# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/161 "2012-02-09T03:58:22Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Marriage is a religious institution that should be determined by the tenets of that faith. The government shouldn’t be in the business of recognizing marriage and granting special privileges to a restricted class of people. We’d probably be better off without the civil entanglement of marriage. That’s not an argument against SSM but against government-sanctioned marriage in general. Hell, under your scenario, gays would be getting married in every state of the union. ---
**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, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/162 "2012-02-09T04:00:35Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > 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. … So, apparently, they don’t teach philosophy (nor logic) in Canada. I’d believe it, given my arguments with Bryan. Have you never heard of [John Rawls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) or the [veil of ignorance](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/)? If not, then there you go. These are not “bizarre hypotheticals”. The veil of ignorance, especially, is a well-known part of the social contract, which we all know and love. > [@](#): > > 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. Excuse me? They’re called thought experiments. You know… Like the violinist argument pro-choicers just love to death (which has been cited numerous times on this board). I mean, if we’re going to start discrediting arguments because they’re not “real world”, then about 99% of the pro-choice arguments would go _poof!_. I’m really starting to believe that the pro-choice position is the intellectually inferior one, since I often feel like I’m trying to explain differential calculus to a first grader. Oh, and I’m still waiting for an explanation. ---
**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, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/163 "2012-02-09T04:11:50Z")
The violinist argument? ---
**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, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/164 "2012-02-09T04:22:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. We can and it won’t be good for you. (Actually, I often do, and it’s never good for you sooo…) > [@](#): > > 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. Indeed, you did. Are you really unable to click a link. Since you’re too lazy to click a link and see what your “higher authority” line was in response to, I’ll help you out. It was in response to this: > [@"Omg](#): > > Yes, purely incidental. There was no grand Republican scheme to make gay marriage an issue to win at the ballot boxes. Again, gay marriage is just not that big of an issue, and most certainly isn’t close to being as important as abortion. Go figure. > [@](#): > > 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. Yeah… No. I “kinda” dismissed individual rights if the individual is seeking to do to another, a distinction you continually consider to be irrelevant. > [@](#): > > 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. But, Bryan, by your own standard, since you do not see a stable level of support for abortion for any reason, all but those who would allow a woman to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason are dumb, . But that’d be a rather large paintbrush to use, now wouldn’t it? > [@](#): > > 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. I didn’t know it was an attempt to “rile you up”. I thought I was just pointing out the reality of how it is. > [@](#): > > 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’m not sure either, but it doesn’t much matter, now does it? > [@](#): > > 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. To be quite honest, I’m curious as to the answers you would provide, so take a stab at it. > [@](#): > > 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. You might want to reread what I said again, since I was asking you a question. How many examples would you like (and make it something reasonable)? It’s better to do it this way, so you can’t later claim, “Well, that’s only \ examples. You’ll have to provide more than that!”. > [@](#): > > You asked me about a ridiculous hypothetical, to which I responded with the seriousness it deserved. Simply because you don’t understand logic, philosophy nor thought experiments does not make them “ridiculous hypotheticals”. Waking up with a violinist attached to you and clones who need your kidney are also “ridiculous hypotheticals”, but they are oft used examples in defense of abortion. > [@](#): > > 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. Oh, don’t worry. Your refusal to honestly engage the question already demonstrates that, given a veil of ignorance in regards to abortion, you would not argue that abortion should be legal (only looking at “always” or “never”). I mean, who would? > [@](#): > > The amount of effort you put into writing you post makes me laugh. Yup. I’m always 100% serious. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, if you’re going to blatantly lie about how an argument went down, then expect much of the same. > [@](#): > > Picture the one that isn’t born being inside your body against your will and then tell us if that makes a difference. You keep using the “in her body/out of her body” argument, but it ignores the reasons why any specific women has an abortion, which goes right back to the morality of an action, which you continue to ignore. > [@](#): > > Knock yourself out, sport. Pull up as many examples as you like. I’ll respond to the funnier ones, maybe. So again I ask, how many examples would you like? > [@curlcoat](#): > > What part do you consider straw? Looks like a pretty good summary of your position on abortion to me. The whole thing? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The violinist argument? Yes, look it up. ---
**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, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/165 "2012-02-09T04:33:49Z")
Well, I guess it’s not important, then. ---
**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 9, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/166 "2012-02-09T04:44:09Z")
So, we’re all agreed that OMG is a fucking fruitcake, right? By the way, here is my argument for abortion: Humans have value based on their consciousness. A brain dead person has no value. The only argument for keeping a brain dead person alive is based on sentimentality. A fetus, is effectively brain dead up to around 20 weeks. The only argument for baring removal of a fetus up to 20 weeks is sentimental in nature. That the fetus will eventually attain value is irrelevant. It does not yet have it. Just like it might be against the law to cut down an oak tree, but you can throw an acorn into the fire. That’s an argument even someone as stupid as OMG can understand, right? ---
**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, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/167 "2012-02-09T05:07:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I guess it’s not important, then. Not important enough to look up, no. > [@Lobohan](#): > > So, we’re all agreed that OMG is a fucking fruitcake, right? You could all agree 2 + 2 = 5. That wouldn’t make it true. > [@](#): > > Humans have value based on their consciousness. This is demonstrably false. ---
**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, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/168 "2012-02-09T05:13:40Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So, apparently, they don’t teach philosophy (nor logic) in Canada. I’d believe it, given my arguments with Bryan. Have you never heard of [John Rawls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) or the [veil of ignorance](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/)? If not, then there you go. These are not “bizarre hypotheticals”. The veil of ignorance, especially, is a well-known part of the social contract, which we all know and love. Careful there, sport. I don’t think you want to start pitting the US education system against, well, any other country. Regardless, no I did not take philosophy in university because it was well outside my major. If you did study philosophy I’d be curious to find out what college (if any) you attended, but you might not want to mention their name as you are doing them a grave disservice at the moment. Anyways, The Veil of Ignorance is generally assumed to mean ‘try to picture the outcome of whatever social change you’re proposing without taking into consideration your personal position in this society’. It doesn’t mean you can make up crazy hypotheticals where a thinking, feeling person should imagine that they might be a fetus. One of these things is not like the other. You may as well say ‘imagine you are a tree and someone was going to cut you down - don’t you see now that chopping wood should be illegal!’. Your mother-in-law hypothetical got equally ridiculous - ‘imagine I kidnapped my MIL, but kidnapping is not illegal, and she can’t leave, but it’s not wrongful imprisonment, and she’ll die without me - what would you do then, hmmm?’. No. Just no. If you really don’t see why that’s different than saying ‘imagine you are an unwed pregnant teenage girl’, well I just don’t know how I can help you with stupidity that runs that deep. > [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s an argument even someone as stupid as OMG can understand, right? I can pretty much guarantee he can’t understand that, even though it makes perfect sense. Whether this is strictly due to stupidity or if there is an element of willful ignorance, I couldn’t say. ---
**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, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/169 "2012-02-09T05:15:54Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Oh, and I’m still waiting for an explanation. An explanation of what, exactly? ---
**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 9, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/170 "2012-02-09T05:16:01Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > This is demonstrably false. Then demonstrate this. A corpse isn’t a man. A brain dead person isn’t a man. A heart beat isn’t a man. It’s the consciousness and the sense of self that we love. Once that’s gone forever it’s not a person. It’s a fleshy monument. And before it’s there, it’s nothing but a potentiality. ---
