# Damn abortion protesters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649 "2005-04-04T13:06:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/362 "2005-04-06T22:41:12Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > Sorry, bub. You would be. [Here’s a little chart published by the FDA.](http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html) Vasectomy has a lowest expected rate of pregnancy of 0.1% a typical use rate of 0.15%. For female sterilization, both are 0.5%, The most effective form of contraception, Norplant, which has a failure rate of 0.09% is no longer on the market. > > As I said, we’ve had people on this very message board who’ve become pregnant despite using birth control, sometimes more than one form. I suppose having a hysterectomy would make it completely impossible to carry a baby to term, but it would not prevent ectopic pregnancies. By the way, why don’t I hear the truly hard-core pro-lifers, the ones who would make abortion illegal even when the life of the woman is in danger, protesting the slaughter of innocents during ectopic pregnancies? I don’t know and I don’t care. I have already said that I don’t agree with that. > [@](#): > > The protestors standing outside doctors offices or outside lunch wagons don’t seem to be thinking about subtleties. They have no way of knowing whether the woman walking past them is seeking an abortion or looking for medical care for the aftermath of a miscarriage. They just call her a “baby killer” and worse. One reason I dislike these protestors so much is because to me they practice willful cruelty even to those who’ve committed no offense. > > **Muad Dib** , when you or **Lord Ashtar** say, “just use birth control” or refer to not wanting to become pregnant because it’s not “convenient”, you look incredibly ignorant to those of us who have thought things through and are aware of how far from simple things are. I take responsibility for my life and actions as does my friend. However, nothing’s 100% effective and nothing’s 100% sure. > > CJ You don’t have a right to a risk free life. Every time you have intercourse you run the risk of pregnancy. A person must take responsibility for their actions. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/363 "2005-04-06T22:44:50Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > I don’t want to force anyone to do anything that they don’t want to do. But I am just being realistic in that I am fairly certain that no matter what I say I am not going to win over any hearts and minds today. > > I am telling you how to live your life just as much as the government does when it says that you can’t steal or kill people. If I am right then these new laws will need to be enforced just as much as the laws against murder that we already have. Hmm. Hypothetical: Muad’Dib’s desired laws come to pass. If it can be shown that you knowingly and willfully caused an abortion, you are guilty of murder/manslaughter/etc. What happens when a woman discovers she is pregnant, and ceases eating until she spontaneously aborts? Do we hook her up to a feeding tube? Restrain her, so she doesn’t injure the fetus? What is the legal status of a cell teased from a developing zygote? The same cell, after it is put back into the zygote? In one location, it has the ‘potential’ to develop into a person distinct from the zygote. In the other, it doesn’t. How will life insurance policies on zygotes work? Does the survivior of a [vanishing twin pair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin) face murder charges? And finally, have I made the point that applying standards of personhood to something that is not a person by no stretch of science, sematics, or philosophy is a really, really silly idea? ---
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/364 "2005-04-06T22:45:14Z")
> [@PinkMarabou](#): > > Yep, that would be me! Let them continue to spout their drivel. They are hypocrites until they can show me that they can account for every sperm or egg they have ever released (by their standards, masturbation would be manslaughter), they are strict vegans, and refuse to wear or use animal products of any sort. That’s killing after all. 😉 Sperm and eggs do not have human rights. They are only potential humans and left to their own accord will never “wake up” into consciousness. Animals do not have human rights because they also lack self-aware consciousness. The moment that some proves to me otherwise I will join PETA and become a militant vegan. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/365 "2005-04-06T22:58:46Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > You don’t have a right to a risk free life. Every time you have intercourse you run the risk of pregnancy. A person must take responsibility for their actions. If you’re seriously insisting I remain celibate for the rest of my natural life, I have one suggestion for you. **You go first!