# Abortion-clinic picketers.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935>\
**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:** 77

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1521 "2011-05-17T19:30:08Z")

</div>

> [@Meyer6](#):
>
> 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?

What? You think it’s untrue?

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

I’m being deadly 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).

No, after reading this thread, I realized that most pro-choicers are stupid and incapable of using (non-faulty) logic. At any rate, I tend to back my assertions with evidence. It’s better that way. Perhaps you should go back through the thread? To see who is and isn’t backing up their claims. And just because you don’t like the not-so-hypothetical discussion, doesn’t mean it’s untrue. I mean, look at that cosmosdan fellow. We’re following the script to a tee. I’m just waiting for him/her to get around to explaining to me what consciousness has to do with anything.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m sure your position seems self evident to you, but if you want to debate you really need to do better than that.

A pro-choicer talking about self-evident statements? In this thread? REALLY??? lol, again, I back all of my claims, whereas in this thread you’ve got pro-choicers making self-evident statements galore or flat out disregarding those things which do not work in their favor.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]  
No I did not.  
[/quote]

Yes, you did.

> [@](#):
>
> Was abortion legal in this country in 1867? Check your own post for the answer.

Abortion was de facto legal in some provinces on account of not being restricted, not because it was allowed by law. The two are completely different.

> [@](#):
>
> You conveniently ignored the the relevant history that my link provides.

Again, no I didn’t. You’re really barking up the wrong tree if you’re going to try to “school” me in abortion laws in the U.S., for real.

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

See, ladies and gentlemen, this really is a straw man. As I pointed out to Bryan (and no I’m not ignoring your post) prior to Roe v. Wade there was no distinction between person and human. That distinction only arose after Roe v. Wade. Why would they view an embryo or a zygote as a human non-person, a concept which was 100 years after their time?

> [@ladyfoxfyre](#):
>
> Do you actually know what sentience means? If you think that means killing newborns is okay, you’re a moron.

No worries. We’ll sedate them first. Then it’ll be okay!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1522 "2011-05-17T19:42:27Z")

</div>

> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by 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.

Please explain to this biochemist the problem you have with **Cosmodan’s** statement. Are you defining human beings and person’s as distinguishable entities? Which entity does a human embryo or fetus fall under? Can you explain why a human embryo has more of a right to develop into a human person than a born human person has to her own body. Also, can you explain why this right is not extended to born human persons (ie. people cannot be forced to donate blood or other tissues to save a person’s life).

The argument is more than mere consciousness. Coma patients may lack full consciousness but a person in a persistent vegetative state in which the cortex is lacking, has neither sapience or sentience. A fetus would be like the latter.

Regardless, there has never been a movement of goalposts. If personhood is part of a pro-choice person’s argument, then when they say human being, they mean person. When a pro-choice person discusses consciousness, some are referring to sentience but some sapience. It depends on their philosophy. Some pro-choice people do not regard personhood important because they do not think extra rights should be afforded to a fetus that is not afforded to people who are born (ie. forcing someone else to donate tissue for them).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1523 "2011-05-17T19:43:53Z")

</div>

> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> No, after reading this thread, I realized that most pro-choicers are stupid and incapable of using (non-faulty) logic. At any rate, I tend to back my assertions with evidence. It’s better that way.

Your ‘evidence’ is solely your opinion. Besides that, you have spend most of your time harping on the fine distinctions in the concept of personhood, and have done nothing to address the numerous other facets of the debate. Say you get your wish and abortion is suddenly completely verboten. Do you allow abortions in the case of rape or incest? Do you think it’s fine that the incidence of dangerous illegal abortions will undoubtedly skyrocket? Does it bother you that countless women will be forced to sacrifice their career, education, and even the security of their existing children to carry pregnancies that they don’t want? Does it bother you that pregnancy carries risks and can be fatal (does describing it as an ‘inconvenience’ really convince you that it is)?

