# 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:** 86
**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 19, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1701 "2011-05-19T05:42:16Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] This is also clearly false to anyone who takes a few minutes to think about it. We’ve already given several examples in this thread where people are allowed to make choices which have a great negative impact on others and are allowed. Can I choose to not give my blood in a life saving transfusion? A kidney, bone marrow? Can a businessman decide to close a factory and put hundreds of people out of work, with no pay or benefits. Your argument obviously fails with just a little thought. [/quote] You know, you would have had a “Gotcha!” moment if I would have said that choices which negatively affected someone were never allowed, instead of saying that choices which negatively impact someone else are typically disallowed. I mean, really. I guess I’m just typing out for my own amusement or something. > [@](#): > > Unless you can establish some ability to read minds this is also obvious nonsense as an argument. It’s as I said. Pro Choice supporters believe that the ability to choose in this particular issue is of primary importance and it is the choice of the individual , yes or no, that they support. Again, it’s not a nonsense argument. Just look at this thread for example. Tell me how many pro-choicers have argued that abortion should be impermissible because of the effects it would have on the unborn versus not? I’ll tell you right now. The answer is zero. When I consistently point that “choice” does not exist in some kind of nebulous vacuum, this is what I mean. Choices have effects and, in the case of abortion, the choice you make has a disproportionate effect on others. You discount those effects, however, and choose to focus solely on the one doing the chosing. By focusing on the one doing the choosing, you treat the outcomes of that choice to be qualitatively equal. If you did not, then one of those choices would not be considered to be a choice at all. > [@](#): > > It does neither, except in your personal opinion, which happens to be worth no more than any other. Your conclusions consistently assume that your perceptions of human life and rights are correct. I’m not assuming anything. It’s a statement of fact to point out that an abortion (overwhelmingly) requires the the abortee to forfeit his or her own life. The very definition of the word abortion involves the death of the fetus. Seriously. Try not to pass things off as mere “perceptions”-- especially when they’re not. > [@](#): > > You haven’t established that as the case. Pro choice only requires that someone believes that a woman has certain rights over the life that is growing within her, rather than the other way around. > That’s exactly why viability and the health of the mother are relevant, not only to pro choice folks but pro life as well. There’s not an absolute that requires a pregnant woman who’s life is at great risk, to continue with the pregnancy is there? As one semi-smart women once said, viability is really is irrelevant. If tomorrow, technology moves viability back to 23-weeks, are you going to argue that after 23 weeks abortions becomes impermissible? What if technology moved it back to 22-weeks? 21-weeks? 20-weeks? 10 weeks? 5 weeks? If you want to tie your argument to viability, then as technology advances and viability occurs earlier in pregnancy, then so does the limit at which abortions are allowed. But you wouldn’t think that okay. Stuff like viability and the health of the mother are only relevant insomuch as pro-choicers use them to argue that abortions that they can stomach legal remain legal. > [@](#): > > Since choice and the associated concept of human rights and personal liberty permeates our legal system and principles, you’ll have to make a much better argument than this condescending drivel. The concept of choice is predicated upon not choosing to do wrong. People cannot act and then rationalize it based on choice. I’ve said this an inumerable times now. However, as far as the condescending dribble line goes well… That’s pretty stupid. As I pointed out, the only real difference between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer are their views on abortion. One says no, one says okay. Therefore, we can just cut to the chase and reference them as anti-abortion and pro-abortion, respectively. You know, it’s funny how most pro-lifers will revel in the anti-abortion moniker, but most pro-choicers shudder in contempt at being labeled pro-abortion. > [@](#): > > You have failed to make anything like a convincing argument for this and repetition of nonsense won’t cut it. Because I’m not making an argument. I’m telling you what it is. Just because you don’t like the moniker, doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. ---
**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 19, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1702 "2011-05-19T07:07:20Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And yet, this doesn’t answer the question posed to you, which I’m fairly sure you know. I don’t care about the history of slavery and mechanization and whatnot. My question was whether or not you would argue that in a society in which slavery is legal, that the slaves shouldn’t be emancipated if that society couldn’t cope with such a situation. It’s a simple question which requires