# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/141 "2012-02-09T01:01:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That doesn’t automatically follow, but okay… is the pregnant woman a living individual and what are _her_ rights in this situation? > > This is not a flippant question - once the fetus gets rights, the critical issue is how to resolve a situation where its rights come into conflict with its unwilling host’s (assuming one recognizes the right of an individual to have an unwanted object removed from their body), and recognizing the consequences of allowing the fetus’s rights to prevail. An argument can be made that in this situation the issue should be resolved by balancing the rights of the two individuals. And that the right of one individual to not be killed supercedes the right of another individual to not be pregnant for nine months. I want to repeat that this is not necessarily the argument I would make on this issue. But it’s not an irrational or indefensible position. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/142 "2012-02-09T01:12:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Are you aware of what those entanglements entail? Marital privilege in court proceedings is a big one. There are quite a few governmental entitlements that are contingent on marriage. Next-of-kin decisions on critical medical matters. Wiki’s [Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States) page is an interesting read. > > Fact is, marriage is a legal status with governmental recognition being key. Participants are free to _add on_ (or not) whatever religious significance they choose. As far as I know, it’s the filing of the official marriage license that seals the deal, not the “I now pronounce you…” words of the priest. That ceremony can take place years before or after the paperwork - it has no legal significance. Well that’s the problem with government involvement in marriage, I think they should just drop out of the marriage game entirely. ---
**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 9, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/143 "2012-02-09T01:12:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > An argument can be made that in this situation the issue should be resolved by balancing the rights of the two individuals. And that the right of one individual to not be killed supercedes the right of another individual to not be pregnant for nine months. > > I want to repeat that this is not necessarily the argument I would make on this issue. But it’s not an irrational or indefensible position. Yes it is, because a fetus isn’t an “individual”, isn’t a person in the same way a woman is. The central reason why individuals _have_ rights in the fist place is because they have their own thoughts, feelings and desires; a fetus _doesn’t have_ the very things that grant people rights. A fetus doesn’t have rights for the same reason a house plant doesn’t have rights; there’s _no one there to have rights_. In other words, the argument is “irrational or indefensible” because it is based on a grossly inaccurate view of the fetus. You could use the same “logic” to ban chemotherapy because it violate the rights of tumors. > [@kidchameleon](#): > > Well that’s the problem with government involvement in marriage, I think they should just drop out of the marriage game entirely. Why should religion be allowed to steal marriage? ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/144 "2012-02-09T01:15:19Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > To make an imperfect example, hypothetically speaking, and assuming there’s no law against kidnapping, if I were to drag my mother-in-law into my condo against her will and created a situation where she was dependent on me for a specified amount of time, I would be held to some standard of care for her well-being. I could not, again hypothetically speaking, drag her into my condo against her will, create a situation where she could not leave for a specified amount of time and then kick her out right in the middle of, say, an oncoming tornado. I would be charged with endagerment. To say her well-being “would not be my problem” ignores the fact that my mother-in-law is only in a position where she is reliant on me _because_ of my own actions. I would be assumed to have some duty of care. It’s the same rationale by which parents much care for their children or one has to act in a way which does not endanger someone else. > > Well, except in the case of abortion, which is subject to a totally different standard. > There it is again, punishment for ones own actions. That is really at the core of your battle, you wish to punish. > …Yeah… > > Okay. Let’s try this _one more time_. > > No, the entirety of my point is not that pro-choicers do not all agree, borg-like, on exactly what the law should say. My point was that those who use the typical pro-choice arguing points instantly discard them in favor of more pro-life’esque arguments when they come to face-to-face with a situation they deem less-than-desireable. Again, I pose to you the following, which you ignored: > > This is just being divisive, and it is more of your assuming that you know how all pro choice people are reacting to sex selective abortion, and it’s compatibility with the rest of your examples. > > And, yes, I would surely love to hear it, for you would have to butcher logic to even begin to try to argue the idea that restricting abortion prior to any of those times would be compatible with the aforementioned statements. I’ll wait. > Yes wait, hold your breath and wait. > What about it? Can you show me a case where a pro-lifer shifts their argument away from the unborn and starts to recite the typical pro-choice mantra (i.e., “Her body, her choice!”/“The fetus isn’t a person!”)