Do you think everyone should be legally bound to donate blood or organs to their family members when they need them, regardless of the risks to the donor? If not, why is that not a logical extension of your stance?

> [@](#):
>
> Abortion was de facto legal in some provinces on account of not being restricted, not because it was allowed by law. The two are completely different.

You said ‘abortion was prohibited for thousands of years’. Now you say it was actually de facto legal in places. And you want to paint yourself as an expert on the history of abortion?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1524 "2011-05-17T20:07:02Z")

</div>

> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> 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.

The point is and remains, you made some claim that science tells protestors that a zygote and/or an embryo is a human being. Science does no such thing, in the sense that matters for the abortion question. Science simply doesn’t address at all, the issue of what is just and moral concerning abortion rights. So claiming protestors are backed by science is simply incorrect, and a semantic argument that fails when we address the nits and bolts.

> [@](#):
>
> 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 are wrong and I’m wondering if you’ll admit it. Making the claim “It was legal until 1867” does not include the word everywhere. You read something into that wasn’t there and avoided the larger more relevant point in the process.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1525 "2011-05-17T20:10:23Z")

</div>

> [@classyladyhp](#):
>
> See what I mean? At least she decided to keep her Downs baby.

It’s not Downs. It’s [Down Syndrome](http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3112).

Stop taking offense when people say you are showing ignorance. You are. This post is proof of it. There is a yawing immense difference between ignorant and stupid.

You are ignorant of some facts. Why not be open to learning more facts? Admitting ignorance is fair. Denying ignorance is just plain…stupid.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1526 "2011-05-17T20:28:05Z")

</div>

> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by cosmosdan  
> > Actually, historically, abortion was legal 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.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Quote:  
> > 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).

How do you not realize that you just supported what **cosmosdan** just said? WTF?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1527 "2011-05-17T20:33:17Z")

</div>

> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> Yes, you did.

You’re still wrong and it would be swell if you’d just admit it. Actually you do admit it, and then try to qualify it so it’s not really an admission.

> [@](#):
>
> Abortion was de facto legal in some provinces

Here’s trhe admission that demonstrates the statement you repeatedly called false, was in fact correct.

> [@](#):
>
> on account of not being restricted, not because it was allowed by law. The two are completely different.

Here’s the failed attempt at qualifying your admission.  
The more relevant point is that abortion was practiced and the general public knew it and accepted it, until different groups for different reasons other than the inherent value of a human life, began to lobby to have the laws changed. This spanned a period of a decades. Why is it relevant? To demonstrate that society as a whole has not embraced the moral argument you are making and society has regularly not judged a zygote or embryo to be a human being.

> [@](#):
>
> Again, no I didn’t. You’re really barking up the wrong tree if you’re going to try to “school” me in abortion laws in the U.S., for real.

If you know about them that’s better. If you have something to refute what’s in the link I provided I’ll be glad to look at it. The relevant point to me is that the moral view that a zygote or embryo is a human being, and woman and society are morally obligated in some way to do all they can to bring every pregnancy to term, out of some idea about the inherent value of human life, simply has not been the consistent view of society. It also appears to me that many of the laws passed that restricted abortion, were not motivated by that moral view.

> [@](#):
>
> See, ladies and gentlemen, this really is a straw man. As I pointed out to Bryan (and no I’m not ignoring your post) prior to Roe v. Wade there was no distinction between person and human. That distinction only arose after Roe v. Wade. Why would they view an embryo or a zygote as a human non-person, a concept which was 100 years after their time?

Maybe I’m missing the point you’re trying to make. Mine is that if abortion was practiced and somewhat accepted by our society in the early years, it’s only reasonable that people did not view an embryo , the same as a person.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1528 "2011-05-17T20:53:54Z")

</div>

> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> You think I would make stuff up?
> 
> \<snip\>
> 
> I’m getting kind of lazy here, so that’s all I’m gonna’ search out. Point being, you’re welcome.

