# 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:** 76
**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 17, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1501 "2011-05-17T18:44:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Actually, historically, [abortion was legal](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm)and personal in this country until around 1867. Some of the reasons it became illegal had little to do with morality, or true concern for “unborn children” Any idea that an embryo or fetus was widely considered the same as a newborn baby simply isn’t true. {Just in case that’s what your claiming} That is simply not true at all. > [@](#): > > Jurisdictions having enacted abortion laws prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868: > > 1. Alabama - Ala. Acts, c. 6, 2 (1840). > > 2. Arizona - Howell Code, c. 10, 45 (1865). > > 3. Arkansas - Ark. Rev. Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, 6 (1838). > > 4. California - Cal. Sess. Laws, c. 99, 45, p. 233 (1849-1850). > > 5. Colorado (Terr.) - Colo. Gen. Laws of Terr. of Colo., 1st Sess., 42, pp. 296-297 (1861). > > 6. Connecticut - Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn. Pub. Acts, c. 71, 1, 2, p. 65 (1860). > > 7. Florida - Fla. Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, 10, 11, subc. 8, 9, 10, 11 (1868), as amended, now Fla. Stat. Ann. 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965). > > 8. Georgia - Ga. Pen. Code, 4th Div., 20 (1833). > > 9. Kingdom of Hawaii - Hawaii Pen. Code, c. 12, 1, 2, 3 (1850). > > 10. Idaho (Terr.) - Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863). > > 11. Illinois - Ill. Rev. Criminal Code 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill. Pub. Laws 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867). > > 12. Indiana - Ind. Rev. Stat. 1, 3, p. 224 (1838). By 1868 this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind. Laws, c. LXXXI, 2 (1859). > > 13. Iowa (Terr.) - Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., 18, p. 145 (1838). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev. Stat., c. 49, 10, 13 (1843). > > 14. Kansas (Terr.) - Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, 9, 10, 37 (1859). > > 15. Louisiana - La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offenses 24, p. 138 (1856). > > 16. Maine - Me. Rev. Stat., c. 160, 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840). > > 17. Maryland - Md. Laws, c. 179, 2, p. 315 (1868). > > 18. Massachusetts - Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845). > > 19. Michigan - Mich. Rev. Stat., c. 153, 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846). [410 U.S. 113, 176] 20. Minnesota (Terr.) - Minn. (Terr.) Rev. Stat., c. 100, 10, 11, p. 493 (1851). > > 20. Mississippi - Miss. Code, c. 64, 8, 9, p. 958 (1848). > > 21. Missouri - Mo. Rev. Stat., Art. II, 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835). > > 22. Montana (Terr.) - Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts 41, p. 184 (1864). > > 23. Nevada (Terr.) - Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, 42, p. 63 (1861). > > 24. New Hampshire - N. H. Laws, c. 743, 1, p. 708 (1848). > > 25. New Jersey - N. J. Laws, p. 266 (1849). > > 26. New York - N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit. 2, 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (1828). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N. Y. Laws, c. 260, 1-6, pp. 285-286 (1845); N. Y. Laws, c. 22, 1, p. 19 (1846). > > 27. Ohio - Ohio Gen. Stat. 111 (1), 112 (2), p. 252 (1841). > > 28. Oregon - Ore. Gen. Laws, Crim. Code, c. 43, 509, p. 528 (1845-1864). > > 29. Pennsylvania - Pa. Laws No. 374, 87, 88, 89 (1860). > > 30. Texas - Tex. Gen. Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859). > > 31. Vermont - Vt. Acts No. 33, 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt. Acts No. 57, 1, 3 (1867). > > 32. Virginia - Va. Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, 9, p. 96 (1848). > > 33. Washington (Terr.) - Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, 37, 38, p. 81 (1854). > > 34. West Virginia - See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, 9, p. 96 (1848); W. Va. Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863). > > 35. Wisconsin - Wis. Rev. Stat., c. 133, 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis. Rev. Stat., c. 164, 10, 11; c. 169, 58, 59 (1858). ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1502 "2011-05-17T18:47:12Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > No, the protesters justification is this little thing called science. It’s odd to me how in the same thread some pro-choicer wants to mention education, you continue to get gems like the above statement. Education is overrated, apparently 😛 Here’s more of the gymnastics you like to mention. Science says a zygote or embryo is fully genetically human. It also tells us that a zygote or embryo or early fetus, has no separate consciousness. Science makes no claim about them being a human being, in the way that counts here. Are they individuals without any brain or consciousness? Are they equal citizens? Yours is an inaccurate and disingenuous argument. Science tells us a zygote or embryo is the beginning stage that MAY, develop into an individual person. It doesn’t say it is one. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1503 "2011-05-17T18:47:56Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Really? I’m pretty sure prohibitions against abortion span back thousands of years, whilst laws making abortion legal only really sprung up in the last century. Just so you know. Abortion was legal in the US until 1867 and in Britain until 1803. Just so you know. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Just what I said. People like babies. More babies make people happier. > > 😉 > > This is the third time I’ve seen this typed out. What, exactly, does this mean? You don’t know why I would say you are messing around and avoiding the point? Just look at your previous sentence and your retarded smiley. Not answering the question is not impressing anyone, even if you think you’re being terribly clever. ---
**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 17, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1504 "2011-05-17T18:56:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Here’s more of the gymnastics you like to mention. Science says a zygote or embryo is fully genetically human. It also tells us that a zygote or embryo or early fetus, has no separate consciousness. Science makes no claim about them being a human being, in the way that counts here. Are they individuals without any brain or consciousness? Are they equal citizens? Yours is an inaccurate and disingenuous argument. > > Science tells us a zygote or embryo is the beginning stage that MAY, develop into an individual person. It doesn’t say it is one. And there we have it. The inevitable conflation between human being and person. And people said my fictional argument with a pro-choicer was a straw man. Please. It just goes to show how little of their own argument pro-choicers really know and understand, and just how quick they are to try to move the proverbial goalposts. Moving on in that not-so-hypothetical-convertation-anymore, what does consciousness have to do with being a ‘person’? I don’t think you want to go there, for I have a sneaky suspicion you understand less on this point than you think. > [@Meyer6](#): > > Abortion was legal in the US until 1867 and in Britain until 1803. The 1867 bit is a flat out lie. Look at the above list and count how many states and territories had instituted restrictions on abortion prior to 1867. > [@](#): > > You don’t know why I would say you are messing around and avoiding the point? Just look at your previous sentence and your retarded smiley. Not answering the question is not impressing anyone, even if you think you’re being terribly clever. No. I perfectly well know why why you would _think_ that. Yes, look at the sentence. Meditate and reflect on it. Then come back to me. Actually, read some of the stuff I typed out, then come back to me. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1505 "2011-05-17T18:57:44Z")
We have restrictions on abortion right now- does that make abortion not legal? Not knowing the laws- were they laws restricting abortion or laws making it wholesale illegal? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1506 "2011-05-17T19:00:08Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That is simply not true at all. read the link and tell me exactly how your post refutes it. I generalized for brevity’s sake. Abortion laws developed over time. from my link > [@](#): > > UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before “quickening” (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). > > The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business – including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press – was booming. Your link doesn’t refute that abortion was practiced and legal, and the sentiment against it developed over time for several reasons listed in my link. It wasn’t all some moral desire to protect human life. ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1507 "2011-05-17T19:04:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > read the link and tell me exactly how your post refutes it. I generalized for brevity’s sake. Abortion laws developed over time. > > from my link > Your link doesn’t refute that abortion was practiced and legal, and the sentiment against it developed over time for several reasons listed in my link. It wasn’t all some moral desire to protect human life. I’m very well aware of abortion laws in the U.S. and their history. You didn’t generalize for brevity’s sake. You made a statement which was just flat out false. ---