a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, and possible a line of two of rationalization. So, please, answer the question instead of going of on unrelated tangents which I know you know are unrelated tangents. Okay… yes, slaves should be emancipated regardless of the effect on the overall society. I still don’t get the relevance to abortion, I admit. Slavery is evil, and evil practices should be ended, therefore slavery should be ended. Since abortion isn’t evil (opinions vary, of course)… that’s pretty much where the sequence stops. > [@](#): > > That’s great, but it doesn’t answer my question. Since when is murder a matter of personal opinion? Well, I gather in your personal opinion, abortion is murder. In my personal opinion, it is not. So… murder has been a matter of personal opinion for as least as long as we’ve been chatting in this thread about abortion. > [@](#): > > Again, we’re not talking about abortion right now. We’re talking about murder. No, I’d rather talk about abortion, thanks. Since I don’t consider abortion to be murder, or analogous of murder, or suggestive of murder, or a “gateway drug” to murder… I don’t see any reason to talk about it any more. > [@](#): > > I want to know when murder is a matter of opinion. I want to know when you can just go “Oh, well, I don’t think it’s murder!” and engage in an action. So start a thread on it. > [@](#): > > Yes, a woman like that possibly exists, but really that’s not the point looking to be addressed here. Again, there’s a question just begging for an answer that you ignored. Fine, for the sake of argument, she exists. Lots of women just like her exist. If the question is “Would you tell a woman she can’t have an abortion for any reason?”, my answer is no. I don’t care if her reason is a bad one. Her reason is none of my business. > [@](#): > > This is becoming quite the theme of this series of responses, but that doesn’t answer my question. Yes, we know what she can do. I’m asking you, both in the situation I provided you and the context of abortion, Why one shouldn’t be held responsible for the welfare of that which exists solely because of his/her actions? Fine, one should be held responsible for the welfare of the lifeform for as long the lifeform exists. Once the lifeform ceases to exist or the responsibility gets transferred to someone else, one’s responsibility ends. I figure this applies to fetuses and lab-created genetically-engineered lifeforms alike. In the case of lab-created genetically-engineered lifeforms, I figure the scientist’s responsibilities include liability if the lifeform breaks loose, runs amok, and eats a bunch of teenagers. I’ve seen numerous drive-in documentaries about this very topic. > [@](#): > > The law does. And if the law fails to do so, then it’s inept. How convenient. The law is inept when you disagree with it. > [@](#): > > You wouldn’t argue that, say, me deciding to rob a couple of banks is a-okay because I found it to be a-okay, would you? You wouldn’t dare argue that the fact that I engaged in a bank robbery must mean it’s okay to rob a bank, would you? As I read somewhere, people are trusted with freedom because they are generally trusted not to do wrong as autonomous moral agents. When they do wrongs, like murder, robbery, rape, etc., we do not “trust” them by saying that an action is all right just because it was all right with them. No, I wouldn’t so argue, because it would (a) make no sense and (b) have no bearing on abortion rights. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > What you’re basically arguing is that nobody should do anything without checking with some authority to see if it’s okay, because if it’s something you want to do, your own ability to evaluate if it’s okay is hopelessly compromised. > > > [@Omg a Black Conservative](#): > > > > More or less, yup. I think that exchange really needed to be quoted in full and kept intact for posterity. Heck, I thought conservatives were _for_ personal responsibility. You’ve just, more or less, declared it moot. Bravo. You’ve embraced communism. > [@](#): > > That’s probably because no one made that assertion. I’m sorry, you _did_, and as you’ve done repeatedly, you’re denying the implications of your own arguments. [quote] You’re going to have to show me where I said anything about trivial or non-trivial choices.[/quuote] No, I don’t have to do that. I’ve already demonstrated that your whole “definition of choice” tangent is nonsense. > [@](#): > > I’ve said this many times, but how do you complain about a straw man while engaging in one yourself? It’s not a straw man if I’m quoting your own nonsense back to you to demonstrate that is in indeed nonsense. I’m not exaggerating your position. I’m trying to skim away all the crap you’re slathering on and get to the heart of it, which so far seems little more than “abortion is evil”. > [@](#): > > I said, to play semantics, that choice is a misnomer because, as it’s used in abortion, it assumes the two choices are **qualitatively** similar or equal in this outcomes. I have _never_ heard a pro-choicer say this, and it would never have occurred to me that having an abortion and having a baby were qualitatively similar or equal outcomes. As far as I can tell, you just made this up and are doggedly determined to keep on claiming it, to accomplish a goal I can’t understand. Anyway, good luck with that. I’m really going to try to make this my last word on your eccentric definition of “choice” and all the flawed conclusions you