Why, thank you. However, much of the polling information you’ve provided, particularly from Polling Report, still seems to support that those in favor of abortion and those not in favor of abortion in most or all cases are neck and neck with those who feel it should sometimes or always be illegal. I’m assuming “most cases” aren’t limited to those factors you listed earlier.

What I found particularly interesting in your links, though, was the _LA Times_ story, which indicated that most people realize that outlawing abortions would not reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States. What’s your take on that? If outlawing abortions isn’t expected to lower the rate of abortions, why do it? Is it just a symbolic act to you? Or does the woman not deserve to live or have medical care if she’s willing to have an abortion?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1529 "2011-05-17T21:04:53Z")

</div>

never mind.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1530 "2011-05-17T21:12:26Z")

</div>

> [@classyladyhp](#):
>
> Abortion is seriously a lot easier than raising a child into adulthood. Abortion takes what? 5 minutes to complete. And why pray tell do you think it is such a difficult decision? Could it be because some women are racked with guilt after the procedure having realized that they just let a Dr. tear apart their own flesh and blood?

Would you please go back to #1359 and take a look at the scenarios presented there?  
One more time: It is NOT as simple as you make it out to be. Yes, you are oversimplifying a complex situation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1531 "2011-05-17T22:01:33Z")

</div>

> [@Cartooniverse](#):
>
> It’s not Downs. It’s [Down Syndrome](http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3112).
> 
> Stop taking offense when people say you are showing ignorance. You are. This post is proof of it. There is a yawing immense difference between ignorant and stupid.
> 
> You are ignorant of some facts. Why not be open to learning more facts? Admitting ignorance is fair. Denying ignorance is just plain…stupid.

At least she decided not to abort her Downs baby. I know fully well it is Down Syndrome I was typing my response quickly and left the word syndrome out. I don’t need a link I am fully aware of that it is:rolleyes:  
What is your problem? Now you’re just nitpicking. Any normal person would understand that Downs means down syndrome FFS.  
It’s also called TRISOMY 21. I respect her for continuing on with her pregnancy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1532 "2011-05-17T22:05:49Z")

</div>

When putting forth an opinion, one may or may not defend, all depending upon the thickness of their [Nomex Firesuit](http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/204221843/Nomex_Kevlar_Fire_Fighting_Suit_UXF.html) 🙂

I was correcting a fact that you’d gotten wrong. Typically Dopers respond with " My bad" or, " ignorance fought" or some such.

My problem was with the ignorance you displayed. Not no comment on your comments in this thread.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1533 "2011-05-17T22:15:42Z")

</div>

> [@ladyfoxfyre](#):
>
> Do you actually know what sentience means? If you think that means killing newborns is okay, you’re a moron.

You’ve got nothing else in your head but hot air so I forgive you for the incredibly rude post:rolleyes:  
Not that your attitude dignifies a response but I will explain it to you so read very carefully mkay?  
Sentience is to be self-aware. Many people on this thread have stated that it is an integral part of being a person. They argue that the fetus is not sentient and therefore not a person. As a consequence the fetus does not have the same right as a person.  
A newborn is not sentient. Therefore it deos not have the same right either so you must then support infanticide. A mother has a choice to kill her newborn then. Do you realize how stupid that is?Got it?:rolleyes:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1534 "2011-05-17T22:17:19Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> For fuck sake lady, THINK about it before you post this kind of bullshit. You might save yourself some embarrassment.

:rolleyes:  
It’s a legitimate question which you can’t answer. It has a better chance of as YOU say “developing into a person” if the mother doesn’t abort it. I still say it is a person though.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1535 "2011-05-17T22:23:57Z")

</div>

> [@heatmiserfl](#):
>
> Please explain to this biochemist the problem you have with **Cosmodan’s** statement. Are you defining human beings and person’s as distinguishable entities? Which entity does a human embryo or fetus fall under? Can you explain why a human embryo has more of a right to develop into a human person than a born human person has to her own body. Also, can you explain why this right is not extended to born human persons (ie. people cannot be forced to donate blood or other tissues to save a person’s life).

