# 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:** 84
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1661 "2011-05-18T22:27:08Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Where did you crawl out from, honestly? What link about IVF or breastfeeding or abortion brought you from the depths of google search to our lovely little playground here? The only threads I’ve seen you post in for the whopping 3 weeks you’ve been here are about pregnancy or abortion. I was using your own terminology in the quote, if you’ll scan the thread you’ll discover I also called you a bitch. > ." doyble post ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1662 "2011-05-18T22:28:37Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Where did you crawl out from, honestly? What link about IVF or breastfeeding or abortion brought you from the depths of google search to our lovely little playground here? The only threads I’ve seen you post in for the whopping 3 weeks you’ve been here are about pregnancy or abortion. I was using your own terminology in the quote, if you’ll scan the thread you’ll discover I also called you a bitch. > ." Hey idiot. Can you read? I’ve posted on many other threads here on topics other than pregnancy and aboriton dimwit. Who the hell do you think you are anyways? Is this your board?:rolleyes: I don’t care what you call me. You’re crazy. Get help. Is it that time of the month for you? You’re coming off as some kind of hormonal lunatic. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1663 "2011-05-18T22:37:07Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Is it that time of the month for you? You’re coming off as some kind of hormonal lunatic. Oh, the irony, it _buuuuuurns_. 😛 Go take your afternoon nap Missy, you might save a bit of face (what’s left of it anyway) if you leave this thread alone for a while. Just my two-bob’s worth anyway. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1664 "2011-05-18T22:38:38Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > No method of birth control is 100% guaranteed:rolleyes: > They need to take responsibilty for their mistake and not punish thier own unborn child for something that the child had no fault in doing. _“Mistake” ?!?_ How in the holy fuck can you call it a mistake?!? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1665 "2011-05-18T22:44:04Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Hey idiot. Can you read? I’ve posted on many other threads here on topics other than pregnancy and aboriton dimwit. I actually checked, just for the sake of argument–of your last hundred posts, 90% were in this thread. ---
**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 18, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1666 "2011-05-18T22:57:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > _snip_ > > Should I go on? Am I already way off base? People who opposed abolition may have lived in terror that their white daughters would have sex with black men, but I’m pretty sure I’m not expressing any comparably irrational concerns. It might. It might not. The question is, who cares? Again, you can harp on this issue all you want, but the fact is that in the context of the abortion debate, it’s quite irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Well, I daresay what actually allowed slavery to cease to exist was the 18th- and 19th-century beginnings of mechanization, making slavery obsolete. If one could travel back in time to ancient Sparta with the noble goal of freeing all its slaves, I daresay _that_ society couldn’t handle it. So are you saying that, if society couldn’t handle emancipating the slaves, that they shouldn’t have been emancipated? It’s a very simple question. I mean, I know why you refuse to answer the question, but you could at least give the appearance of at least trying to do so, if just in the slightest. > [@](#): > > “Morally wrong” is not an absolute, though, and makes for a lousy basis for forming policy. We casually do things our parents might consider morally wrong, they casually did things _we’d_ consider morally wrong. You casually do things your neighbor considers morally wrong. He casually does things _you’d_ consider morally wrong. Some immigrant comes to America and _everything about it_ is morally wrong. What is “morally wrong” varies so wildly by time, place and individual attitudes that using it alone as a basis for law is pointless. It’s not? What about murder? Theft? Rape? Slavery? When are any of these things ever considered to be “morally right”? > [@](#): > > Naturally we have some near-universal agreement that murder, theft, rape, assault etc. are morally wrong _and_ disruptive to society and should be prohibited by law. If someone wants to define abortion as murder (and thus morally wrong), fine. I disagree. Since when is murder a matter of personal opinion? > [@](#): > > Now _that’s_ odd - the idea of a woman becoming pregnant on purpose just so she can have an abortion. If I’m reading you correctly, I can only assume you’re reading me wildly incorrectly, if you think I was suggesting something along those lines. Yes, it’s an extreme example - so much so that I dismiss it with a chuckle. Seriously, if your definition of “odd” means “could be made ridiculous” then you might as well say “it’s raining today” is an “odd” statement, since it _could_ mean that angels in the clouds are weeping from peeling too many angel-onions as they prepare some angel-onion soup. Yes, it’s odd; no, I didn’t say you were suggesting something along those lines; and, yes, that’s essentially the natural consequent of your argument. If, as you assert, the woman has a right to engage in sex and have an abortion that is higher than the unborn’s right to not be killed at the women’s discretion, then a woman can purposely engage in sex, purposely get pregnant and purposesly