# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/482 "2005-04-09T01:05:01Z")
> [@](#): > > **Muad’Dib** said: > So long as I believe that a fetus has human rights, their can be no comprimise or exception on the issue. So long as the uterus is a part of my body, there will be no compromise in which you or anyone else is allowed any kind of say. My body, my choice. I will not ever allow you to control it. I will not ever tolerate you making my medical decisions. I will not ever allow you to insinuate yourself into my life that way. You, and your idiotic ideology of women, are not worth consideration. ---
**Author:** ![FaerieBeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e95f7d/32.png) [@FaerieBeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FaerieBeth)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/483 "2005-04-09T01:26:42Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? And **Muad’Dib** sayeth… > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Yes, just as we would lock up a potential suicide. I see this as no different from a mother refusing to feed her baby. Just as an aside, have you ever given thought to changing your user name, **Muad’Dib**? I think **Bene Tleilax** would work nicely. Axolotl tanks, anyone? ---
**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 9, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/484 "2005-04-09T01:32:03Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > So long as the uterus is a part of my body, there will be no compromise in which you or anyone else is allowed any kind of say. My body, my choice. I will not ever allow you to control it. I will not ever tolerate you making my medical decisions. I will not ever allow you to insinuate yourself into my life that way. You, and your idiotic ideology of women, are not worth consideration. See, now remember people like **Muad’Dib** the next time we have a feminism thread. People like him are the reason feminism exists. ---
**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 9, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/485 "2005-04-09T02:24:56Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You’re letting him push your buttons, you fertile nincompoop. > > I notice how he’s stopped responding to me, though. I guess I’m not emotional enough for him. Eh? I am going through, page by page, trying to respond to everyone. I am sorry if I missed a post of yours. ---
**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 9, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/486 "2005-04-09T03:09:55Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Eh? I am going through, page by page, trying to respond to everyone. I am sorry if I missed a post of yours. That’s okay. I doubt you have any good answers for my questions, anyway. ---
**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 9, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/487 "2005-04-09T05:55:38Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > So long as I believe that a fetus has human rights, their can be no comprimise or exception on the issue. > [@catsix](#): > > So long as the uterus is a part of my body, there will be no compromise in which you or anyone else is allowed any kind of say. And there you go. ---
**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 9, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/488 "2005-04-09T06:21:34Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You’re letting him push your buttons, you fertile nincompoop. > > I notice how he’s stopped responding to me, though. I guess I’m not emotional enough for him. Not emotional enough?! I have done everything I can to try to keep this thread civil. I am not trying to push anyone’s buttons and the last thing I want is some raving emotional poster. When someone gets emotional, especially with a subject like this, there is no point in continuing conversation with him or her. They no longer consider what you say. They just make up their minds about you, and then view all of your arguments through a lens of hate, disregarding any points you might make and twisting everything else to fit their pre-conceived notions about you. Any emotional poster is a waste of time and energy that I would rather spend on more sober debaters. ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/489 "2005-04-09T07:31:43Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > In-vitro would have to be performed more carefully, one egg at a time instead of a batch of eggs. The IUD’s, possibly. The pill, if taken correctly, prevents ovulation and fertilization. Vigerous exertion should be avoided, but would be an accidental death if it occured. > . So, lemme get this straight… Post sex I should _avoid vigorous exertion_ on the off-chance I may have fertilized an egg? What about my child-rearing and cooking duties? :rolleyes: You are so rigid and extreme as to be a parody of pro-lifers. I’ll bet you are a real hit with the ladies, too. $50 says you’ve never had sex in your life. Thankfully. ---
**Author:** ![inkleberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkleberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkleberry)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/490 "2005-04-09T07:35:31Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Because I believe that egg to have a right to life. Eggs in general, or just human? And why “eggs”? What about Mr. Sperm? Is he not sacred as well as delicious? > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Those that truly don’t want to should use birth control or, if that is too risky for them, give up sex… What about my son- 2 forms of birth control, but hey, surprise! BC isn’t as safe or as effective as one might hope. Sterilization is restricted to people over a certain age in many cases. If this _really_ bothers you, please lobby the holy hell out of your congress humans to fund more research into safe, effective, and reliable BC. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/491 "2005-04-09T07:37:16Z")
**Muad’Dib** , I really hope you show this thread to any women you are planning to have sex with. ---
**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 9, 2005, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/492 "2005-04-09T08:23:22Z")
> [@Thank Ye Sai](#): > > We define death as the point that brain activity cannot be detected. Why do we not also define the point at which it _can_ as life. We don’t define life that way, we define humanity that way (which is what I think you meant to say). I don’t define human rights as beginning at brain function. I define it at conception, when that first unique cell is created and that individual life begins. My point is that the cell will gain consciousness and therefore has the same status as a person asleep, under deep anesthesia, or in a coma. ---
**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 9, 2005, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/493 "2005-04-09T08:24:37Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Or she could have done exactly what she did, namely minimize the needless hassle caused by a simple mistake. By killing a child. ---
**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 9, 2005, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/494 "2005-04-09T10:00:19Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > The level of your personal thought and debate is far below that of Al Quaeda’s leader, who’s arguments to harbor hostile sentiments to American influence I find a lot more compelling than your arbitrary decision to draw a line at a fertilised egg and treat two cells as a human with human rights from there. There is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, to say that life begins at conception (whether right or wrong) is one of the only non-arbitrary points there is. That is the point where a new life, a new creature, is created. It is a fact. Now whether you think that that life has human-rights is a separate issue, but it is undeniable that conception is the beginning, it is the point of creation. > [@](#): > > Not really. An egg is fertilised en route from the ovary to the uterus, but the fertilised egg does not necessarily stop there. There are so many of such phases, that the point at which potential becomes actual is as valid taken from one second to the next as from one year to the next. I believe that self-awareness doesn’t arrive until somewhere around the 3rd-4th year. For you it doesn’t matter when, because since you take a black and white stance with no regard for the subtleties of life and with no real basis in reality. My opinions are completely based on reality. As I have explained above and before, at no point does whim or faith enter into it. It is a scientific fact that conception is the point where human life begins. Forget for a moment about whether or not human-rights begin then, there is no way that you can rationally argue that conception is not the beginning of a new organism. Before that point there was only egg and sperm with different genetic codes from different creatures and the potential for a new creature to be formed. After conception potentiality has been rendered and a new life is the result. > [@](#): > > Your concept of potential and actual simply doesn’t do justice to the meaning of life. On the one hand you consider the actual a human life, because it has the capability of consciousness, but at the same time it needs this consciousness to be able to be human - so as long as this doesn’t happen, maybe until the 2nd or 3rd year, there’s not really a human being, but a potential human being in the making. I agree that consciousness does not really begin until long after the birth, it is something that needs development and experience to occur… But does this mean that you would claim that the killing of a 1-year-old is fine?!? By your own definition they are not yet human. So is it okay for a mother to kill her 1-year-old? > [@](#): > > But this potential you still wish to grant the same human rights as all other humans, whether they have developed a consciousness or not - as long as they have the _possibility_ of achieving a consciousness. And yet at the same time you do say that the mother’s life is more valuable than the actual of the child, so human rights here do not equally apply. And all this from the premise that two cells merged change their status from potential to actual all of a sudden, though it’s only one in many uncertain but equally important steps that eventually may or may not lead to a human being that then may or may not develop a consciousness. 