How very sly of you. You want me to explain the difference between a human being and a human person when you’ve yet to define what a human person, since you brought it up, is and why a human person differs from a human being? No, I don’t think so. That burden would be on you, thanks. This is precisely what I mean by pro-choicers treating their arguments as self-evident.

See, if that’s the best you can do, then you might as well just stop arguing, because you’re already behind the 8-ball.

> [@](#):
>
> The argument is more than mere consciousness. Coma patients may lack full consciousness but a person in a persistent vegetative state in which the cortex is lacking, has neither sapience or sentience. A fetus would be like the latter.

So that’s it? That’s your grand argument? I was expecting something a bit more thought out. But oh well. It is what it is.

The above goes to show how little you know. A coma is worse than a vegetative state. Individuals in a vegetative state have a high level of arousal, but no awareness, while individuals in a coma have neither any awareness nor arousal. In fact, since we’re on the topic, did you know that [people who are asleep or are under the influence of anaesthesia](http://web.me.com/adrian.owen/site/VS_Publications_files/Laureys-2004-LancetNeurol.pdf) are similar to comatose patients in both arousal and awareness? And since it’s pretty impossible to be either sentient or sapient without being aware, then I guess that means people in said states aren’t really persons. Go figure!

(Really. Am I, like, the only one who looks crap up?)

> [@](#):
>
> Regardless, there has never been a movement of goalposts. If personhood is part of a pro-choice person’s argument, then when they say human being, they mean person. When a pro-choice person discusses consciousness, some are referring to sentience but some sapience. It depends on their philosophy. Some pro-choice people do not regard personhood important because they do not think extra rights should be afforded to a fetus that is not afforded to people who are born (ie. forcing someone else to donate tissue for them).

So first the pro-choicer starts off by asserting that the unborn aren’t humans. When the pro-lifer points out that science says the pro-choicer is wrong, the pro-choicer then claims that (s)he was really talking about personhood. When the pro-lifer points out that if person and human are synonymous, and that science defines what it is to be a human and that science defines the unborn at all gestational ages as humans, that this must mean that the unborn are persons as well, the pro-choicer claims that person and human are not similar, meaning (s)he was engaging in a willful conflation of topics-- a fallacy. Of course, I went over this already in my not-so-hypothetical conversation between a pro-lifer and pro-choicer which to which all the pro-choicers screamed straw man, so no need to rehash it.

So now your argument has devolved into one of personal beliefs regarding personhood? Hah, really? Fine. So you agree that everyone is entitled to their own definition of personhood, yes?

[QUOTE=Meyer6]  
Your ‘evidence’ is solely your opinion.  
[/quote]

No, it’s based on the dialogue in this thread.

> [@](#):
>
> Besides that, you have spend most of your time harping on the fine distinctions in the concept of personhood, and have done nothing to address the numerous other facets of the debate.

No, actually, most of my time has been spent pointing out that the arguments pro-choicers use are either not logically consistent, or they lead to some rather strange and unnerving conclusions. Plus, I can’t say I too much of care about those “other” facets of the debate, since most of them don’t address the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion. If abortion is wrong, very few of those things matter (and the things which do matter account for, like, 6% of all abortions).

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> You’re still wrong and it would be swell if you’d just admit it. Actually you do admit it, and then try to qualify it so it’s not really an admission.

No one has to qualify anything.

> [@](#):
>
> Here’s the admission that demonstrates the statement you repeatedly called false, was in fact correct…
> 
> …Here’s the failed attempt at qualifying your admission.

Okay. So it’s clearly evident you didn’t quite grasp what I said. Do you not know what it means to be _de facto_ legal? _De facto_ means that something occurs without explicitly being allowed, or even disallowed, by the law. So yes, abortions were done in the 19th century, but it wasn’t until 1967 when Colorado amended its laws did they become legal in the U.S.