** I asked if I could call you a slave-owner earlier. I take that back. It’s an insult to slave holders. You are a hypocrite. I await your arrival at my place with handcuffs, but I assure you I _will_ have company and you will not enjoy them. You have just _fucking_ well demonstated you have no regard for my human life and welfare. In my book that makes you worse than a murderer or a hypocrite; it makes you a sociopath. A family friend of ours wanted children as badly as it’s possible for a person to want anything, yet pregnancy after pregnancy ended in miscarriage. In order to carry her twin daughters to term, she had to spend _3 months_ confined to bed. With each miscarriage, she felt awful, that she’d failed as a woman. Yet you, in your arrogance, rather than leaving her alone to grieve the children she wanted more than anything else in the world would have her poked and prodded after each miscarriage only lest she have done the thing she was least likely to do, adding to her grief and pain. You arrogant sociopath! Oh yes, if a woman who has been sterilized by having her tubes tied, so to speak, becomes pregnant despite that procedure, I believe she’s at greater risk of an ectopic procedure. It has happened that women who’ve had hysterectomies have nevertheless have fertilized eggs try to implant. Are either of these types of women murderers? A neighbor of mine had two successive ectopic pregnancies, despite wanting more kids. Is she a murderer? She’s a wonderful mother, I’ll tell you that. It seems particularly appropriate to leave you with this curse: since you believe every act of sexual intercourse (including oral?) has the potential to result in intercourse and many of the most effective forms of birth control can, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, may you never, _ever_ have an orgasm again as long as you live. Yes, that does include by masturbation. CJ ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/366 "2005-04-06T23:24:43Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > No, I am not a fundimentalist. My view were reached through personal thought and debate, not “just '[OK.](http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm) cause”. Incorrect. As it stands, “A fertilized ovum is a human individual with the rights and responsibilities thereof” is a premise. If you have justification for it (beyond ‘just because’) feel free to post it. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > As I have already explained at the moment of fertilization the child stops being a potential and becomes an actual. Because it is a single cell is irrelevent, a unique human life has begun, to abort is to end that life. That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent because it will eventually “wake up” (if not, then it is ok to kill it because it is not really human). Congratulations. You have completely failed to address the identical-twin issue. Also, the z/e/g of a woman who has an abortion will never wake up. Therefore, it is not really human under your standard. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > It is no different than a person in a coma. The temporary inability to attain consciousness does not take away a persons human rights. Stop me if I’m wrong, but don’t we declare people without brains legally dead? > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > And to me the unborn are just as human as you or I and your inability to understand this is baffling to me. To me they are humans that are being denied their human rights just as the slaves were. Posited: the differences between a black man and a white one are just a teensy bit bigger than that between a newly fertilized ovum and an adult. Please tell me you agree to this. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > 1.A farmer just finishes planting his yearly crop. During the night hoodlams come and destroy all of the seedlings. Should they get in trouble? The seedlings have no value, you can’t eat or sell them. You can only make a profit from mature plants. So the farmer has not lost anything of value then. Apples and oranges. The hoodlums would still be up on vandalism charges if the farmer had sown his seeds in a salt plain. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > 2.That is were we dissagree. I am not talking about a clump of cells that might turn into a human. I am talking about a clump of cells that already are human. That their current state is that of a clump of cells is irrelevent. And we are saying that clumps of cells (the really small ones, anyway) are not human by any reasonable standard. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > 3.Yes, if IVF results in the destruction of fertilized eggs. Muad’Dib, **sex** results in the destruction of fertilized eggs. If a couple have sex and the lady becomes pregnant, there is a very good chance that the zygote will spontaneously abort. Moreover, as has been previously mentioned, there is no form of birth control that stop this from happening. Also as has been previously mentioned, if you have ever had sex, you could well be an accessory to murder. Also on this note: wouldn’t a good way to prevent these tragic deaths be to simply cordon off all men and only allow sex under controlled circumstances? > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > I don’t know and I don’t care. I have already said that I don’t agree with that [making abortion illegal even when the life of the woman is in danger and protesting the slaughter of innocents during ectopic pregnancies]. I’d love to see the test that can discriminate between an ectopic pregnancy and, just as an example, an IVF zygote, or a zygote implanted in a mother who will die if the pregnancy is not immediately terminated and one who will commit suicide rather than bear the child. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Sperm and eggs do not have human rights. They are only potential humans and left to their own accord will never “wake up” into consciousness. A fertilized ovum needs a prepared uterus, certain nutrients, a lack of certain chemical compunds, and a whole bunch of other things to ‘wake up’. An unfertilized ovum needs all that, plus a sperm cell. If you’re allowed to posit based on percent chances that something will become a person with assloads of help from the enviornment…_checks watch_…then if you’re male, you just comitted murder. > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Animals do not have human rights because they also lack self-aware consciousness. The moment that some proves to me otherwise I will join PETA and become a militant vegan. OK. [I hope you like salad.](http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm) > [@the article](#): > > Megan, a chimpanzee, is in training with Daniel Povinelli. She has had a mirror in her quarters for several months. Today, Povinelli is testing her self-awareness with a method developed by Gordon Gallup. This morning, Megan was anesthetized. While she was unconscious, a spot of bright red nontoxic ink was daubed on her forehead. Now it is afternoon and she is fully recovered from the anesthetic. > > Sure enough, the chimp looks in the mirror and then scratches at the spot on her forehead. To some, this proves that Megan has recognized herself and is consciously self-aware. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/367 "2005-04-06T23:45:48Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Sperm and eggs do not have human rights. They are only potential humans and left to their own accord will never “wake up” into consciousness. Embryos do not have human rights. Left to their own accord they will never wake up. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/368 "2005-04-06T23:46:22Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > OK. [I hope you like salad.](http://www.accessv.com/~shawgrp/psychanimals.htm) You know what’s hilarious? When your own damn link betrays you. Next time, try reading the ENTIRE link, genius. > [@](#): > > The problem with Gallup’s interpretation is that there are people who cannot recognize themselves in mirrors, and yet nobody doubts they are fully self-aware. Blind people cannot recognize themselves in mirrors but we have plenty of other indications that they are self-aware. People brought up in communities that do not have mirrors do not instantly recognize themselves when they are first shown their own reflection. There is also a form of brain damage called prosopagnosia, which leads to an inability to recognize faces. In extreme forms of prosopagnosia, the patient may not even recognize his own reflection. > Conversely, there are people who have problems with self-awareness, but who recognize themselves in mirrors normally. People who suffer from autism have an impaired ability to see themselves as others view them, and yet they recognize themselves in a mirror with no problem. > **In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness.** ::snicker:: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/369 "2005-04-06T23:48:40Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > Right. Shall I e-mail you my home address then so you can imprison me for the next 9 months? You see, I have had sex within the last week, and for all you know the birth control method I use may prevent implantation under some circumstance. Even I’m not sure whether it does or not, although from what I know of how it works, it follows logically that it might. > > _ **That** _ is what you are demanding of us, whether you like it or not. Tell me, while you’re imprisoning me, will you arrange for someone to pay my mortgage, car payments, and other bills, or am I on my own for that? If my employer fires me because I’ve been imprisoned for committing murder, my health insurance will lapse. Are you prepared to pay the medical bills involved in me giving birth if I do so or shall I just shove the poor kid into the world and let him take his chances? For that matter, I trust you will make arrangements for adoption for this putative child. Perhaps you’d care to raise him. > > Tell you what. If you get to call me a “murderer” because I have used the pill which may, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, how about I get to call you a “slave master” because, if I am truly a murderer, you’d have me imprisoned against my will? > > Oh yes. I suggest you never have sex with a woman who’s on the pill or has an IUD or winds up using emergency contraception. That, sir, would make you an accessory to murder. > > With no respect whatsoever, > CJ Oddly enough, before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal, we didn’t seem to need to lock pregnant women up to prevent them from aborting. Why do you expect we would if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/370 "2005-04-07T00:21:36Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > You know what’s hilarious? > > When your own damn link betrays you. > > Next time, try reading the ENTIRE link, genius. > ::snicker:: Read it yourself. Treating the dot test as logically equivalent to self-aware consciousness is a bad idea, because a:] It can be (hah hah) aped, by a trained animal, and b:] not everyone who demonstrates self-awareness can pass it. This does not mean that the dot test is not an indicator of consciousness. Arg. Once more, with fewer negatives: This does not…dammit. The fact that a dot test is not 100% correlated with self-aware consciousness does not mean that it’s not a damn good indicator thereof. Moreover, there was no indication that Megan was trained to recognize the dot (if she was, someone please tell me). The other objection is specious: the claim is not that self-awareness is identical to passing the dot test, only that passing the dot test (without training) implies (colloquially, not logically) self-awareness. Out of curiosity, what would be a good test for self-awareness? I hope it’s good and rigorous, or **Muab’Dib** will have to start a campaign to Free ELIZA. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/371 "2005-04-07T00:33:17Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Read it yourself. Treating the dot test as logically equivalent to self-aware consciousness is a bad idea, because > a:] It can be (hah hah) aped, by a trained animal, and > b:] not everyone who demonstrates self-awareness can pass it. > > This does not mean that the dot test is not an indicator of consciousness. > > Arg. Once more, with fewer negatives: > > This does not…dammit. > > The fact that a dot test is not 100% correlated with self-aware consciousness does not mean that it’s not a damn good indicator thereof. Moreover, there was no indication that Megan was trained to recognize the dot (if she was, someone please tell me). The other objection is specious: the claim is not that self-awareness is identical to passing the dot test, only that passing the dot test (without training) implies (colloquially, not logically) self-awareness. > Out of curiosity, what would be a good test for self-awareness? I hope it’s good and rigorous, or **Muab’Dib** will have to start a campaign to Free ELIZA. Wow. Let me see if I got this straight. You offer up a link to “prove” that chimps have self awareness. The author of the page that YOU linked to says > [@](#): > > In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness. It almost seems that you’re arguing against the point (and expect me to defend, I guess) made by the author of a web page that… …wait for it… YOU used as a cite. Do you often use cites that don’t support your case? Do you often use cites that you don’t even bother to read? Wow. Just wow. I know it’s a bit embarrassing to get caught in a gaff…but you’re not helping your case, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/372 "2005-04-07T00:41:07Z")
I have to give it to **Muad’Dib** …at least he’s being consistant. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/373 "2005-04-07T00:48:22Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I have to give it to **Muad’Dib** …at least he’s being consistant. Hell, I have a lot of respect for him. His conclusions are entirely consistent with his premises. I disagree thoroughly with his premises, and with his conclusions. But I understand how he arrived at his premises, and what those premises are, and I understand how he reaches his conclusions from there. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/374 "2005-04-07T01:04:37Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Wow. > > Let me see if I got this straight. > > You offer up a link to “prove” that chimps have self awareness. Sigh. The author is offering his own opinion on the significance of the experiment. I do not agree with him about said significance. I do agree with him about the results of the experiment. > [@beagledave](#): > > It almost seems that you’re arguing against the point (and expect me to defend, I guess) made by the author of a web page that… > > …wait for it… > > YOU used as a cite. One would hope that you could distinguish between the data and the analysis of the data. A trained animal can pass the mirror test. Of course, you are welcome to dispute that the experiment took place as described. In fact, I am having trouble finding a link to it myself. > [@beagledave](#): > > Do you often use cites that don’t support your case? > Do you often use cites that you don’t even bother to read? > > Wow. Just wow. > > I know it’s a bit embarrassing to get caught in a gaff…but you’re not helping your case, dude. Again, when I find a primary link to the study, I will post it. If you would like a point-by-point of the bit from the article: > [@the article](#): > > What of Megan, the chimp who wiped the ink off her forehead? Is she showing evidence of advanced consciousness? Gorden Gallup argues that for an animal to recognize itself in a mirror, it must have self-awareness in a form not so different from our own. He is impressed by the observation that great apes are the only mammals to show self-recognition in a mirror (although in the 1980s, Rober Epstein, Robert Lanza and B.F. Skinner demonstrated that, with training, even pigeons can pass Gallup’s mirror test, which means it may not be so tough). I have found no evidence that Megan was trained to respond to the ink. > [@still the article](#): > > The problem with Gallup’s interpretation is that there are people who cannot recognize themselves in mirrors, and yet nobody doubts they are fully self-aware. Blind people cannot recognize themselves in mirrors but we have plenty of other indications that they are self-aware. People brought up in communities that do not have mirrors do not instantly recognize themselves when they are first shown their own reflection. There is also a form of brain damage called prosopagnosia, which leads to an inability to recognize faces. In extreme forms of prosopagnosia, the patient may not even recognize his own reflection. > > Conversely, there are people who