**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 17, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1508 "2011-05-17T19:05:54Z")
Missed this earlier becasue the quote tag was mistyped. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] > Oh, that’s not true at all. At various times and in various states the word “person” did not apply to slaves and/or women, and even the 14th Amendment, while citing “persons”, did not make it equivalent to “humans”. No, it’s actually very true. It may be different in Canada, but in the U.S. neither slaves nor women have ever been defined as being non-persons. Even [Dred Scott](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393) consistently references Blacks/slaves as persons. Then they were persons who were property, and they were subject to numerous restrictions and killing such a person did not carry the same penalty as killing a white person. If they were indeed “persons”, they certainly weren’t _equal_ persons, which I figure (with my modern sensibilities) defeats the purpose of personhood. > [@](#): > > And SCOTUS concluded that the word person don’t have a strict post-natal application. Simply because something has not explicitly been applied to a certain group in the past doesn’t mean that group is not that thing ). When was this? Not in _Roe_, as far as I can tell. > [@](#): > > Well, one, I said citizens. Two, you said pro-choicers should embrace the idea that claims of fetal personhood are without foundation. Okay, fine. Do that. I’ll just point out to you that the same argument was made in reference to Blacks being citizens of the U.S. (based on current laws and the language contained in the Constitution, there was no assurance that the framers ever intended for Blacks to be thought of as citizens of the U.S., and as such the argument for citizenship for Blacks was without merit). Yes, the same argument was made and it still had to go through round after round of appeals _and_ get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments _and_ the process wasn’t complete (arguably, it still isn’t) until the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Are you suggesting fetuses should get the same result automatically? Okay, then so should people wanting gay marriage. So who gets fast-tracked and who doesn’t? > [@](#): > > Of course I’m indifferent to the costs involves. Since when is not killing someone contingent on whether or not someone else is able to support them? Oh, I get that you’re indifferent to the realities. In this case, though, the killing of someone is contingent on a woman choosing not to continue a pregnancy. It doesn’t really matter if she’s wealthy (and could support the child if she wanted to) or there were numerous people standing by to adopt. It’s her choice, I figure. Taking away that choice has certain costs, both to her and society, for benefits of dubious value. > [@](#): > > The same reason we, as a society, don’t kill the poor even though that would be the ‘cheapest’ solution around. You want her to have responsibility for a situation and yet deny her the autonomy to resolve it as she sees fit? I don’t see your basis for demanding that authority without assuming any responsibility. I basically have no confidence you’re thought this through or have any interest in doing so. And you’ve yet to define “moral black hole”. Shall I assume that was empty rhetoric? ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1509 "2011-05-17T19:06:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Here’s more of the gymnastics you like to mention. Science says a zygote or embryo is fully genetically human. It also tells us that a zygote or embryo or early fetus, has no separate consciousness. Science makes no claim about them being a human being, in the way that counts here. Are they individuals without any brain or consciousness? Are they equal citizens? Yours is an inaccurate and disingenuous argument. > > **Science tells us a zygote or embryo is the beginning stage that MAY, develop into an individual person. It doesn’t say it is one**. What else do you thnk it MAY develop into…a frog? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1510 "2011-05-17T19:06:08Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Go ahead and insult me. You’ve got nothing else. I don’t need to use all the flowery words that you guys have been using to try and make it seem like you know what you are talking about. It’s just a bunch of mumbo jumbo anyways. The term ignorance is in no way an insult so please stop trying to play the victim here. If you’re in doubt look it up. People do have a right to their own opinion but if you’re going to enter into a discussion with others of your own free will, it helps if you know some facts about the subject you’re talking about. Facts matter, and there’s and an uninformed opinion based on falsehoods doesn’t contribute much. If you’re really interested it helps to do some research and reading. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1511 "2011-05-17T19:08:15Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > What else do you thnk it MAY develop into…a frog? For fuck sake lady, THINK about it before you post this kind of bullshit. You might save yourself some embarrassment. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1512 "2011-05-17T19:10:49Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > What else do you thnk it MAY develop into…a frog? Of course not. Do you really think that what people are saying? It may develop into a human, if that development proceeds. Many, many situations outside of abortion can cause that development not to proceed, including in uterine environment, genetic makeup of the fetus, exposure to toxins, health of the mother etc. However, just because a human being is the end-stage of development, it does not mean that every stage of development is classified as a human being. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you leave flippant comments aside. ETA: I am very curious about your opinion that Jewish law and tradition has a completely different take on fetal “humanity” than Christianity does (I posted an earlier link). Even if religions ostensibly rooted in the same core beliefs can come to such significantly different conclusions about abortion, how do you think anyone can have a handle on truth for anyone but themselves? ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1513 "2011-05-17T19:11:02Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The 1867 bit is a flat out lie. Look at the above list and count how many states and territories had instituted restrictions on abortion prior to 1867. You’re the one who said “prohibitions against abortion span back thousands of years”, and you want to accuse me of a flat out lie? > [@](#): > > No. I perfectly well know why why you would _think_ that. Yes, look at the sentence. Meditate and reflect on it. Then come back to me. Actually, read some of the stuff I typed out, then come back to me. So you really are defending ‘babies make people happy so we should have as many babies as possible’? Honestly, I don’t know if it’s just me but I’m having trouble understanding a lot of your posts because your language is not very clear and it’s hard to tell when you think you’re being funny and when you’re being serious. You came into this thread with the attitude “haha, look at those stupid pro-chiocers, der!” and have just flung that around without backing up your positions at all (the ‘discussion’ between a ‘typical’ pro-choicer and pro-lifer was the worst of this). I’m sure your position seems self evident to you, but if you want to debate you really need to do better than that. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1514 "2011-05-17T19:13:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Wow, I didn’t know Sarah Palin posted here. See what I mean? At least she decided to keep her Downs baby. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1515 "2011-05-17T19:13:44Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m very well aware of abortion laws in the U.S. and their history. You didn’t generalize for brevity’s sake. You made a statement which was just flat out false. No I did not. Was abortion legal in this country in 1867? Check your own post for the answer. You conveniently ignored the the relevant history that my link provides The point is that historically abortion was not viewed as you are are trying to paint it now. People did not see a zygote or embryo as a person. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1516 "2011-05-17T19:14:15Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > What else do you thnk it MAY develop into…a frog? When are you going to answer my questions as to your actual position concerning conception? ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1517 "2011-05-17T19:16:22Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > See what I mean? At least she decided to keep her Downs baby. Many people who are pro-choice come to that conclusion too, as a personal choice for their family. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1518 "2011-05-17T19:17:54Z")
> [@Hentzau](#): > > Or shall we quit with the crazy and pick an arbitrary event - say, being born - as the rite of passage to legally-protected human? There’s a problem with that because many pro-choicers on this thread are saying that the fetus needs to be sentient to be a human being. A newborn is not sentient in the way an adult is sentient. Should we be able to kill babies that are just born? Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1519 "2011-05-17T19:24:58Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > There’s a problem with that because many pro-choicers on this thread are saying that the fetus needs to be sentient to be a human being. A newborn is not sentient in the way an adult is sentient. Should we be able to kill babies that are just born? Which is it? Do you actually know what sentience means? If you think that means killing newborns is okay, you’re a moron. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1520 "2011-05-17T19:28:37Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Has this been sufficiently answered yet? It seems to be ignored. As is the inconsistency of fertilization vs. implantation vs. beating heart. She tends to ignore the more difficult posts in order to post more self righteous platitudes based on false information. And to complain about being insulted, even when she’s not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=75) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=77)