? I’d be rather shocked if you could. Probably a good example would be when they want an abortion for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/145 "2012-02-09T01:20:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes it is, because a fetus isn’t an “individual”, isn’t a person in the same way a woman is. The central reason why individuals _have_ rights in the fist place is because they have their own thoughts, feelings and desires; a fetus _doesn’t have_ the very things that grant people rights. A fetus doesn’t have rights for the same reason a house plant doesn’t have rights; there’s _no one there to have rights_. > > In other words, the argument is “irrational or indefensible” because it is based on a grossly inaccurate view of the fetus. You could use the same “logic” to ban chemotherapy because it violate the rights of tumors. As I said, whether or not a foetus is a person is a matter of opinion. And most of us are able to distinguish between opinions and facts. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/146 "2012-02-09T01:22:07Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > To say her well-being “would not be my problem” ignores the fact that my mother-in-law is only in a position where she is reliant on me _because_ of my own actions. I would be assumed to have some duty of care. It’s the same rationale by which parents much care for their children or one has to act in a way which does not endanger someone else. I’ll say again what I’ve said before - parents must care for their children _or turn their care over to someone else_ (eg., the state, adoptive parents). In your increasingly hysterical mother-in-law hypothetical, you could find someone else to take over her care if you no longer wanted to. We don’t, as a society, force people to raise children they don’t want or take care of guests who will not leave, no matter how they got there. We provide means for parents and others to be relieved of their burden. When you find some way for a fetus to be transferred to someone elses care, let the rest of us know and maybe we’ll change our stance. But for now, removing a fetus from the womb will generally result in death of the fetus. That’s a side effect of removing it, not the whole point. > [@](#): > > And, yes, I would surely love to hear it, for you would have to butcher logic to even begin to try to argue the idea that restricting abortion prior to any of those times would be compatible with the aforementioned statements. I’ll wait. I don’t have to butcher logic because you have absolutely no evidence that the people saying “She has the right to abort right up until birth!” or “She has the right to abort right up until viability!” are \*exactly \*the same people saying “sex-selective abortion should be illegal!” Strangely, people who agree about a general principle can disagree about the details. Someone who describes themselves as pro-choice may not be in the “any reason at all is a good enough reason, it’s the mothers business” camp, they may be in the “only some reasons and some time periods are acceptable, we need to limit it” camp. If you’d like proof that this is so, take a look at the Canadian opinion poll you so proudly linked to earlier. 50% of respondents think ‘there should be laws which outline when a woman can have an abortion in Canada’, and yet [only 27% of Canadians describe themselves as pro-life](http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_april_11.pdf). So a healthy number of that 50% must be made up of people who are pro-choice but want certain limitations on when or why a woman can have an abortion. Personally, I disagree with that, but that doesn’t make those people not pro-choice. Sure, there may be some people who have said both “make it legal anytime” and also “make it illegal just in this case”, and those people would be hypocrites. But if you want to make the argument that the inclusion of a few hypocrites makes an entire group of people all wrong, you might want to take a long hard look at your own pro-life side first (the only moral abortion is my abortion, anyone?). ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/147 "2012-02-09T01:25:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > An argument can be made that in this situation the issue should be resolved by balancing the rights of the two individuals. And that the right of one individual to not be killed supercedes the right of another individual to not be pregnant for nine months. > > I want to repeat that this is not necessarily the argument I would make on this issue. But it’s not an irrational or indefensible position. And yet a dead person’s right to bodily autonomy is considered more important than a person’s life when the question of mandating organ donations is considered. ---
**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 9, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/148 "2012-02-09T01:34:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As I said, whether or not a foetus is a person is a matter of opinion. No, it isn’t. Unless you twist the definition of “person” so much that it means something completely different, and therefore has completely different moral and legal implications. > [@Cyros](#): > > And yet a dead person’s right to bodily autonomy is considered more important than a person’s life when the question of mandating organ donations is considered. And their personal property isn’t sold off and the proceeds given to charity, either. Society has collectively decided that people have the right to decide what happens to their property after death. That said, I do support the idea of organ donorship becoming “opt-out”; unless you specifically forbid it, useful organs should be harvested. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/149 "2012-02-09T01:34:58Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > And yet a dead person’s right to bodily autonomy is considered more important than a person’s life when the question of mandating organ donations is considered. And it somebody were to argue that people give up ownership rights to their body at the time of death, I’d say that was not an irrational or indefensible position either. ---
**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 9, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/150 "2012-02-09T01:35:03Z")
> [@florez](#): > > Probably a good example would be when they want an abortion for themselves. I’ve always found [this article](http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html) interesting, “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion.” > [@Little Nemo](#): > > An argument can be made that in this situation the issue should be resolved by balancing the rights of the two individuals. And that the right of one individual to not be killed supercedes the right of another individual to not be pregnant for nine months. Well, that’s an easy decision to make about someone else’s uterus, to be sure. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/151 "2012-02-09T01:53:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that’s an easy decision to make about someone else’s uterus, to be sure. No it isn’t. It’s a very difficult decision. The only people who find decisions like this to be easy are the ones who make them without thinking about both sides of the issue. They just pretend there’s only one possible side and that makes the decision easy for them. ---
**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 9, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/152 "2012-02-09T02:02:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No it isn’t. It’s a very difficult decision. The only people who find decisions like this to be easy are the ones who make them without thinking about both sides of the issue. They just pretend there’s only one possible side and that makes the decision easy for them. Heh, I get the sense that I’m being equated with someone who’d ban all abortions under all circumstances. ---
**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 9, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/153 "2012-02-09T02:02:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > They just pretend there’s only one possible side and that makes the decision easy for them. It isn’t pretending; the other side’s arguments are based on falsehoods. ---
**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 9, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/154 "2012-02-09T02:26:50Z")
Mmmkay. I had to take care of a few things 🙂 > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I guess to the parishoners of the Church of the Rainbow Unicorn, they might. I fail to see the relevance, in any case. I fail to see what rainbows and unicorns have to do with anything, but this is your normal attempt at obfuscating, so I’ve grown used to it. > [@](#): > > I know from your past post that this concept will baffle you (I recall you claiming quite casually that individuals cannot be trusted - that they should always check with higher authority before taking action) but I maintain that individuals have rights, and that it’s not up to them to explain why their actions _aren’t_ my business, but on me to explain why they _are_. …Yeah… You do realize that we’re able to look things up, correct? 1.) The first person to ever mention “a higher authority” was [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13854136&postcount=2591). 2.) No, I did not say that individuals cannot be trusted and that they should always check with a higher authority before taking a specific action. The closest to that you’ll ever get is me saying that society dictates what individuals can and cannot do which is-- you know-- how society works. Except in Canada. Apparently. 3.) As I’ve said to you a gajillion times, when you want to seek to kill someone, you have to explain why you should be allowed to do that. In fact, when you want to act in a certain manner, you have to demonstrate that doing so does not infringe upon someone else. > [@](#): > > And I don’t see where your proverbial rug fits in, nor how I’m sweeping anything under anything. Abortion kills a fetus. There, I said it. No euphemisms, no evasions, no sweeping… > > …Okay, it’s a moral issue to them. It is not, however, a moral issue to me, and I see no point in trying to argue morals, since they’re so slippery and situational and vary significantly from year to year and place to place and individual to individual… > > Well, not every issue is (or should be) a moral one. Whether or not slavery is has no bearing on whether or not abortion is, and vice-versa, so whatever observations I may have made about slavery have no bearing on the observations I make about abortion. I’m taking things slightly out of order and lumping these three responses together. You’re a person of slightly below-average intelligence. Spot the problem here, Bryan. OMGABC: “Pro-choicers are content to sweep any moral issues regarding abortion under the proverbial rug.” Bryan: “I’m not sweeping anything under the proverbial rug!” Bryan: “Abortion isn’t a moral issue, anyway.” Bryan: “Besides, not everything has to be a moral issue!” I think the biggest question is this; pray tell, Bryan, how do you tell when something is a moral issue and when it’s _not_. And what _is_ a moral issue and what is _not_. And what is the dividing line between the two? > [@](#): > > …I don’t think you’ve ever said _anything_ I refused to acknowledge. You _have_ said many things I ignored because they were stupid, irrelevant or irrational. How many examples would you like of you flatly ignoring things that are neither stupid, irrelevant nor irrational? > [@](#): > > I will say, though, that _ **I** _ wouldn’t want to be forced into slavery, so I object to others being forced into it. Similarly, _ **I** _ wouldn’t want to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term (given some medical breakthrough that makes this possible), so I object to others being forced to. This is straightforward application of the Golden Rule. You could call it morality if you want, I don’t care. …Yeah… We’ve already done the [veil of ignorance](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865623&postcount=2736) thing. To refresh your memory, I specifically asked you: [QUOTE=Me] Let’s assume that, for whatever reason, all you know about abortion is the following. Assuming two individuals, either you’re the aborter, in which you live but the other dies, or you’re the aborted, in which you die but the other lives. Without knowing which you are, and someone asks you whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, which would you choose? [/quote] To which you [ultimately responded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13872966&postcount=2775): [QUOTE=You] Okay… if I choose to allow the action, then me and the other person will either fight to the death or one of us will be randomly killed or something… Okay… I would not choose to allow the action. Of course, the illustration has no relevance to abortion as long as a certain critical element is omitted. [/quote] (I got a chuckle out of the attempted obfuscation.) So by your own admission, if you were presented with a situation in which you would either be afforded the option to abort someone, or would be aborted yourself, without knowing which you are, you would choose to disallow that action, as most any rational person would. So tell me what you were arguing again? > [@](#): > > Well, I suppose it looks mindless to you because individual rights don’t exist in your worldview. I suggest you do some reading to educate yourself - the concept has been around for quite a while. Individual rights don’t exist in my worldview? Well, that’s a lie and you’re lying when you say that, as I never once said that. Let’s recap the _actual_ argument, shall we? You tried arguing that you had an “[arbitrary fondness for more individual freedom over less individual freedom [because] freedom is good, even if [you didn’t] have a mathematical proof for it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13855626&postcount=2618).” [I responded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13857568&postcount=2643) that, assuming more individual freedom is better than less individual freedom, that slavery should be legal since it results in more individual freedom for the individual seeking to own slaves and asked where you lived to have unabated personal freedoms. [You](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13858764&postcount=2652) more-or-less called straw man, [I pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13860335&postcount=2667) that it wasn’t and [you conceded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13860804&postcount=2686) that while you would prefer more individual freedoms to less individual freedoms, that less indidivual freedoms are better if they work to the benefit of all individuals. [I asked](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865623&postcount=2736) whether or not preventing one individual from killing another was a good enough reason to restrict abortion and pointed out to you that if you deem it to not be a good enough reason that you have no basis under which to not also say there is no basis on restricting murder. [You gave me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865988&postcount=2738) some non-answer. [I again](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13868227&postcount=2747) pointed out that if, as you claimed, preventing one individual from killing another was not a good reason to prohibit abortion, then you had no logical basis upon which you could say murder should be prohibited. [You came back](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13868687&postcount=2751) by effectively telling me that abortion is different and thus gets it own special rules and considerations. So here’s what really happened, simplified. You said you thought more individual freedoms was better than less individual freedom unless less individual freedom resulted in a greater net benefit for all involved (which really doesn’t make sense as the person who loses their individual freedoms is worse off, but that’s neither here nor there). I pointed out that abortion should be illegal since it involves one individual killing another. You said that wasn’t a good enough reason for restricting abortion. I asked why murder shouldn’t be legal under the same justification and you turned around and told me because that’s different. …But, yeah. You’re just a regular paragon of logic and intellect there. > [@](#): > > Well, now we’re getting to something with meat on it. There is a key difference in the two situations which I feel is sufficiently significant that I can view the actions differently without there being a contradiction. But I’ve described this at length in the past and it didn’t take then, so I doubt it would take now. …Yeah… The “difference”, as you see it, is because one is born and one isn’t, though that literally changes nothing. > [@](#): > > I am satisfied that I have. Where are they? > [@](#): > > If that’s how you want to characterize my arguments, I can’t stop you, nor would I seek to try. My goal has never been to convince _you_ of anything, but to hone my writing and debating skills (a process that was underway long before you joined this board), and I am satisfied that I have done so and will continue to do so. Unless “refining your debate skills” means “how to be a bigger sophist”, then you _REALLY_ need to sharpen up. But, anyway, how many examples do you want of: 1.) Me flatly asking you for a cite and you refusing to provide one? 2.) You continually stating something which is proven to be false? Or 3.) Claiming that your arguments are self-evident and need no justification? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/155 "2012-02-09T02:37:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No it isn’t. It’s a very difficult decision. The only people who find decisions like this to be easy are the ones who make them without thinking about both sides of the issue. They just pretend there’s only one possible side and that makes the decision easy for them. There are many women like me for whom there is only one possible side - the thought of being pregnant and giving birth is so horrible that the only decision would be abortion. There is no pretending about it - we don’t want to be pregnant, period. Some women even have a sort of phobia about it from what I’ve read. You sound like you think that all women who have had abortions have to go thru a soul searing debate with herself, and if she has the procedure, it scars her mentally for life. Nothing could be further from the truth. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/156 "2012-02-09T02:42:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No it isn’t. It’s a very difficult decision. The only people who find decisions like this to be easy are the ones who make them without thinking about both sides of the issue. They just pretend there’s only one possible side and that makes the decision easy for them. Little Nemo, Read OMG, he is a representative of the anti choice side. He believes that a woman got herself into a pickle and should be punished by carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. It is all about punishment for him. Other Anti choice people believe that women are incubators, other anti choice people think that god wants them to save the contents of the uterus, from the owner of the uterus. It goes on and on…but the other side are basically holier then thou, and potentially dangerous crazies who get off on messing with a woman’s right to control her own reproduction. They will do anything to make sure that a woman has no power at all. ---
**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 9, 2012, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/157 "2012-02-09T03:26:23Z")
Well, sir (or ma’am), I would like to congratulate on the biggest straw man I’ve read on this board. I tip my non-existent hat to you. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/158 "2012-02-09T03:30:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Well, sir (or ma’am), I would like to congratulate on the biggest straw man I’ve read on this board. I tip my non-existent hat to you. What part do you consider straw? Looks like a pretty good summary of your position on abortion to me. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/159 "2012-02-09T03:44:14Z")
Omg a Black Conservative, I must admit that I didn’t read all your links to the giant walls of text that you’re so fond of, but the bizarre hypotheticals are not doing you any favours. The ‘assuming two individuals, one who will be aborted and the other is the aborter - you could be either one! Don’t you see how eeeevil abortion is now!’ hypothetical is just plain stupid. The mother-in-law was just as bad. You seem to think that you’re winning points with these things, but you’re not. It would help if you stuck to either facts or reasonable, real-world analogies. Try to make your argument without falling back on such weird flights of fancy. It really exposes the weaknesses in your side. ---
**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 9, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/160 "2012-02-09T03:44:27Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > …Yeah… You do realize that we’re able to look things up, correct? Heck, I’ll stack my posting history’s intelligence, rationality and honesty against yours any day of the week, so research your little heart out. > [@](#): > > 1.) The first person to ever mention “a higher authority” was [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13854136&postcount=2591). So? Are you claiming I just injected it into the conversation for no reason whatsoever? It’s my recollection that you said the individual can’t be trusted to rationalize their actions, I asked (facetiously) if this mean no individual could be trusted, ever, you said “yes” and I thought that was hilariously totalitarian of you. > [@](#): > > 2.) No, I did not say that individuals cannot be trusted and that they should always check with a higher authority before taking a specific action. The closest to that you’ll ever get is me saying that society dictates what individuals can and cannot do which is-- you know-- how society works. Except in Canada. Apparently. Yeah, you kinda did. You’re very casual about dismissing individual rights if the individuals are doings thing you don’t like. It’s childish, short-sighted… …stupid, basically.“Useful idiot” stuff. > [@](#): > > 3.) As I’ve said to you a gajillion times, when you want to seek to kill someone, you have to explain why you should be allowed to do that. In fact, when you want to act in a certain manner, you have to demonstrate that doing so does not infringe upon someone else. I’ve said back, though rather less often than a gajillion times, why abortion presents a unique circumstance that I, being an intelligent person, takes into account and you, being dumb, cannot. > [@](#): > > I’m taking things slightly out of order and lumping these three responses together. You’re a person of slightly below-average intelligence. Spot the problem here, Bryan. I’m of significantly above-average intelligence and because of that, you’re not capable of riling me up in such a clumsy, obvious way. > [@](#): > > OMGABC: “Pro-choicers are content to sweep any moral issues regarding abortion under the proverbial rug.” > Bryan: “I’m not sweeping anything under the proverbial rug!” > Bryan: “Abortion isn’t a moral issue, anyway.” > Bryan: “Besides, not everything has to be a moral issue!” I’m not sure how many exclamation points I’ve used in this thread. I don’t recall using them at all in the post you’re paraphrasing. I’d look it up but I don’t care. > [@](#): > > I think the biggest question is this; pray tell, Bryan, how do you tell when something is a moral issue and when it’s _not_. And what _is_ a moral issue and what is _not_. And what is the dividing line between the two? I’m not aware that morality lends itself to tidy Boolean logic. I suppose I could make up some platitude-ridden answer that you’ll just ignore or mock or misquote or whatever. > [@](#): > > How many examples would you like of you flatly ignoring things that are neither stupid, irrelevant nor irrational? I’m not asking for any. You made the claim, I figure the burden is on you to support it, not on me to prompt you for evidence and I guess wait with bated breath for you to provide them, or something. > [@](#): > > …Yeah… We’ve already done the [veil of ignorance](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865623&postcount=2736) thing. To refresh your memory, I specifically asked you: You asked me about a ridiculous hypothetical, to which I responded with the seriousness it deserved. > [@](#): > > So by your own admission, if you were presented with a situation in which you would either be afforded the option to abort someone, or would be aborted yourself, without knowing which you are, you would choose to disallow that action, as most any rational person would. So tell me what you were arguing again? And there it is. I’m not going to delve into your labyrinthine attempt at logic, when the stark reality of unwanted pregnancy is so commonplace and has been with humanity for so long that there’s just no point to taking day-trips to Fantasy Island. > [@](#): > > Individual rights don’t exist in my worldview? Well, that’s a lie and you’re lying when you say that, as I never once said that. Let’s recap the _actual_ argument, shall we? You tried arguing that you had an “[arbitrary fondness for more individual freedom over less individual freedom [because] freedom is good, even if [you didn’t] have a mathematical proof for it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13855626&postcount=2618).” [I responded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13857568&postcount=2643) that, assuming more individual freedom is better than less individual freedom, that slavery should be legal since it results in more individual freedom for the individual seeking to own slaves and asked where you lived to have unabated personal freedoms. [You](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13858764&postcount=2652) more-or-less called straw man, [I pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13860335&postcount=2667) that it wasn’t and [you conceded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13860804&postcount=2686) that while you would prefer more individual freedoms to less individual freedoms, that less indidivual freedoms are better if they work to the benefit of all individuals. [I asked](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865623&postcount=2736) whether or not preventing one individual from killing another was a good enough reason to restrict abortion and pointed out to you that if you deem it to not be a good enough reason that you have no basis under which to not also say there is no basis on restricting murder. [You gave me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13865988&postcount=2738) some non-answer. [I again](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13868227&postcount=2747) pointed out that if, as you claimed, preventing one individual from killing another was not a good reason to prohibit abortion, then you had no logical basis upon which you could say murder should be prohibited. [You came back](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13868687&postcount=2751) by effectively telling me that abortion is different and thus gets it own special rules and considerations. The amount of effort you put into writing you post makes me laugh. Well, not really, but I remember you said something like that to me once and it pretty well spelled the end of any chance I’d ever take you seriously again. > [@](#): > > So here’s what really happened, simplified. > > You said you thought more individual freedoms was better than less individual freedom unless less individual freedom resulted in a greater net benefit for all involved (which really doesn’t make sense as the person who loses their individual freedoms is worse off, but that’s neither here nor there). I pointed out that abortion should be illegal since it involves one individual killing another. You said that wasn’t a good enough reason for restricting abortion. I asked why murder shouldn’t be legal under the same justification and you turned around and told me because that’s different. > > …But, yeah. You’re just a regular paragon of logic and intellect there. I surprised you came to the right conclusion after such a chop-logic thought process. > [@](#): > > …Yeah… The “difference”, as you see it, is because one is born and one isn’t, though that literally changes nothing. Picture the one that isn’t born being inside your body against your will and then tell us if that makes a difference. > [@](#): > > Unless “refining your debate skills” means “how to be a bigger sophist”, then you _REALLY_ need to sharpen up. But, anyway, how many examples do you want of: > > 1.) Me flatly asking you for a cite and you refusing to provide one? > 2.) You continually stating something which is proven to be false? Or > 3.) Claiming that your arguments are self-evident and need no justification? Knock yourself out, sport. Pull up as many examples as you like. I’ll respond to the funnier ones, maybe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125.md?page=9)