is to not argue with pro-choice people - just leave them alone, which is all they want. If it wasn’t for anti-abortion people trying to force their beliefs on others, there would be no controversy. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1398 "2011-05-16T21:46:33Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > Perhaps that’s just a limitation of your imagination? If it’s legal, there will be doctors willing to execute the procedure. Oh, OK, I’ll change it to “any doctor not in danger of losing his license”. Better? ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1399 "2011-05-16T21:50:56Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Oh, OK, I’ll change it to “any doctor not in danger of losing his license”. Better? Why is the doctor in jeopardy of losing their license if the activity is legal? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1400 "2011-05-16T21:55:48Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Questions: > > Does a human non-person exist? > What traits define personhood? > > Who makes the definition? Once again, genetically human in make up does not make a clump of cells a person. We’ve been over this a lot and simple logic tells you it’s true. when it comes to a pregnancy, I’d say the courts decide, and individuals decide. We’ve gone over that before to. Nobody is telling you to not consider an embryo a person. We’re saying that folks like you who believe that, don’t get to make the decision for others. > [@](#): > > Society has excluded certain humans from personhood before (e.g., African slaves, Chinese, etc.) Should we make a new list of human non-persons? Once again, this is not relevant IMO. If you can explain in a reasonable way, why it is, I’ll reconsider. If your point is, those attitudes were wrong so this one is too, it simply doesn’t follow at all, or apply. If anything, in the case of unwanted pregnancy, it is the people who claim abortions should be illegal who want to enslave women by taking away their choices about their own body. > [@](#): > > Newborns lack the ability to perform personal functions - in fact, newborn humans are less capable physically and mentally than virtually all other mammals > All persons were once fetuses. When did we go from non-person status to person status? > > Therefore, on the basis of functionally-defined personhood, newborns fail the test could be killed on the basis of “non-personhood”. Again, please explain how this is relevant. Newborns are dependent on the care of others, but are physically independent from their mothers. That’s why viability is an issue, and so few abortions are done after viability. You are the one making the “from the moment of conception” claim and you have been unable to support it. As others have pointed out your own reasoning contains some major contradictions. You claimed that all life is sacred, but then claim that you are under no obligation to donate blood or organs to stranger. Still, you think you and other anti abortionists ought to have the right to dictate to women who are strangers, that they should be required by law to remain pregnant and give of their bodies against their will. I don’t see any consistent reasoning in the anti abortionists arguments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=69) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=71)