have an abortion, and you would still consider that acceptable (or at least acceptable enough to allow her to do it). Would you tell a woman she can’t have an abortion for any reason? > [@](#): > > I’m okay with it, though. I can picture scientists experimenting in laboratories (that might conceivably be in their houses but I admit are more likely in universities and commercial buildings) coming up with new lifeforms. Heck, it’s probably happening _right now_ - some scientist is gene-splicing even as I write this (and later as you read it), forming some new hybrid lifeform. The people who own those buildings can still dictate what goes on in them (at least in regard to the new lifeforms), and someone is going to have to convincingly argue that the new lifeform is deserving of state protection, allowing government agents to intervene on the lifeform’s behalf. I know you’re okay with it. That doesn’t explain the question posed to you, of which I’ll ask again. Why you shouldn’t be held responsible for its welfare due to it existing, which it only does because of you? > [@](#): > > Buh? No, it doesn’t. The key is that the _woman_ can decide the relative merits of staying pregnant vs. not staying pregnant by her own standards and given her own situation, and then choose what she thinks is the better option. How can an action be rationalized by the individual engaging in that action? The very fact that they engage in it, would mean that it’s okay, even if it’s not okay in actuality. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I suspect you don’t know, either. I get that you have an interest in relabeling pro-choicers as something you perceive as more negative (i.e. pro-abortioners) but even you could successfully argue for the change (and you have not) it doesn’t strengthen our arguments to ban abortion, nor does it address your refusal to consider the consequences of such a ban. I meant exactly what I said. Choice is a misnomer, because it assumes that the two choices (to give birth or to have an abortion) are qualitatively similar and and equal in their outcomes. They aren’t, least because one of those situation results in a live baby and the other a dead baby. The correct term, therefore, is pro-abortion, because abortion is the action you support, much like pro-lifers carry around the anti-abortion label, because abortion is the action we oppose. It’s quite simple, really. > [@](#): > > But just for laughs, let’s say that from now on the term “pro-choice” will be replaced with “evil Satanic Commie-Nazi baby-killer.” What does _that_ accomplish, aside from a blatant appeal to emotion? I don’t know. Who said anything about replacing pro-choice with “evil Satanic Commie-Nazi baby-killer”? It amazes me how apt the people who scream “strawman!” are to engage in straw men themselves. > [@](#): > > In any case, I’m not indulging this foolishness further. I’ll continue using the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” as convenient labels. Your semantic arguments about what “choice” really means are fallacious and pointless. And yet, it’s not foolishness. Don’t you find it odd how I can be both anti-choice and anti-abortion, but you can’t be anti-life and pro-abortion? You should. > [@](#): > > Not entirely - if she’s denied a medically-safe D&C abortion and tries to induce by, say, throwing herself down some stairs or talking someone into punching her in the abdomen or by jamming a coat-hanger into herself or by eating large quantities of some herb that she read about on some website, the end result could be an aborted pregnancy _and_ a woman suffering serious injuries and/or infection. > > So, yes… it matters. If it’s going to be done, why not do so in the safest manner possible? To teach her about “responsibility”, or something? It could, but for the sake of argument, we’re going to assume she brings no harm to herself, much like we’re assuming that she isn’t harmed in the abortion. Knowing this, I must ask again, why does it matter the manner in which she accomplishes no longer being pregnant? The end result is the same. > [@](#): > > How should should we expect this? Abortion’s been fully legal in Canada for almost 20 years, now. When should we expect to see another group being defined out of rights? Let’s see… Based on recent history, about 15 years, give or take. [QUOTE=purplehorseshoe] Because “our” definition leaves everyone free to decide for themselves what is the right decision for their own bodies, while “your” definition comes with legislation that takes that ability (to decide for one’s own self) away from everyone." [/quote] lol, really? I don’t think so. You know, to save time, I’m just going to quote myself: > [@](#): > > What if, for shits and giggles, some woman decided that personhood entailed awareness and that there is nothing wrong with killing things which are not aware, which would include newborns? What then? Are you going to tell this women, even if she just gave birth to a newborn, that she cannot kill her newborn even if she does not perceive it to be a person? That would violate premise one. Are you going to force her to adopt a view of personhood which is contrary to that of their own? That violates premise two. So what do you do? My definition is more restrictive than yours, and yours than the woman’s or, really, I should say philosopher’s like Peter Singer or Michael Tooley. So if it’s wrong of me to force a definition of personhood onto you by which you should operate, it’s also wrong to force your definition of personhood onto the latter by which they, or like-minded individuals, should operate. By refusing to do so, you’re either violating the notion that everyone has the right to decide for themselves personhood and act accordingly or the notion that it’s wrong to force someone to adhere to a definition of personhood which is not necessarily their own. Doing so would make you a, as has been said, religious zealot. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1667 "2011-05-18T23:06:23Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You act like you’re the first women to ever carry a baby or give birth or have an episiotomy. The epidural is just a fucking needle. It hurts for a minute and then it’s done. Done except for the 1 in 2,000 women whose epidurals are complicated and cause everything from daily, debilitating headaches for months to lifelong paralysis. More than 4 million women give birth in America every year and it’s estimated that 80% of them get epidurals. That means a not insubstantial number of women an epidural hurts for a lot longer than a minute. And again, sadly, not only are other complications, including death, not that rare, their numbers are _rising_ in the U.S. and completely disproportionate for non-white women. But if we die having babies, who the hell cares, right? We shouldn’t have had sex. (Leaving aside that those are wanted children.) > [@classyladyhp](#): > > In most cases a pregnancy doesn’t kill the woman. And in some cases it does. Or debilitates her health for life. If you care about life, why don’t you care about those women who die or are never physically or mentally capable again because they continued a pregnancy to term and gave birth? > [@](#): > > The fetus does what it naturally has to do to grow. It’s not a parasite as many of you pro-choicers believe. [(Parasitism is) a close association between two organisms, in which a parasite depends on a host that provides some benefit (usually food) to it; the parasite does not always damage the host.](http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/parasitism-an-introduction-to/xk923bc3gp4/51#Definition) If you’re not willing to learn anything, even factual information, while you’re here, then why are you here? Just to keep repeating your same trite, offensive proclamations and call whoever disagrees with you names? ---
**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 18, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1668 "2011-05-18T23:19:10Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I never used the term “legal precedent”. I merely said that a particular concept was precedented ie not novel ie comparable to an existing or previously existing thing. You mentioned the law, then you mentioned precedents. It’s not a stretch by any sense of the imagination to assume you’re talking about legal precedents or at least a precedent which has effect on the law (of which there is none in the case of a woman abusing her unborn child, by the way). > [@](#): > > Are you truly such a moron that you think that every idea has been fully implemented in every way that it can be and thus if it hasn’t been implemented in that way then it can’t be? How do you work out how to _breathe_? Yes? Or, perhaps, that would be the conclusion you want to come to. > [@](#): > > A decision as to what we consider to be lawful to kill has to be made. You are drawing the line somewhere but where ever you draw it, it could be drawn earlier and by drawing it where ever you do you are making as much of a decision about worth as anyone since whatever lies outside your line you are regarding as of less worth. You have just hidden your decision by adopting a particular definition of a particular word and accepting that definition as your boundary, such that you can kid yourself that you have made no decision. You aren’t fooling me but you seem sincere, so you are probably fooling yourself. Though how hard would that be, really? lolwut? > [@](#): > > At the logic level, I am as able to not rationalise killing off the poor etc as easily as you are. You are committing a basic slippery slope fallacy if you think that merely because I make a decision to draw a line closer to the slope than you, I must fall down it. How about… not? The argument, as I’m sure you’re well aware, is that if you can rationalize killing the unborn because it raises utility, then you could also rationalize killing off the poor because it raises utility. You put yourself on a slippery slope when you start arguing utilitarianism. Of course, you’ll probably be like everyone else and play the-boy-or-girl-who-cried-strawman, but taking an idea to its logical conclusion is not a strawman, and should be carried out with every philosophy. > [@](#): > > At the utility level, killing off the poor etc is and always has been a bad idea and the few groups that have tried it have generally been disasters. It hasn’t worked out because there is no way to measure utility in this manner. However, if we could easily measure the utility to be gained by killing off a couple of poor people and not killing off a couple of poor people, and found that killing them off to raise utility higher than what it otherwise would be, then you have no logical basis upon which to say that it shouldn’t be done. When you base your philosophy on one which ignores individual ethics, you’re bound to reach some rather abhorrent conclusion. > [@](#): > > The same simply cannot be said of killing off fetuses. I could attempt to speculate further on the reasons for this, but simple historical experience is a sufficient empirical basis for me. You know, I’d like to see you provide proof of this assertion. > [@](#): > > Invoking human rights isn’t a justification of your position; it is just an attempt to avoid having to justify your position. Whatever you might say, it is quite clear that your argument is one of slavish insistence that everyone fits within a law or body of laws you call “human rights”. My first inclination was to invoke Godwin’s Law and ask if you were a Nazi, but I resisted it. No, human rights are a perfectly valid justification. All humans are entitled to the same basic rights and protections as any other