have problems with self-awareness, but who recognize themselves in mirrors normally. People who suffer from autism have an impaired ability to see themselves as others view them, and yet they recognize themselves in a mirror with no problem. Had the article claimed that passing the mirror test was logically equivalent to being self-aware, this would be a valid criticism. This is not claimed. > [@yet more article](#): > > In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness. The author could use a course in basic logic. A-\>B does not mean that B-\>A, and given the nebulous nature of what is being tested for, it’s damn easy to create false positives. My request for a better experiment still stands, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/375 "2005-04-07T01:21:34Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > I have already stated that I support abortion to save a womans life. Except under the system you propose, my “life” would be a life in reproductive prison. > [@Siege](#): > > If you’re seriously insisting I remain celibate for the rest of my natural life, I have one suggestion for you. You go first! I asked if I could call you a slave-owner earlier. I take that back. It’s an insult to slave holders. You are a hypocrite. I await your arrival at my place with handcuffs, but I assure you I will have company and you will not enjoy them. > > You have just fucking well demonstated you have no regard for my human life and welfare. In my book that makes you worse than a murderer or a hypocrite; it makes you a sociopath. > > A family friend of ours wanted children as badly as it’s possible for a person to want anything, yet pregnancy after pregnancy ended in miscarriage. In order to carry her twin daughters to term, she had to spend 3 months confined to bed. With each miscarriage, she felt awful, that she’d failed as a woman. Yet you, in your arrogance, rather than leaving her alone to grieve the children she wanted more than anything else in the world would have her poked and prodded after each miscarriage only lest she have done the thing she was least likely to do, adding to her grief and pain. You arrogant sociopath! > > Oh yes, if a woman who has been sterilized by having her tubes tied, so to speak, becomes pregnant despite that procedure, I believe she’s at greater risk of an ectopic procedure. It has happened that women who’ve had hysterectomies have nevertheless have fertilized eggs try to implant. Are either of these types of women murderers? A neighbor of mine had two successive ectopic pregnancies, despite wanting more kids. Is she a murderer? She’s a wonderful mother, I’ll tell you that. > > It seems particularly appropriate to leave you with this curse: since you believe every act of sexual intercourse (including oral?) has the potential to result in intercourse and many of the most effective forms of birth control can, in some circumstances, prevent implantation, may you never, ever have an orgasm again as long as you live. Yes, that does include by masturbation. **Siege** , I nonsexually love you. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/376 "2005-04-07T01:28:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Oddly enough, before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal, we didn’t seem to need to lock pregnant women up to prevent them from aborting. Why do you expect we would if Roe v. Wade is overturned? > > Regards, > Shodan You’re right. Instead, pregnant women who wanted abortions sought them out by any means they could, including illegal ones. In addition to the infamous coat-hangar example, I’ve read of women douching with drain cleaner and other substances. A number of women (I don’t know how many and I doubt I could find a cite both sides would consider valid) died from these abortions. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. If I thought it would, I might well be in favor of it. Believe it or not, I, too genuinely _would_ like to see a time when no one ever finds herself in a position where she even considers abortion, let alone has one. Unfortunately, I don’t see how such a day can come about. Back in the Winter of Our Missed Content, when I was still new to this message board, I started a GD thread asking people who believed abortion should be illegal what the penalty for having an abortion should be, and how it should compare to the penalty for rape. That thread was lost when the board went down, and I never did get an answer, although I did get some very interesting responses. Just as surely as **Muad Dib** believes that having an abortion is murdering a baby, so I believe that making abortion illegal will cause women who cannot legally have abortions to die. It’s a horrible choice: kill babies or kill women. Two and a half years ago, I was unemployed and suicidal. I did not have the financial or emotional resources to successfully carry a child to term. I barely had the financial and emotional resources to sustain myself, and that was only with the help of a very good therapist and some extremely good friends. A pregnancy would probably have pushed me over the edge into suicide if abortion was not available. I took all appropriate precautions, including not having sex. Unfortunately, last I heard, rapists don’t stop to ask if you’re on birth control. I wasn’t raped and I didn’t get pregnant. Yes, I know. The traditional retort is that most abortions don’t happen as a result of rape, and yes, I am personalizing this. Here’s the thing. If you try to tell me “That’s different” or “But that’s the exception”, in my book you’re no better than Dan Quayle who was ardently pro-life yet, when he was asked what would happen if one of his daughters became pregnant by a rapist, said that he would want her to have the option of having an abortion. That’s all I’m asking for. Not for you to condone abortion as a good or desirable thing, but to have it safe and available when the alternative is carrying a child to term which one is financially, physically, or psychologically incapable of doing so, when abortion is, if not the best or ideal choice, the least bad one of those available. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/377 "2005-04-07T02:06:01Z")