reach starting from that definition. > [@](#): > > It amazes me how I, as as pro-lifer, can be labeled the opposite of what you are but you, as a pro-choicer, can’t be labeled the opposite of what I am. That is truly, as you put it, semantic nonsense and linguistic gymnastics. Heh, can’t resist, but I hope _this_ will be my last word on the “choice” thing. It looks like since the two sides of the debate are broadly labeled “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, you’ve concluded that “life” and “choice” are antonyms. They’re not. > [@](#): > > It’s a very safe (hah!) assumption to make. One of the most common pro-choice arguments is that making abortions illegal would make them unsafe, though this is incorrect. Abortions do not become “safe” because they are legal; abortions are “safe” so long as the country in which they are performed has access to advances in modern medicine. For example, if you were to look at the [number fof women who dies from illegal abortions in the U.S.](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/died.gif/) dating back to the 1930’s, you would notice a clear downward trend long before the first state legalized abortion or even Roe v. Wade which coincides with advances in medicine, a fact reiterated in 1960 by the [then director of Planned Parenthood](then director of Planned Parenthood): There’s an element you’ve missed (or just ignored), and which I’ve pointed out repeatedly. An abortion ban alone means nothing, of course, especially if it’s a largely toothless ban that makes the occasional token arrest while 99% of violators are ignored. I’ve make a point of saying the deaths and related problems will be in proportion to how aggressively the ban is enforced. Abortion is now safe because doctors are performing them, but what if doctors start going to jail because an aggressive district attorney is determined to end abortion in his jurisdiction. Isn’t the logical result that abortions will _no longer_ be performed by doctors? That doctors will leave that jurisdiction? I figure the availability of penicillin alone will keep the death rate from returning to pre-1920 levels. I just don’t get why even a small death rate is acceptable. If in 1957 there were 260 abortion-related deaths, I don’t see why you shouldn’t expect that number (or a higher one, given the greater population) in post-ban 2012. And I don’t see why that number should be acceptable as casualties of the war on abortion, an unnecessary war if ever there was. So… yes, I value the lives of women considerably more than the lives of fetuses, even at a 4000-to-1 ratio (i.e. a million dead fetuses concerns me less than 250 dead women). > [@](#): > > I’d be willing to bet it’s the same thing in any other country. Now, by virtue of having a sizeable population, you’ll always that one dumb woman who would do something stupid, but this does not make the aforementioned untrue. I don’t see the value of writing laws that might punish one stupid person while also punishing a million smart (or at least average) people. Simple cost/benefit analysis. > [@](#): > > That’s not an answer to why does it matter how she accomplishes becoming non-pregnant. I only care that if she chooses to become non-pregnant, she has the opportunity to do so in a way the offers minimal risk, stress and expense. Keeping abortion legal is the best way to ensure this. Making it illegal drives the price up, adds elements of risk, wastes law-enforcement resources… > [@](#): > > Oh, nothing. Just speaking out loud, mainly. So I can casually disregard this “15 year” thing, right? You have literally no evidence of any negative result likely to emerge from Canada’s lack of abortion law. There’s no group about to lose their rights because Canadian women can get legal abortions. You were talking pure bullshit and hoping it would pass as an argument. Is that about right? ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1703 "2011-05-19T12:21:41Z")
[quote=“Euphonious\_Polemic, post:1676, topic:580935”] Ahhhh. Most. Quite a comfort there. “Don’t worry dear. You probably won’t die.” 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. QUOTE] You are just stupid. Really you are dumb as a box of rocks. I never said that a woman should continue the pregnancy if her life is in danger. You imebcile:rolleyes: I don’t answer questions posed by idiots like you. It’s funny how all of a sudden all the pro-choicers seem to have “friends” or “relatives” that have these extremely rare conditions. Stop making shit up. If pregnancy could kill her why doesn’t she fucking get a hysterectomy instead of having sex and hoping that the birth control doesn’t fail. That way she can have piece of mind and not have to kill a baby at the same time. I called women who have abortions because they decided they just cna’t be botheredd with raising a baby selfish bitches and I stand by that. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1704 "2011-05-19T12:31:48Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > 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? Sending you some midol by UPS. Putting a rush on it. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1705 "2011-05-19T12:35:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You know, it’s funny how most pro-lifers will revel in the anti-abortion moniker, but most pro-choicers shudder in contempt at being labeled pro-abortion. The very fact that the term pro-abortion is anathema to so called pro-choicers is an admission that abortion is wrong. Oh yes they will chime in and say that they are personally opposed to abortion and then claim that they will not take the choice away from a woman. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant. ---