**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, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/171 "2012-02-09T05:36:39Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > Careful there, sport. I don’t think you want to start pitting the US education system against, well, any other country. I would, _especially_ since we’re talking about the college level. > [@](#): > > Regardless, no I did not take philosophy in university because it was well outside my major. If you did study philosophy I’d be curious to find out what college (if any) you attended, but you might not want to mention their name as you are doing them a grave disservice at the moment. Please. I went to the University of West Florida. Got a BS in Marine Biology and a minor in religious studies (purely accidental). I’m not ashamed to say it and, I assure you, I’m doing the school no disservice. > [@](#): > > Anyways, The Veil of Ignorance is generally assumed to mean ‘try to picture the outcome of whatever social change you’re proposing without taking into consideration your personal position in this society’. It doesn’t mean you can make up crazy hypotheticals where a thinking, feeling person should imagine that they might be a fetus. One of these things is not like the other. You may as well say ‘imagine you are a tree and someone was going to cut you down - don’t you see now that chopping wood should be illegal!’. 1.) This is like saying you can’t use the veil of ignorance to argue against infanticide up to a week after birth. It’s nonsensical. The veil of ignorance is not constrained by such details as whether or not you would be able to argue a certain position at the period of time you choose (in this case, up to a week old). The veil of ignorance is applied to ethical issues and, last I checked, abortion is an ethical issue. As it is, I’ll be sure to tell all those people who have bothered to use the veil of ignorance to argue the permissibility of abortion that you deem them to be in error and they don’t really know what they’re talking about. 2.) Yes, the veil of ignorance could be applied to being a tree except for one, teeny tiny detail; at no point in your life were you ever a tree. On the other hand, you were a fetus, just as you were once a neonate just as you were once an infant and so on and so forth with every stage of development. Not that that’s important or anything. > [@](#): > > Your mother-in-law hypothetical got equally ridiculous - ‘imagine I kidnapped my MIL, but kidnapping is not illegal, and she can’t leave, but it’s not wrongful imprisonment, and she’ll die without me - what would you do then, hmmm?’. No. Just no. If you really don’t see why that’s different than saying ‘imagine you are an unwed pregnant teenage girl’, well I just don’t know how I can help you with stupidity that runs that deep. …Yeah… It’s kind of funny how pro-choicers get to engage in all these weird thought experiments that could never happen, yet I can’t do the same. Now why is that? It’s called a thought experiment for a reason. > [@](#): > > I can pretty much guarantee he can’t understand that, even though it makes perfect sense. Whether this is strictly due to stupidity or if there is an element of willful ignorance, I couldn’t say. …Yeah… I’ll get to this below. > [@Meyer6](#): > > An explanation of what, exactly? This, which I’ve posted three times now. > [@Me](#): > > If you can explain to me how, say, making it illegal for a woman to abort at 7-weeks because she doesn’t like the gender of her child is compatible with: > > -“She has the right to abort right up until birth!” > “-She has the right to abort right up until viability!” > -She has the right to abort until the fetus becomes a person [which doesn’t happen until later in pregnancy]!" > > I would surely love to hear it. I’ll wait. > [@Lobohan](#): > > A corpse isn’t a man. A brain dead person isn’t a man. A heart beat isn’t a man. It’s the consciousness and the sense of self that we love. Once that’s gone forever it’s not a person. It’s a fleshy monument. And before it’s there, it’s nothing but a potentiality. Let’s put your theory to the test. Find someone who was involved in a horrific accident and, for whatever reason, has fallen into a coma-- losing consciousness in the process-- and kill him or her. Even though that person is not conscious, you will be charged with homicide/murder. Why do you think that is? ---
**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, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/172 "2012-02-09T05:51:28Z")
Huh. He can probably explain the life cycle of harp seals, can’t figure out why women don’t like to be told what to do with their bodies. Go figure. ---