One last point before I turn in. The reason I have been so adamantly opposed to me becoming a parent is I suffered from severe, undiagnosed, untreated clinical depression until I was in my late 20’s. One of the primary causes of that depression was the emotional abuse I suffered as a child. I could see the roots of that abuse in the way my grandfather raised my father and I had and have reason to believe the same potential existed in me. I consider it _extremely_ immoral to bring a child into the world when I have reason to believe I’d abuse that child in the same way I was abused. I simply will not do it. Things have changed since then with the help of good treatment for depression and I’m now willing to concede that, with the right husband in the right circumstances, I won’t necessarily repeat the pattern. Still, at the risk of sounding harsh or depressed, I would have severe qualms about bringing a child into the world knowing that I would do as badly by him or her as my parents did by me. I hate typing that; I do love them. I can’t deny the damage done, though. If I had chosen to have an abortion at any point in my life, I can see how it would look like an act of convenience to someone who doesn’t know my story and who only knows the surface me. I’ve also read comparisons of abortion to child abuse. If abortion were the only way I had to prevent child abuse, then yes, I would do it. I will also repeat, since some people seem a bit hard-of-seeing here that I have taken all appropriate precautions when I have been sexually active including discussing what happens if I become pregant with the gentleman involved at the time and reaching a consensus. One reason I do that is precisely because nothing is infallible. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/378 "2005-04-07T02:34:51Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Yes. Just to be clear then, you are also opposed to in-vitro fertilization, the pill, IUD’s and vigorous exertion, by the woman, within 48-72 hours after sex? All of these behaviors may knowingly result in a fertizlied egg not becoming a human. And, the poster I referred to outlined some of your basic assertions. Once again, if your goal is truly noble, that is trying to really convince people of the validity of your viewpoint, you will need to address them. Honestly, I have given you a lot of leeway since I understand this issue brings out the emotions on both sides, but you will have to address those topics. There are others who oppose your viewpoint that I think go overboard, but you are advocating more than saving babies. You are advocating the reduction of civil liberties and the inclusion of government in private reproductive rights. You see, when you call for this, it means alot more than just professing a belief, you are forcing others to believe the same thing. You claim you are a libertarian, but that is very hard to believe given the draconic methods you have asserted should be used to advance your personal belief. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/379 "2005-04-07T02:48:05Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > You don’t have a right to a risk free life. Every time you have intercourse you run the risk of pregnancy. A person must take responsibility for their actions. Seems to me that seeking out a safe medical procedure to resolve a problem is showing responsibility. Being irresponsible would be living in denial about the problem and making it worse as a result. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/380 "2005-04-07T03:10:37Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > There are others who oppose your viewpoint that I think go overboard, but you are advocating more than saving babies. You are advocating the reduction of civil liberties and the inclusion of government in private reproductive rights. You see, when you call for this, it means alot more than just professing a belief, you are forcing others to believe the same thing. You claim you are a libertarian, but that is very hard to believe given the draconic methods you have asserted should be used to advance your personal belief. **Muad’Dib** , have you ever taken the [Political Compass Test](http://www.politicalcompass.org/)? If you don’t mind my asking, where on the grid did you fall? ---