> [@](#):
>
> The more relevant point is that abortion was practiced and the general public knew it and accepted it, until different groups for different reasons other than the inherent value of a human life, began to lobby to have the laws changed. This spanned a period of a decades. Why is it relevant? To demonstrate that society as a whole has not embraced the moral argument you are making and society has regularly not judged a zygote or embryo to be a human being…
> 
> If you know about them that’s better. If you have something to refute what’s in the link I provided I’ll be glad to look at it. The relevant point to me is that the moral view that a zygote or embryo is a human being, and woman and society are morally obligated in some way to do all they can to bring every pregnancy to term, out of some idea about the inherent value of human life, simply has not been the consistent view of society. It also appears to me that many of the laws passed that restricted abortion, were not motivated by that moral view.

Okay. So your argument has gone from “abortion was legal and personal in this country until around 1867” (which is 100%, factually incorrect) to something about quickening, the 19th century, how society viewed the early fetus and that the real reason for wanting to restrict abortion to say nothing about protecting the unborn or respecting fetal life? Is that so? Taken from the Roe v. Wade:

> [@](#):
>
> The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.
> 
> An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion “with a view to its general suppression.” It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of “this general demoralization”:
> 
> [ul]"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.[/ul]
> 
> [ul]"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .[/ul]
> 
> [ul]“The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [410 U.S. 113, 142] and to its life as yet denies all protection.” Id., at 75-76.[/ul]

…Oh, but that’s probably nothing but religious dogma, right?

> [@](#):
>
> Maybe I’m missing the point you’re trying to make. Mine is that if abortion was practiced and somewhat accepted by our society in the early years, it’s only reasonable that people did not view an embryo , the same as a person.

Are you insinuating that if something is practiced that it means it’s accepted by society? I can think of numerous things which are done in our society that are looked down upon (i.e., having an extra marital affair, and even being brash enough to advertise it in the newspaper).

[QUOTE=overlyverbose]  
Why, thank you. However, much of the polling information you’ve provided, particularly from Polling Report, still seems to support that those in favor of abortion and those not in favor of abortion in most or all cases are neck and neck with those who feel it should sometimes or always be illegal. I’m assuming “most cases” aren’t limited to those factors you listed earlier.  
[/quote]

How about you do this, then? Why don’t you go and find some source which shows that the majority would allow favor an abortion for cases outside of rape, incest, maternal health and fetal defects. Good luck with that.

> [@](#):
>
> What I found particularly interesting in your links, though, was the LA Times story, which indicated that most people realize that outlawing abortions would not reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States. What’s your take on that? If outlawing abortions isn’t expected to lower the rate of abortions, why do it? Is it just a symbolic act to you? Or does the woman not deserve to live or have medical care if she’s willing to have an abortion?

If legalizing abortion caused the abortion rate to increase, why would making abortion illegal not cause the abortion rate to decrease?