**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 9, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/173 "2012-02-09T05:55:09Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Let’s put your theory to the test. Find someone who was involved in a horrific accident and, for whatever reason, has fallen into a coma-- losing consciousness in the process-- and kill him or her. Even though that person is not conscious, you will be charged with homicide/murder. Why do you think that is? Do you not understand what brain death means? You know, I don’t think you do. I think you’re so fucking ignorant, you’ve been operating under a cloud of muddled confusion all this time. Allow me to explain this in a manner that even a willfully ignorant person might understand: Consciousness doesn’t mean when you’re awake. Consciousness means the sense of self and intellect you have. The thing that’s frowning at the screen right now, trying to suss out the complicated words, that’s your consciousness. I’m not talking about being conscious in the sense of being awake, you silly billy. I’m talking about the part of you that is better than a dog. If you were brain dead, a chunk of your brain would be damaged, but perhaps you would be still able to generate a beating heart. Sometimes, the thing that makes us men, our consciousness, is destroyed by stroke, or trauma, or whatever. At those times we allow people to die. They take away the feeding tube, like they did for Terry Schaivo. I am hesitant to mention here, because you’re so fucking stupid, you probably think that the husband murdered her, because you didn’t understand that the person called Terry was gone, and her corpse would twitch once in awhile. A heartbeat doesn’t make you human. Your working brain does. So I can’t just kill someone in a coma. Because people get out of comas sometimes. But if that person is brain dead, that is to say the part of their melon that does the thinking is dead as disco, then doctors can pull life support legally. You fucking fringe. ---
**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, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/174 "2012-02-09T06:17:58Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So I can’t just kill someone in a coma. Because people get out of comas sometimes. But if that person is brain dead, that is to say the part of their melon that does the thinking is dead as disco, then doctors can pull life support legally. > > You fucking fringe. It’s wrong to kill someone in a coma because they sometimes get out of it but it’s permissible to kill the unborn even though they will be “conscious” in the future? …Really? If it’s wrong to kill someone in a coma because they “will be” conscious in the future, then why isn’t it equally as wrong to kill the unborn because they “will be” conscious in the future? If it’s wrong to kill someone in a coma who “will be” conscious in exactly nine months time, then why isn’t it equally as wrong to kill the unborn because they “will be” conscious in exactly nine months time? It’s clearly evident you do not understand the things of which you’re trying to argue speak. Aside from the above, it’s important to note that brain death is _irreversible_. It denotes the loss of brain function. It means that there will be no brain function tomorrow, the day after it, the day after that or any time in the future. By definition, the unborn cannot be brain dead-- especially since you are merely arguing what they do not have _right now_, rather than what they will have _in the future_, which is an important distinction involved in being brain dead. Now call me an idiot again so I can laugh. (I had some link detailing consciousness and awareness as it relates to being asleep, being in a coma, being in a vegetative state and being asleep, but I’d have to look for it again.) > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Huh. He can probably explain the life cycle of harp seals, can’t figure out why women don’t like to be told what to do with their bodies. Go figure. I know nothing about animals. ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/175 "2012-02-09T06:20:46Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I would, _especially_ since we’re talking about the college level. are you under the impression that Canada’s universities are inferior to universities in the US? With the exception of the Ivy Leagues, that is a totally unsupported assertion. I’ve never even heard of the University of West Florida, but if you’re an example of their finest, I think I’d stick with a Canadian university. > [@](#): > > Yes, the veil of ignorance could be applied to being a tree except for one, teeny tiny detail; at no point in your life were you ever a tree. On the other hand, you were a fetus, just as you were once a neonate just as you were once an infant and so on and so forth with every stage of development. Not that that’s important or anything. The point is that just as you can’t imagine how you would feel or what you would want if you were a tree, you also can’t imagine how you would feel or what you want if you were a fetus. Because fetuses don’t have thoughts or feelings. > [@](#): > > This, which I’ve posted three times now. > > I’ll wait. Did you not read post #146, or did you just not understand it? ---
**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, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/176 "2012-02-09T06:22:45Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I know nothing about animals. Well, I see that Biology program must have been \* real\* comprehensive. ---
**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, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/177 "2012-02-09T06:48:59Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > are you under the impression that Canada’s universities are inferior to universities in the US? With