human is. The only way you don’t fit into that, is if you’re not a human. Again, I didn’t come up with the concept, but it’s a generally well-accepted concept. > [@](#): > > Your argument runs that a fetus is human, born humans have human rights so a fetus must have human rights, and the nature of human rights can’t be questioned so abortion should be illegal. You aren’t going to convince me of anything by defining your position as unassailable. Ummm, no. My argument is that a fetus is human, and as a result is entitled to human rights. That’s not defining a position that’s unassailable. That’s taking a position which cannot be assailed without first arguing that some humans aren’t entitled to the same basic protections as another, which would necessitate you giving the standard by which a human has to meet before (s)he is afforded the same rights and protections as someone else. > [@](#): > > In my view rationality and utility suggest abortion should be legal. If someone doesn’t want to have a child, it is of significant utility for them to be able to correct the position if they discover they are going to have one. I don’t feel any necessity to justify rational and useful laws by fitting them into some nebulous concept you call “human rights”. If for you this is essential, then feel free to fiddle around with definitions in order to do so, or not, as you choose. Meanwhile the smart people will be doing something useful. Arguments from utility are, frankly, pointless. But let’s move the timeframe a bit ahead. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that a woman has three children. If we knew for a fact that we could increase societal utility by allowing her to kill one of them more than we could any other way, does it therefore become morally acceptable to allow her to kill one child in order to increase utility? > [@](#): > > I’m not a great believer in “rights” in this sense because I think they are just an attempt to convert one’s preferred proposition into an axiom. Having said that, I think what you are really asking is whether I think that upholding a woman’s preference for bodily autonomy is practical. My answer to that is that I’m sure it is not always practical, but it is a goal to strive for. Even if doing so decreases utility? > [@](#): > > If it comes to a conflict between a woman’s rational and in my view well justified preference for bodily autonomy, and preventing the abortion of a non-sentient fetus that the woman doesn’t want and which will never be born, I’ll prefer the former every time. I don’t see any significant value in the latter. Increasing utility? ---
**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 18, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1669 "2011-05-18T23:30:05Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > [(Parasitism is) a close association between two organisms, in which a parasite depends on a host that provides some benefit (usually food) to it; the parasite does not always damage the host.](http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/parasitism-an-introduction-to/xk923bc3gp4/51#Definition) Your own link says that it chooses to define parasitism in a very wide sense. [Parasitism](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasitism), be definition, form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). The association may also lead to the injury of the host. A form of symbiosis in which one benefits and the other is neither helped nor hurt is commensalism. ---
**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 18, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1670 "2011-05-18T23:37:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Your own link says that it chooses to define parasitism in a very wide sense. [Parasitism](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasitism), be definition, form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). The association may also lead to the injury of the host. > > A form of symbiosis in which one benefits and the other is neither helped nor hurt is commensalism. And before some not-so-smart-ass comes by to response, I’ll point out that passing on one’s genetic information is the ultimate benefit (because I know someone wanted to go there). ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1671 "2011-05-18T23:46:18Z")
I can’t tell which side is being assigned to what, in your commensalism example. Either way: _Assuming the fetus is neither helped nor hurt_: “… ultimate benefit?” Seriously? Some people don’t give a flying fuck about passing on their genetic information. _Assuming the mother is neither helped nor hurt_ Paging DoperMoms to chime in about whether your body was “neither helped nor hurt” by pregnancy and labor. ---
**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 18, 2011, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1672 "2011-05-18T23:49:57Z")
What’s a benefit and what isn’t doesn’t change based on the what the individual in question is feeling. Humans ain’t above nature. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1673 "2011-05-19T00:00:57Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Is it that time of the month for you? You’re coming off as some kind of hormonal lunatic. Haha. I love how everybody is a lunatic, rude, moron, idiot, and a million other things you’ve decided, but you seriously just asked me if I was being mean to you because I was on my period? Come on, the jig is up. Are you actually a 16 year old boy? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1674 "2011-05-19T00:06:33Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I know you’re okay with it. That doesn’t explain the question posed to you, of which I’ll ask again. Why you shouldn’t be held responsible for its welfare due to it existing, which it only does because of you? Because nowhere else in law do we have contracts which cannot be broken. Nowhere else in law do we have consent that cannot be revoked. Nowhere else in law do we have the ability to force a person to donate their own bodily fluids and organs to another human under any circumstances, even if that person is the proximate cause of the other human’s need for those fluids and organs. > [@](#): > > I meant exactly what I said. Choice is a misnomer, because it assumes that the two choices (to give birth or to have an abortion) are qualitatively similar and and equal in their outcomes. They aren’t, least because one of those situation results in a live baby and the other a dead baby. The correct term, therefore, is pro-abortion, because abortion is the action you support, much like pro-lifers carry around the anti-abortion label, because abortion is the action we oppose. It’s quite simple, really. You can say it as many times as you like, but that doesn’t make it true. That actually goes for literally every statement of “fact” in the above quote–you have begged the question in three out of the five sentences in that paragraph, and in one you did it twice. That may well be a new record. > [@](#): > > Don’t you find it odd how I can be both anti-choice and anti-abortion, but you can’t be anti-life and pro-abortion? I’m sure SOMEONE can be anti-life and pro-abortion, but no such person has posted in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1675 "2011-05-19T00:24:23Z")
> [@Little\_Bird](#): > > **A fetus starts out as a single, fertilized cell and over 40 weeks developes into a baby. There is no point at which a definitive line can be drawn to say “before this point this not a baby” and “after this point this is a baby”, just as in this statement there is no point you can definitively the color of the text has changed from purple to blue. Does this mean the color was blue from the start?** IT’S BLUE! IT’S BLUE! IT’S BLUE! No, wait. It’s only blue once it implants. 😃 ---
**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 19, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1676 "2011-05-19T00:26:17Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > In most cases a pregnancy doesn’t kill the woman. Ahhhh. Most. Quite a comfort there. “Don’t worry dear. You probably won’t die.” > [@classyladyhp](#): > > No. Women have abortions mainly because they are selfish bitches. Thank you for the clarity and directness of your opinion. A friend of mine had a brain tumor during her first pregnancy. It grew due to hormones during the pregnancy. If her birth control fails, I’ll be sure to tell he she’s a selfish bitch for saving her own life. Oh, you say… You don’t mean those women, or those who have ectopic pregnancies, or , or, or… Well dear, those are the very women who are being hounded and harassed by the protesters outside clinics - you know, the topic of the original post here. And while you’re here please tell us, when does a fertilized egg become a human? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1677 "2011-05-19T00:36:32Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > :rolleyes:The Devil on here 24/7 though. Naw, [he was banned](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php). ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1678 "2011-05-19T00:56:48Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > In most cases a pregnancy doesn’t kill the woman. Did I say anything about killing the woman? > [@](#): > > The fetus does what it naturally has to do to grow. Yup. So? > [@](#): > > It’s not a parasite as many of you pro-choicers believe. You should look up the definition of parasite. > [@](#): > > You are bring up all these crazy scenarios but they have no point in this debate. > You can call me a nutter but you get all pissed off when I use the term pro-abortion so I have refrained from using it. However, why should I? Me pissed off? Nope. I think you are pathetically funny. Your cockeyed beliefs have zero affect on me, so I have no reason to get upset anyway. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1679 "2011-05-19T01:03:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*Omg a Black Conservative \*\* > I meant exactly what I said. Choice is a misnomer, because it assumes that the two choices (to give birth or to have an abortion) are qualitatively similar and and equal in their outcomes. They aren’t, least because one of those situation results in a live baby and the other a dead baby. The correct term, therefore, is pro-abortion, because abortion is the action you support, much like pro-lifers carry around the anti-abortion label, because abortion is the action we oppose. It’s quite simple, really. I only have time for this at the moment. You’re wrong. The term choice assumes nothing about the choices being equal in any way. You inserted that in your imagination. Not only that, since you liked to mention the technicalities of science earlier, one choice does not result in a dead baby. What pro choice indicates is that concerning this issue, pro choice supporters consider the individuals choice about their body to be the primary consideration. That is demonstrated by supporting full term or termination of a pregnancy. ---
**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 19, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1680 "2011-05-19T01:21:21Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > And while you’re here please tell us, when does a fertilized egg become a human? She has given three different answers so far in this thread: 1. It is a human being at conception(fertilization). 2. It is a human being when the fertilized egg is implanted. 3. It is a human being when the heart is beating. Which of these do you really believe, **classyladyhp**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=83) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=85)