# Abortion & gay marriage should not even be controversial **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 7, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125 "2012-02-07T21:53:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/61 "2012-02-08T01:03:43Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > So’s drunk driving. Do you need a drink? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/62 "2012-02-08T01:04:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, it’s worth pointing out that the very mothers are very okay with this, and in fact the very mothers very are very looking to very undergo the very voluntary procedure. > > Verily. And trying to stop them makes them very angry, and possibly inclined to shoot you with a Very pistol. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/63 "2012-02-08T01:05:31Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Why is this statement allowed? Because it is not directed at any particular Doper. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/64 "2012-02-08T01:05:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, it’s worth pointing out that the very mothers are very okay with this, and in fact the very mothers very are very looking to very undergo the very voluntary procedure. > > Verily. And that results in the very fetal child not even being recognized as human, killed and disposed of Yes it will always be very controversial. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/65 "2012-02-08T01:06:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And trying to stop them makes them very angry, and possibly inclined to shoot you with a Very pistol. So you very much agree that it will always be very controversial? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/66 "2012-02-08T01:07:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Tom the Dancing Bug? I’m a big fan of Bolling also! [Nate the Neoconservative!](http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2010/05/21/) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/67 "2012-02-08T01:08:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It gives credence to the belief that when conservatives disagree with liberals, they the think liberals wrong; when liberals disagree with conservatives, they think conservatives evil. Generally, it’s the other way around. I’m calling social-conservatives **wrong** here. (For **evil** you need to look to the neocons and bizcons.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/68 "2012-02-08T01:10:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Rants go in The BBQ Pit. > > So moved. :dubious: Ain’t this more in the nature of witnessing? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/69 "2012-02-08T01:15:17Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > So you very much agree that it will always be very controversial? That depends on if the anti-woman bigotry that drives the anti-choice side weakens over time or not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/70 "2012-02-08T01:30:25Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > 1. It’s entirely possible to show respect for someone’s position, while disagreeing with them, and require that they prove justification why laws should be enacted based on their pet project. Of course it is always possible. That does not mean it is always appropriate. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/71 "2012-02-08T01:33:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Generally, it’s the other way around. I’m calling social-conservatives **wrong** here. (For **evil** you need to look to the neocons and bizcons.) And I going to get a response to post #45? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/72 "2012-02-08T01:39:37Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > If there was a medical advancement that allowed the fertilized egg/fetus to be taken from the mother and transplanted in a willing participant or grown in a jar with legal rights to a parent should it be ‘born’ would both sides be ok with that? > > -The pro-choice crowd shouldn’t care because the mother is just donating tissue, who cares what happens to your tonsils after they are taken out. > > -The Pro-life crowd argue they rescued a child from a mother that didn’t want it, like very early adoption. > Would this technological advance dissolve this debate? Who would pay for the surgery to take the tissue from the pregnant woman? I’m quite sure the anti-abortion folks won’t want to do so, any more than they pay money to care for all of the unwanted kids out there. If I were still able to get pregnant, I wouldn’t want to have to pay just because some folks think their religions say that conception=soul or whatever it is they believe. And society as a whole shouldn’t have to foot the bill. > [@kanicbird](#): > > And that results in the very fetal child not even being recognized as human, killed and disposed of Yes it will always be very controversial. > > 😃 Just because you choose to believe that a fetus is the same thing as a human or a child doesn’t make it a fact. What is a fact is that this will never be solved to everyone’s satisfaction, so you therefore have no right to force anyone to do what you want them to. It’s really as simple as that - your beliefs are yours, not universal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/73 "2012-02-08T01:47:48Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I would venture to guess you’re being disingenuous then. As I constantly say to Bryan, you can’t ignore the moral issues involved in abortion, no matter how much you try to wish them away. > > Take, for example, the following issue. You apparently live in Canada. A few weeks back there was a mini-uproar about sex selective abortions, which the prevailing thought being that women should _not_ be allowed to have an abortion because they disliked the sex of their child, and that there should actually be legislation against the practice (no matter how impractical it might be). Nope. Not seeing the moral issue there. At least, none depending on