the exception of the Ivy Leagues, that is a totally unsupported assertion. No. What I asked, rhetorically, was if they teach philosophy in Canada. You tried to make a dig as the U.S. educational system and stated that I wouldn’t want to compare the U.S. educational system against any other country. I said I would and still would. That has nothing to do with Canada; that’s me saying I would do what you said I wouldn’t want to do. > [@](#): > > I’ve never even heard of the University of West Florida, but if you’re an example of their finest, I think I’d stick with a Canadian university. You’re Canadian so I wouldn’t expect you to hear of every university in the U.S., much like you wouldn’t expect me to have heard of every university in Canada. > [@](#): > > The point is that just as you can’t imagine how you would feel or what you would want if you were a tree, you also can’t imagine how you would feel or what you want if you were a fetus. Because fetuses don’t have thoughts or feelings. That doesn’t make sense, especially since we’re not talking how you would feel if you were a fetus. We’re asking whether or not, given a situation where you could either be aborted or not aborted, would you allow for abortion and risk being the aborted. > [@](#): > > Did you not read post #146, or did you just not understand it? I read it, understood it and present to you that it did not answer the question posed to you. I was not debating what percentage of Canadians consider themselves pro-choice versus pro-life or whatever else you want to go about. In fact, I mentioned nothing about it. My statement was that the idea that the idea that restricting abortion based on gender would be incompatible with the aforementioned three statements, something which you’ve yet to address. And simply because you want it, [there you go](http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.15_Abortion_CAN.pdf). I await your answer. > [@Meyer6](#): > > Well, I see that Biology program must have been real comprehensive. I had to take zoology, and I promptly forgot everything I learned after I passed the class. And considering that I don’t do anything even remotely involving animals (bioremediation), it’s quite excusable. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/178 "2012-02-09T07:23:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Please. I went to the University of West Florida. Well, he’s got us there. He’d have to be a \*lot \*worse before he could be considered a disgrace to West Florida U. ---
**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, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/179 "2012-02-09T07:24:00Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That doesn’t make sense, especially since we’re not talking how you would feel if you were a fetus. We’re asking whether or not, given a situation where you could either be aborted or not aborted, would you allow for abortion and risk being the aborted. Please explain to me how I could decide whether or not to allow for abortion (or anything else) if I were a fetus, being that they are unable to think, feel, or reason. We’re back to the ‘if you were a tree, would you want to be chopped down’ hypothetical. I don’t know how I would feel about being chopped down because there’s no such thing as a tree with feelings on the matter. I don’t know how I would feel about being aborted because there’s no such thing as a fetus with feelings on the matter. Contrast this with arguments about say slavery, where you can attempt to remove your bias and imagine how others feel and how it would feel if that were you. Do you really not see the difference? > [@](#): > > I read it, understood it and present to you that it did not answer the question posed to you. I was not debating what percentage of Canadians consider themselves pro-choice versus pro-life or whatever else you want to go about. In fact, I mentioned nothing about it. My statement was that the idea that the idea that restricting abortion based on gender would be incompatible with the aforementioned three statements, something which you’ve yet to address. You’re just heaving those goalposts all over the damn place, aren’t you? I said that the people who made those three statements are not necessarily the same people who want sex selective abortion to be illegal. Yes, there are pro-choicers who want limitations placed on when and why a woman can get an abortion. No, not all pro-choicers agree about exactly where the laws should lie. That doesn’t make them not pro-choice, and it certainly doesn’t make them pro-life. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125/180 "2012-02-09T10:09:04Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > If it’s wrong to kill someone in a coma because they “will be” conscious in the future, then why isn’t it equally as wrong to kill the unborn because they “will be” conscious in the future? Because the people in the coma were conscious before going into a coma whereas fetuses were not. Or to put it another way, a person is in in a coma and a clump of cells is in a uterus. These two things are not the same. Do you ever think your posts through before writing them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-gay-marriage-should-not-even-be-controversial/612125.md?page=10)