> [@](#):
>
> We consider the effect of abortion legalization on births in the United States. A simple theoretical model demonstrates that the impact of abortion legalization on the birth rate is ambiguous, because both pregnancy and abortion decisions could be affected. We use variation in the timing of legalization across states in the early 1970’s to estimate the effect of abortion on birth rates. Our findings indicate that states legalizing abortion experienced a 5% decline in births relative to other states. The decline among teens, women over 35, and non-white women was even greater: 13%, 8%, and 12% respectively. Out-of-wedlock births declined by twice as much as births in wedlock. If legalization in some states affected birth rates in neighboring states (Through travel to obtain an abortion), comparing births between states will underestimate the actual reduction. Using more distant comparison states increases the estimated impact of abortion legalization on birth rates to about 8%. Applying this estimate to the current level of births, a complete recriminalization of abortion would result in 320,000 additional births per year.
> 
> … If Roe were supplanted by a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion nationwide, we might expect an 11% rise in fertility rates based on the experience of the early 1970s. Applying this estimate to the current level of births (Roughly 4 million per year), we estimate that a complete recriminalization of abortion would result in perhaps as many as 440,000 additional births per year. On the other hand, the effect might be considerably smaller if a future Supreme Court decision returned to states the authority to determine the legality of abortion. The increase in births would then depend on the number of states in which abortion remained legal and their geographic distribution (currently, thirteen states have laws on the books to recriminalize abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned). If the five repeal states were to maintain the legality of abortion, then our findings indicate that birth rates might still increase by perhaps 4.5% in the remaining states that recrirninalize abortion. This would result in an increase in births on the order of 135,000 per year (4.5% of the roughly 3 million births in those states that recriminalize). If more states were to keep abortion legal, the effect on births probably would be smaller since interstate travel to obtain abortions would increase. While our results provide a useful frame of reference, they have important limitations. Changes since 1973 in contraceptive technology, employment opportunities for women, social attitudes, and other factors have altered the environment in which fertility decisions are made. Moreover, a complete evaluation of the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade would require consideration of other social, health, and demographic effects. Nevertheless, our results suggest that if Roe v. Wade were overturned today, one of the effects would be a substantial rise in American fertility.

[Link](http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/Levineetal_ajph1999.pdf)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1536 "2011-05-17T22:25:00Z")

</div>

> [@classyladyhp](#):
>
> :rolleyes:  
> It’s a legitimate question which you can’t answer. It has a better chance of as YOU say “developing into a person” if the mother doesn’t abort it. I still say it is a person though.

The part he’s commenting on is saying “into a frog?”. If you have an argument, lay it out logically, not with flippant little statements that make you look foolish. Plus, I addressed it in my post, right above his, I believe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1537 "2011-05-17T22:27:19Z")

</div>

> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#):
>
> The part he’s commenting on is saying “into a frog?”. If you have an argument, lay it out logically, not with flippant little statements that make you look foolish. Plus, I addressed it in my post, right above his, I believe.

I hope you don’t use the word flippant in everyday conversations:rolleyes:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1538 "2011-05-17T22:32:01Z")

</div>

> [@classyladyhp](#):
>
> I hope you don’t use the word flippant in everyday conversations:rolleyes:

Happily, most people I surround myself with aren’t, so it doesn’t come up. However, on occasion my kids will talk to me that way, and yes, I will point out that they are being flippant and they seem to comprehend its meaning just fine.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1539 "2011-05-17T22:33:42Z")

</div>

> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> 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.

Again, person was synonymous with human. They were denied the rights of citizens.

> [@](#):
>
> When was this? Not in _Roe_, as far as I can tell.

In the text of Roe v. Wade:

> [@](#):
>
> The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. **But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.**

> [@](#):
>
> 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?

I’m perfectly willing to say let’s ban abortion and get all the details worked out over the next one hundred years.

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.  
[/quote]

It’s her choice to do what? Kill another entity because it’s in her convenience to do so? Ehhh, no. Choice is a misnomer. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. No one has free choice to choose to do anything they want irrespective of the effects it has on another. If anything, as far as pregnancy goes, choice comes before the fact, not after it (sex).

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

Yes. Surely, you wouldn’t argue otherwise. I don’t think you’ve really thought the entire thing through if you think that being responsible for a situation means being able to resolve that situation any way you see fit.

> [@](#):
>
> And you’ve yet to define “moral black hole”. Shall I assume that was empty rhetoric?

A moral blackhole is a situation in which people argue that morality is entirely dependent on the individual engaging in an action.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1540 "2011-05-17T22:34:41Z")

</div>

> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#):
>
> Happily, most people I surround myself with aren’t, so it doesn’t come up. However, on occasion my kids will talk to me that way, and yes, I will point out that they are being flippant and they seem to comprehend its meaning just fine.

I didn’t say I don’t know what it means. I meant it is the sort of word people would ridicule you for using in day to day life.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=76)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=78)