the rights/interest of the fetus. There are larger social issues, sex-selection has given China a painful shortage of women. Look, I’m not saying **society** has no claim at all on a woman’s body, I’m saying a **fetus** doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/74 "2012-02-08T01:57:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The anti-abortion movement consistently acts in ways that hurt women and shows a complete disdain for the welfare of the children they claim to be _so_ concerned about; plus its membership heavily overlaps with organizations that have a long history of misogyny. Coming from the guy who supports taking movies of women he’d hypothetically be having sex with (if he could get a real-life, non-inflatable girl) without their knowledge or consent because all women are she-devils who only want to trap men with claims of false rape, you really can’t keep claiming that anyone else is mysogynistic. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/75 "2012-02-08T01:59:26Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > And that results in the very fetal child not even being recognized as human, killed and disposed of Yes it will always be very controversial. > > 😃 I’m okay with recognizing it as human and aborting it anyway, if that’s what the mother wants. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/76 "2012-02-08T01:59:32Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Who would pay for the surgery to take the tissue from the pregnant woman? I’m quite sure the anti-abortion folks won’t want to do so, any more than they pay money to care for all of the unwanted kids out there. If I were still able to get pregnant, I wouldn’t want to have to pay just because some folks think their religions say that conception=soul or whatever it is they believe. And society as a whole shouldn’t have to foot the bill. > > Just because you choose to believe that a fetus is the same thing as a human or a child doesn’t make it a fact. What is a fact is that this will never be solved to everyone’s satisfaction, so you therefore have no right to force anyone to do what you want them to. It’s really as simple as that - your beliefs are yours, not universal. For the love of Dog\* I agree with curl coat. \*I have in mind curly coated retrievers. ---
**Author:** ![lavenderviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cdc98d/32.png) [@lavenderviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lavenderviolet)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/77 "2012-02-08T02:08:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Pro-choicers tend to also scoff at the notion that abortions should be prohibited because of some moral worth of the unborn. However, if you throw in some stipulations they don’t like, suddenly none of the aforementioned criteria matter and they start to argue from a distinctly pro-life position. I do think you bring up a good point about sex selection abortion. In any group of pro-choicers, people will disagree on where they draw the line about when abortion isn’t okay anymore. For example, a lot of people out there who think of themselves as pro-choice will agree with the view that abortion is wrong after “viability”. Of course, the problem with using “viability” as a criteria is that [Viability is a moving target, as science now allows us to save premature newborns that were thought to be “non-viable” when Roe first became law](http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/opinion/osler-abortion-viability/index.html). Nonetheless, that is a popular view. My point in bringing that up is this: Is everyone who believes in limitation on abortion at any point other than the point that a full term fetus has fully cleared the vagina (I phrase it that way to include the whole partial birth abortion controversy) some irrational fanatic? (Yes, I KNOW that there are certain people here who would say yes, but hopefully most see the point I’m trying to make there). I also think it’s interesting that it is _so important_ to many pro-choicers to not be labeled as “pro-abortion”. I have no moral objections to wisdom tooth removal. If someone accused me of being “pro-wisdom tooth removal” then I’d just be like, “hell yeah, what’s wrong with getting your teeth pulled?” instead of doing a little song and dance about how I’m not “pro-wisdom tooth removal, I just support the CHOICE to have your wisdom teeth removed”. For all the talk about how those of us who are against abortion in general must be nutty religious wackos, it’s interesting that so many people are uncomfortable with abortion to some degree, to the extent that often pro-choicers can’t even refer to it directly (using euphemisms like “choice” instead of proudly using the term “abortion”). Why not fully embrace abortion and be proud of it, if the only reason to oppose it is religious nuttery? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/78 "2012-02-08T02:30:38Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And what ways would those be? I highly doubt you don’t know this (which I’m sure is why no one has responded to you) but I’ll state it anyway. 1. The anti abortion people tend to lie to women just to get them to not abort, such as setting up clinics that appear to be about choice but instead are focused on doing everything they can to force the pregnancy to term. 2. The anti abortion people tend to picket abortion clinics and harass women who are going there for checkups and tests, as well as those who might be going for an abortion. 3. The anti abortion people spread lies about places like Planned Parenthood, making them lose funding, meaning they have trouble providing low cost health care to poor women and children. 