**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, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1706 "2011-05-19T12:35:32Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Sending you some midol by UPS. Putting a rush on it. I’m pretty sure you have to be an adult to ship things UPS. Maybe you can borrow your brother’s ID and you both can go get a brewsky after sending me some midol for my bad “time of the month” hormones. Or you could just be a crazy bitch, it’s about 50/50. ---
**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, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1707 "2011-05-19T12:37:27Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And fwiw, I’m still waiting for a response to post #1584, specifically the middle portion. I see **heatmiserfl** , so I should be getting a response real soon, I would think. I already did. You must be confusing me with someone else. The only new information you gave me was in response to a sincere question as to why a woman should be forced to give up control of her own body when other people are not. You used an analogy of credit card debt. A credit card balance cannot be compared to a woman’s body; the analogy is not remotely sufficient. Your more direct answer was this: > [@](#): > > The reason we do not force people to submit to donating their bodily substances or have other sorts of invasion of their person to save another person’s life is because those people’s, for lack of a better word, neediness aren’t a direct result of them simply existing as due to the actions of another. Here you finally addressed my question. However, “Direct result of existing due to actions of another” is not a compelling to me. Your argument, again, requires us to give special consideration not only to the fault of the mother for bringing something into existence but to give special consideration to that “coming into existence”. You won’t be able to convince me otherwise but I thank you for at least addressing my comments instead of making up something that I didn’t say. The rest of your post was filled with trite distractions and misunderstandings of my position while blaming me for the misunderstandings. For example, me stressing the words embryo and fetus in an argument about embryos and fetuses has become “moving the goalposts”. Deliberate misunderstandings like this are too numerous and shows that your responses and even your whole interest in this thread is disingenuous. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you. ---
**Author:** ![Moonlitherial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4bbf92/32.png) [@Moonlitherial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonlitherial)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1708 "2011-05-19T13:18:26Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > The very fact that the term pro-abortion is anathema to so called pro-choicers is an admission that abortion is wrong. > Oh yes they will chime in and say that they are personally opposed to abortion and then claim that they will not take the choice away from a woman. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant. No, it’s a statement that while we agree that women should have the choice of what they should do with their own bodies we’re not interested in forcing anyone to respond in a certain way. Pro abortion by it’s purest definition would be as bad as anti abortion. The goal is not to force anyone to choose a particular path, it’s to make sure the paths available are legal, safe and judgement free. I understand that last part is particularly difficult for you. ---
**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 19, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1709 "2011-05-19T13:18:43Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > The very fact that the term pro-abortion is anathema to so called pro-choicers is an admission that abortion is wrong. > Oh yes they will chime in and say that they are personally opposed to abortion and then claim that they will not take the choice away from a woman. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant. Nonsense. I don’t think abortion is wrong. However, it’s a difficult thing born out of negative circumstances. Minimizing those circumstances (poverty, inadequate access to birth control, genetic disease etc) is a good thing. Pro-abortion is incorrect term because it inaccurately reflects the position of the pro-choice movement. Others may be pro-abortion, but that is a different ideological position. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1710 "2011-05-19T14:00:07Z")
Reposting for the benefit of **classyladyhp**. Despite the fact that I never insulted you (or maybe because of), you never did follow-up this discussion and clarify your position. Your conflicting statements throughout this thread make it very difficult to understand your logic. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Bottom line: As long as blood and organ donation are legally voluntary, so should pregnancy remain. When every person is compelled to give freely parts of their own body to innocent :rolleyes: (or not-so-innocent) recipients, I’ll have a much harder time defending an exception for pregnant women. > > Until then, I’ll deal with my own moral compass, thankyouverymuch. > [@classyladyhp](#): > > People give blood and donate organs out of the goodness of their own hearts. They are under no obligation to do so. The people who donate blood are not the ones who caused the people they are donating blood to need it. Same thing for organs. > A woman gets pregnant as a consequence of her actions. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Except that pregnancy is not necessarily an intended result of her actions, and in some cases, not even a result of \*her \*actions, but those of someone else. Are you seriously suggesting that no person who does not intend to become a parent should have sexual intercourse…ever? > [@classyladyhp](#): > > No. That’s not what I’m saying. They should realize that sex may lead to pregnancy and that sometimes contraception doesn’t work. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > What if they do? How does that change anything? If the intent, in using contraception, is to avoid pregnancy, why should anyone be saddled with an unwanted pregnancy they did everything they could to avoid? Here is where you fell out of the discussion. How about answering these questions? > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > \ > > There are so many reasons for abortions, but they all factor into a single reason: continuing the pregnancy is undesirable. Do you oppose abortion in each and every one of these circumstances? **If so, what is the best alternative in each case?** > > 1. I was raped and I am in college. A pregnancy will disrupt my studies and may jeopardize my continuing my education. > > 2. I’m forty-eight years old and my husband is retired due to health issues. I am the sole breadwinner for our family. We have no other children. We have been using barrier method of birth control for 25 years with no failure until now. > > 3. I became widowed when my husband was killed in a car accident two months ago. We were separated and about to divorce because he fell in love with another woman, who is now fighting me for his estate. He willed everything to her and this is costing me a fortune in legal fees. I am 16 weeks into my pregnancy and I just can’t take the stress anymore. > > 4. I am nine years old and my father did this to me. > > 5. I am a single mother supporting two young children on $25,000/year. I have no higher education, no health insurance, no support of any kind. I do not have easy access to medical intervention and am not likely to be able to take off work to go to the doctor without losing some crucial income. I can’t afford this pregnancy let alone another child. > > 6. I have bipolar disorder and will have to go off my medication to continue this pregnancy. The last time I was off my medication, I pushed a stranger into the street causing them serious injury and I ended up in jail. I’m afraid to go off my medication. > > 7. My husband and I both carry the gene for Tay-Sachs disease. We both agreed at the time we were married that we would not have children because we both lost siblings to the disease. > > 8. I believe the planet is already overpopulated and further population growth is wholly unsustainable. I firmly believe that more people to take the stand I have taken by not exacerbating this problem. I am committed to remaining childless and working within my community to promote zero-population growth. > > 9. I was traumatized by my own adoption and would not ever want to do this to another human being. > > 10. I was born to an alcoholic parent, physically and emotionally abused until I was eight years old, and then spent the rest of my childhood bounced from one foster home to another. I have tried to commit suicide twice. > > 11. My husband and I are older and we aren’t willing to take the risk to my health to have a child, nor do we want another as already have an adult son (from a previous relationship) and a twelve year-old daughter. We had no intention of conceiving a child. > > 12. I am a senior in high school and made a serious mistake trusting my boyfriend to take precautions. I certainly have learned a lesson with regard to my bodily integrity. I am an honor student and have just received a rare opportunity to study abroad in my final year in a program offered by the one of the top practitioners of my chosen profession of evolutionary biology. > > I believe all of these are perfectly valid reasons to abort an unwanted pregnancy. I’ve bolded the main part of the question. Please consider the ramifications of each scenario. ---
**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 19, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1711 "2011-05-19T14:17:26Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I already did. No, you did not. > [@](#): > > You must be confusing me with someone else. No, I’m talking about you. > [@](#): > > The only new information you gave me was in response to a sincere question as to why a woman should be forced to give up control of her own body when other people are not. You used an analogy of credit card debt. A credit card balance cannot be compared to a woman’s body; the analogy is not remotely sufficient. No, a credit card balance cannot be compared to a woman’s body, but the notion of a naturally deriving consequence stemming from one’s choices is absolutely comparable. Just because you don’t like the comparison, doesn’t mean it’s not valid. > [@](#): > > Here you finally addressed my question. However, “Direct result of existing due to actions of another” is not a compelling to me. Your