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/381 "2005-04-07T07:34:14Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > It’s not “pro-life”—it’s pro-birth. > > Think about it. > > the anti-choice people really do not care about the infant once born–after that placenta (hell, after the water breaks)–you are on your own, baby-literally. > > They won’t support DCFS, social programs, ADC, you name it. I have found this true of most strident anti-choice people. You have a right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. You do not have a right to anything else. It may be harsh but I see no contradiction there. I am not “anti-choice”, I am anti-abortion. I do not call your side pro-abortion, please show me the same respect. > [@](#): > > And hence, their position comes clear: they are happy and willing to subjugate half the population of this country. > Women are NOT to have independent decision making capabilities, in fact, once pregnant…a woman must take those pre-natal vitamins, enough B-12, stop smoking, no alcohol, no “rigorous sex”/horseback riding/exercise–she MUST be content to be, not herself, but VESSEL. What is next? Health camps for expectant moms–where all possible teratrogenic exposures are limited, all for the makings of the “ideal” baby? Think how much easier that checking up on those oh, so suspicious miscarriages would be if all the women were detained! > > Sounds damned medieval to me. > > And I say-why let the men off the hook? Why not have every post pubescent male screened for sperm count, instructed in condom usage and if found to be non-compliant with condoms, force sterilization? > > Seems to me that that would take care of most unwanted pregnancies right there. Again, you are building a strawman and are being silly. Women and men would be no more “subjugated” then they already are for the care of their born children. Do we have concentration camps now that force parents to give the most optimal upbringing for their born children? No. > [@](#): > > What? That would be ROBBING the men of a what? A CHOICE or whether or not to have kids? A CHOICE of what to do with their bodies? How shocking. > > Funny, that sounds alot like your goal to me. You are indeed robbing women of a CHOICE when you outlaw abortion. You know-WOMEN–those folks walking around, working, contributing to society, giving you head on Satuday noc–those people-who should have just as much CHOICE as you in this world. I am not robbing them of a choice. I am saying that a legitimate choice never existed in the first place. Just as you do not have a legitimate choice to kill someone for looking at you funny, you do not have a choice to kill the unborn. The idea of its existence is a fallacy. > [@](#): > > **Muad** admitted to this woman as vessel postulate a few posts back: _“I don’t care about your uterus”._ > > Hmmm–well, I DO. And my uterus is NONE of your business–ever. It is the business of me and my doctor–and my husband–NOT b/c he is male and may impregnate me–but b/c I care deeply for him and share life decisions with him.the decision we made to have an abortion is none of your business, nor does is make us “murderers”. It makes us humans who had to make a difficult decision and did so. It is as much my buisness and the buisness of society as it would be if you shot a man walking down the street. > [@](#): > > **Muad** : > I also find your position of “but it’s ok in case the mother’s life is at risk” to be weaselly in the extreme. Talk about your slippery slopes! > What of congenital anomalies, **Muad**? Would you force a woman to carry to term a horrifically deformed fetus–afterall, that is Life, and must be Respected. It is no more weaselly then laws that permit you to kill another in self-defense. I have already stated that I support abortion in the case of defects so extreme as to prevent the child from ever gaining consciousness. I such a case it really is nothing more than a clump of tissue. It is not Life that I really respect, it is self-aware consciousness. > [@](#): > > What about rape? Did God send the Rapist for a reason–some Lesson the woman was to learn and will be revealed thru the carrying and caring for the Child? > > And how about incest? Another Lesson for these pesky women who just want to be seen as people in their own right and not as Vessels of Male Seed? I am not religous and my opinions are based on any religous teachings. I am, however, conflicted about the case of rape and incest and am not ready to pronounce a decision about such situations. If forced, I would side with letting the child be brought to term because it is an innocent third party that deserves no punishment, especially not death, for the acts of some other evil person. It is one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization that we do not believe that the sins of the father are passed to the children. > [@](#): > > How about it? Why do women pay the price-financially, emotionally, socially for the irresponsibilities of Men? The father would be held just as responsible as the mother. > [@](#): > > What of the psychological damage–indeed mental illness–that some women (few, thank God) would suffer d/t carrying an unwanted fetus to term? That’s all to the good, eh? Who cares about her uterus or her mental health? She’s just a woman—it’s the Baby that counts. > > This is Life we are talkiing about! And Life is Good and Just and Right. She is not “just a woman”. Stop trying to inject misogyny where there is none. Those would be tragic and terrible occurrences that should be fought against as much as possible. No different than car related fatalities that are just as tragic and terrible and that we do all we can to prevent, but you don’t see people advocating the outlaw of roads. > [@](#): > > You people scare the hell out of me. As do you I. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649.md?page=20)