4. The anti abortion people want to make women slaves to their gender. No birth control is 100% effective, and not all people want (or should have) children. They seem to think that such people should go thru life not having sex, or at least not the sort that creates pregnancy - yeah, that’s realistic. They have to know that’s not realistic, so that means they simply don’t care that women would have to go thru the trouble and dangers of pregnancy and delivery to have a baby they don’t want, and probably no one else does either. I’m sure there’s more, that’s just off the top of my head. > [@](#): > > Even assuming that’s true, what does that have to do with today? They are still practicing misogyny today. I don’t care if gays get married, so I don’t have much to say here. > [@](#): > > As I constantly say to Bryan, you can’t ignore the moral issues involved in abortion, no matter how much you try to wish them away. I don’t have to wish them away because they aren’t my morals. What I do wish is that other people would quit trying to force their morals off on me. > [@](#): > > Such a position goes against all the typical pro-choice talking points. Usually, pro-choicers tend to hide behind the “It’s her body!”/“It’s not a person!” lines. Please try to be honest - that _is_ the whole point of pro-choice. We don’t believe that a fetus is a person and it’s the woman’s body, not yours. > [@](#): > > Pro-choicers tend to also scoff at the notion that abortions should be prohibited because of some moral worth of the unborn. However, if you throw in some stipulations they don’t like, suddenly none of the aforementioned criteria matter and they start to argue from a distinctly pro-life position. Are you sure it was pro choice people arguing against abortion due to not liking the sex of the fetus? Even if it was, so? Do you honestly believe that all folks of any group will have exactly the same beliefs? > [@](#): > > That is, instead of arguing on stuff like bodily autonomy or whether or not the unborn has reached some arbitrary stage of development, they focus on the moral worth of the unborn child and whether or not the woman’s reason for wanting to abort should trump the life of the unborn. Cite? What I am looking for is proof that anyone who was pro-choice suddenly decided that a fetus had moral worth simply because of the reason for the abortion. > [@](#): > > See the problem there? If it can be argued that it’s wrong to abort for some reasons, then who’s to say that it’s any less wrong to abort for other reasons? No, I don’t see a problem. Abortion is legal, and everyone can decide where their moral cutoff is. The only problem is when one group decides that their moral cutoff is the One Right Way and try to force everyone else to go along. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/79 "2012-02-08T02:32:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s false. But I’m not surprised that that fact would get in the way of you peddling it. You may want to reword it to say “no logical argument that you have found convincing”, that would, as far as I understand your position, at least be accurate. But if you’d like to argue SSM, either start a new thread or contribute to one of this already open. If you disagree with any of the above, you might want to acquaint yourself with the definition of the word “logical”. It seems that you’re using a definition other than the one in the dictionary. Well, shitbird? I’m waiting? But you won’t give me this _magical argument_ that you’ve shoved so far up your ass you can taste it. How do I know? Because you \*never \*give it. You posture and strut, but you have nothing. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/80 "2012-02-08T02:42:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nope. Not seeing the moral issue there. At least, none depending on the rights/interest of the fetus. There are larger social issues, sex-selection has given China a painful shortage of women. People’s discomfort with sex-selective abortions does not come from the shortage of females it invariably causes. Rather it comes from people being uncomfortable with the idea that a child should be aborted because it’s the “wrong” gender. The most common question asked in debates regarding sex-selective abortions is “why should a female be aborted just because it’s a female?”. The frigid pro-choice reasoning you typically find in these debates answers this with “Because it’s the woman’s body!” or “Because it’s not a person!” or something along those lines. The problem is that when it comes to something like sex-selective abortions, even most pro-choicers suddenly discard both of these arguments in favor of one where the emphasis is placed on the unborn. When it comes to sex-selective abortions, most people tend to respond with something like the following: “So what if it’s the woman’s body? She shouldn’t be allowed to abort just because she doesn’t want a girl! That’s not right!” That presents a HUGE stumbling block for pro-choicers. How can it be wrong to abort because you don’t like the gender of your child while arguing that the woman in question has the right to abort for any reason because it’s her body? How can it be wrong to abort because you don’t like the gender of your child while arguing that that which is to be aborted isn’t a person/tissue/a blob of cells/whatever other line you want to use? How can it be wrong for a woman to abort at seven weeks because she doesn’t like the gender of her child while arguing that she has the right to abort up to 24-weeks? The fact is that it can’t be. These propositions are all contradictory. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, pro-choicers willingly and gleefully ignore any moral issues involved in abortion, and with good reason. Once you start arguing that women should _not_ be allowed to abort for certain reasons, not only do you completely demolish the whole “her body” rationale, but you have to explain why, for example, aborting because your child is a girl is wrong while aborting because you want to fit into your high school cheerleader outfit isn’t. And that is a monumental task for any pro-choicer. > [@](#): > > Look, I’m not saying **society** has no claim at all on a woman’s body, I’m saying a **fetus** doesn’t. So you’ve got no qualms with society making a-- as you say-- “claim” to the woman’s body then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125.md?page=5)