argument, again, requires us to give special consideration not only to the fault of the mother for bringing something into existence but to give special consideration to that “coming into existence”. You won’t be able to convince me otherwise but I thank you for at least addressing my comments instead of making up something that I didn’t say. If it’s not a compelling reason, then you think that parents have no obligation to care for their children, yes? > [@](#): > > The rest of your post was filled with trite distractions and misunderstandings of my position while blaming me for the misunderstandings. For example, me stressing the words embryo and fetus in an argument about embryos and fetuses has become “moving the goalposts”. Deliberate misunderstandings like this are too numerous and shows that your responses and even your whole interest in this thread is disingenuous. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you. Incorrect. The “rest of my post” was me calling you on your BS. My accusation of you trying to move the goalposts was in relation to you trying to change your argument up by arguing that personhood is hard to define as it relates to embryos and fetuses, which is just stupid. Why is it hard to define in relation to embryos and fetuses? If, as the pro-choicers in this thread have claimed, they know what the criteria of personhood is, then it’s a simple matter of observing who does and does not meet those criteria. You can’t say that personhood as it relates to a fetus is a hard concept to define, while defining embryos and fetuses out of rights because they do not meet the definition of personhood, which apparently isn’t so hard to define as was first stated. Seriously. If, for example, you have to be sentient to be a person, then anyone who is not sentient is not a person. That wasn’t so hard. Of course, this brings us to point two which you ignored. Why must we accept your definition of personhood? Why not accept a definition of personhood which involves awareness? Why is it okay to for the pro-choicer’s definition of personhood onto an individual who has a different definition of personhood? Why are people such as Michael Tooley’s and Peter Singer’s definition of personhood unacceptable? You see, this is nothing more than you refusing to answer a series of questions because you know you can’t answer it without either contradicting yourself or liberally ignoring large portions of your own argument. We both know this, so don’t even try to claim it’s not true. How convenient it must be for you to run off instead of having to respond to this. (Bryan, I’ll respond to your post later.) ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1712 "2011-05-19T14:39:07Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > I’m pretty sure you have to be an adult to ship things UPS. Maybe you can borrow your brother’s ID and you both can go get a brewsky after sending me some midol for my bad “time of the month” hormones. > Or you could just be a crazy bitch, it’s about 50/50. Yes I’m a 16 year old boy. Most 16 year old’s post on subjext like the evils of abortion. You really are insane aren’t you. Did you get the midol yet? ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1713 "2011-05-19T14:45:42Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You are just stupid. Really you are dumb as a box of rocks. I never said that a woman should continue the pregnancy if her life is in danger. You imebcile:rolleyes: > I don’t answer questions posed by idiots like you. > It’s funny how all of a sudden all the pro-choicers seem to have “friends” or “relatives” that have these extremely rare conditions. Stop making shit up. If pregnancy could kill her why doesn’t she fucking get a hysterectomy instead of having sex and hoping that the birth control doesn’t fail. That way she can have piece of mind and not have to kill a baby at the same time. > I called women who have abortions because they decided they just cna’t be botheredd with raising a baby selfish bitches and I stand by that. And what if a woman is not aware that she has a condition which would make pregnancy dangerous until after she gets pregnant? Sometimes there are complications with a particular pregnancy which put the mother’s life at risk that did not occur in previous pregnancies, and may not even occur in future pregnancies. Are they supposed to run the risk of dying rather than terminate a dangerous pregnancy? And why are you accusing people who relate events that happened to friends or relatives of “making shit up”? Do you expect them to submit certified copies of medical records to support their claims? And what’s with putting “friends” and “relatives” in quotes? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1714 "2011-05-19T14:56:54Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Why is it okay to for the pro-choicer’s definition of personhood onto an individual who has a different definition of personhood? If you are asking what I think you’re asking (it’s hard to tell because there seems to be a word or two missing), the answer is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with my definition of personhood (which is irrelevant by the way) because by virtue of being pro-choice, an individual can choose act on another definition and it doesn’t offend me in the least. My belief is that you have complete autonomy over what happens to and within your own body. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to incubate that fetus, okay by me. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to cease incubating that fetus, okay by me. If you believe born person should have your kidney, okay by me. If you believe a born person should not have your kidney, okay by me. It’s really very simple. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1715 "2011-05-19T15:01:12Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > If you are asking what I think you’re asking (it’s hard to tell because there seems to be a word or two missing), the answer is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with my definition of personhood (which is irrelevant by the way) because by virtue of being pro-choice, an individual can choose act on another definition and it doesn’t offend me in the least. My belief is that you have complete autonomy over what happens to and within your own body. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to incubate that fetus, okay by me. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to cease incubating that fetus, okay by me. If you believe born person should have your kidney, okay by me. If you believe a born person should not have your kidney, okay by me. It’s really very simple. If you’re killing a person, it’s not ok with me. ---
**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 19, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1716 "2011-05-19T15:02:49Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > If you are asking what I think you’re asking (it’s hard to tell because there seems to be a word or two missing), the answer is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with my definition of personhood (which is irrelevant by the way) because by virtue of being pro-choice, an individual can choose act on another definition and it doesn’t offend me in the least. My belief is that you have complete autonomy over what happens to and within your own body. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to incubate that fetus, okay by me. If you believe a fetus is a person and choose to cease incubating that fetus, okay by me. If you believe born person should have your kidney, okay by me. If you believe a born person should not have your kidney, okay by me. It’s really very simple. And what if one believes a born person really isn’t a person? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Bird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Little\_Bird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Bird)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1717 "2011-05-19T15:15:53Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Yes I’m a 16 year old boy. Most 16 year old’s post on subjext like the evils of abortion. You really are insane aren’t you. > Did you get the midol yet? Hey Classy – did you know Firefox has a built-in spell checker? You can download the latest Firefox for free, right here: [http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/](http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/). Just thought you would like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1718 "2011-05-19T15:24:18Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > If you’re killing a person, it’s not ok with me. Okay. Now tell me how I’m imposing my views on you. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And what if one believes a born person really isn’t a person? Then I suppose you’ll need to work on getting the law changed. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1719 "2011-05-19T16:38:02Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > The very fact that the term pro-abortion is anathema to so called pro-choicers is an admission that abortion is wrong. > Oh yes they will chime in and say that they are personally opposed to abortion and then claim that they will not take the choice away from a woman. It’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant. Absolutely not. As someone who is pro-choice, my goals are: 1. For women not to _need_ to have an abortion. Having to make that decision is excruciating and I wouldn’t wish such a thing on anyone. Women who are pro-choice do NOT and would not use abortion as a means of birth control. However, there are some circumstances in which abortion is the right decision for the woman and the fetus. 2. For safe abortions to be _available_ when a woman needs to make that choice. I don’t want my daughter brought up in a country where a medical decision is a matter of legislation. Her choices with respect to her medical care should be between her, her doctor and, until she is of age, her family. 3. Related to the above, for people to mind their own damned business. So, yes, it is accurate to call me “pro-choice.” I don’t want women to have abortions. And as my own circumstances have demonstrated, it’s not something I would do unless I were threatened with serious bodily harm, up to and including death. But I want women to have access to abortions if they need one. If you want to get into semantics, perhaps you can refer to pro-choicers as “pro-option.” But I can’t think of a single person who is pro-choice who encourages women to have abortions. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935/1720 "2011-05-19T16:43:44Z")
According to **classyladyhp** , it isn’t even considered abortion until the sixth week: > [@classyladyhp](#): > > Abortion stops a beating heart. That sums up my beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=85) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-clinic-picketers/580935.md?page=87)