1. I do not see it as a potential. 2. There are different shades of meaning to the word potential. Unless something goes wrong, a fertilized egg **will** attain consciousness. That is its nature. You use possibility in the sense that it would have to statistically go against its nature to achieve consciousness. 3.The mothers life is not more valuable. It is of equal value, as are all human lives when making such decisions. 3. When the egg and sperm meet a new creature is created. I have described and explained it multiple times and I don’t really know what I can say to make it clearer to you. This is not a controversial point. You will not find a reputable geneticist, biologist, doctor, etc. who will not say that that is the point that a new creature, a new life, is created. Whether or not it has human-rights is a separate debate. But it is a fact that that is when a life begins. > [@](#): > > Some people’s admiration for your consistency is highly overrated. To be logically consistent in how one views the world is a moral commandment. To be otherwise is to be either evil or insane. > [@](#): > > Well, as above, your position is weird. If you could treat your ‘actuals’ as slaves, they wouldn’t know it, wouldn’t remember it, wouldn’t complain, wouldn’t be hurt, and so on, because they don’t have those capabilities. Say that we’d extract a few stem-cells from a zygote or whatever without damaging it (it can afford to miss a few cells) that we sell to hospitals who in turn use it to save the lives of a few other people. It would never know unless we told him or her, and it wouldn’t be affected. Say we were to treat a man in a coma as a slave, he wouldn’t know it, wouldn’t remember it, wouldn’t complain, wouldn’t be hurt, and so on, because he does not have those capabilities. So it would be ok to treat him as such, or to maybe kill him? > [@](#): > > The material damage discussed in court were the hoodlums brought to justice would certainly be influenced by how much it would cost to repair the damages. If it is not to late in the season to replace the seedlings, then the costs would be the seedlings and the labor needed to replant them. However, when they destroy the harvest, the costs would be the purchase of the seedlings, all the labor needed to plant, maintain, water and so on … material damage is going to be considerable larger, we’re talking tenfolds at the very, very least. > > But that’s not even the point. You already indicated that you know what strawman means. The situation we’re discussing here is whether or not the farmer can decide that it’s a bad idea to invest the rest of the year in this field of seedlings. Say that he heard that the going rate for wholegrain was expected to be at an all time low next year so that all the investments he’d have to make would not nearly be compensated by the value of the crop come harvesting day, does he have the right to plow his land and grow something that was expected to be in demand. Or say that a terrible drought is predicted, or a plague of certain insects, or … etc. Of course he has that right. And in exercising of that right what would have been a mature harvest of grain is destroyed. > [@](#): > > Instead, you’re coming with an example that translates back as a pregnant woman being gangraped and miscarrying as a result. Now here’s a woman who has decided she is willing to invest in this potential and already has invested some in it emotionally and financially, and she is robbed of her potential by force. The value of this potential is primarily psychological, with relatively little material value, and that psychological value is determined by whether or not the mother wants or does not want to invest. If not, then the potential is little more than a very disturbing and potentially dangerous parasite. 1. I am sorry, but this paragraph does not make much sense to me. Gang raped?! 2. I do not view it as a potential, so do not argue from that standpoint to me. 3 Except that that “parasite”, is a human being that the woman does not have the right to destroy willy-nilly. > [@](#): > > Your definition of human is whatever has the ability to develop a consciousness. That definition by itself is flawed, but even in that context, the point you take at which you decide to go from potential to actual is still completely arbitrary. As I have explained above and before, conception is not at all an arbitrary point. It is the point where that life begins. > [@](#): > > It usually does. And so your arbitrary and thoughtless position on actuals and potentials messes up yet another technological advancement that brings more healthy children into the world than it kills. Not if it is destroying fertilized eggs it is not. > [@](#): > > Then it is an insult. According to you. ---
**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 9, 2005, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/495 "2005-04-09T10:12:15Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > I am not trying to push anyone’s buttons > [@Muad'Dib](#): > > By killing a child. You’re comical. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/496 "2005-04-09T11:05:51Z")
**Muad** said, “To be logically consistent in how one views the world is a moral commandment. To be otherwise is to be either evil or insane.” Hmmmm. Meet the Thinkings: Mrs. Black and Mr. White… I am curious about **Muad** -are you married? Have kids? Dating? Sexually active? I pity your sister with all my heart–it must have been easier to have the baby rather than listen to this righteous drivel day in and day out. I am glad your nephew is well and thriving. That’s great. How is your sister doing? What of her earning potential/school/future prospects? Is the father (remember him-the psrem “donor”?) in any way contributing to the care of this laughing boy? Are you? Or do you just harangue people with your “truth” and preach (oh, I get that your not religious-not only religious people preach) rigidity of thought? psst–rigidity of thought is a sign of mental illness. See above quote about “moral commandment”. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/497 "2005-04-09T11:20:24Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > There is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, to say that life begins at conception (whether right or wrong) is one of the only non-arbitrary points there is. I said it is an arbitrary point for deciding a human life with human rights begins. A more logical point would have been to do so at the point at which the baby leaves the mother, as it then becomes an individual capable of sustaining its own life or at least it’s no longer dependent on the mother exclusively for survival. > [@](#): > > Now whether you think that that life has human-rights is a separate issue In our discussion, it is quite obviously not a separate issue, but THE issue. > [@](#): > > I agree that consciousness does not really begin until long after the birth, it is something that needs development and experience to occur… But does this mean that you would claim that the killing of a 1-year-old is fine?!? By your own definition they are not yet human. So is it okay for a mother to kill her 1-year-old? I think I could find more compelling arguments for this than you would be comfortable with. But certainly a 1 year old is an independent being that can be taken care of without the mother, and the benefit for the mother of killing the child instead of giving it up is a completely different issue than at the beginning of conception. 1. I do not see it as a potential. 2. There are different shades of meaning to the word potential. Unless something goes wrong, a fertilized egg **will** attain consciousness. That is its nature. You use possibility in the sense that it would have to statistically go against its nature to achieve consciousness. A fertile egg has the potential to become fertilised. A fertile sperm has the potential to fertilise an egg. A fertilised egg has the potential to nest itself in the uterus. Etc. It’s a whole circle of life thing anyway. Now I agree with you that biologically, it makes sense to point at this part of the circle as the start of that circle. At the same time every step such as the point where two humans learn how to sustain themselves, become biologically fertile, fall in love and have sex, etc. are all equally important to the progression of that circle. That’s what I wanted to point out for your ‘potential/actual’ denomination - as soon as you are not strictly talking about a biological standpoint but from a moral one, your point where you determine the start of a human life that should have human rights becomes arbitrary. > [@](#): > > 3.The mothers life is not more valuable. It is of equal value, as are all human lives when making such decisions. The mother’s life is most definitely more valuable. The only circumstance where it wouldn’t be would be when this pregnancy was the last chance for humanity to perpetuate itself. That’s the big point here. If you take your cues from biology, then you’ve very arbitrarily taken one point from biology but not another. > [@](#): > > 1. When the egg and sperm meet a new creature is created. I have described and explained it multiple times and I don’t really know what I can say to make it clearer to you. This is not a controversial point. You will not find a reputable geneticist, biologist, doctor, etc. who will not say that that is the point that a new creature, a new life, is created. Whether or not it has human-rights is a separate debate. But it is a fact that that is when a life begins. It is the point where a new blueprint is formed from mixing two old ones, yes. > [@](#): > > To be logically consistent in how one views the world is a moral commandment. To be otherwise is to be either evil or insane. Well if that is so, then what I’ve been saying is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a fair few out here who would, well, not consider you a moral person at all. > [@](#): > > Say we were to treat a man in a coma as a slave, he wouldn’t know it, wouldn’t remember it, wouldn’t complain, wouldn’t be hurt, and so on, because he does not have those capabilities. So it would be ok to treat him as such, or to maybe kill him? I never brought up the man in the coma into this discussion, because not a comparable issue. A man in a coma is a human being that may or may not be temporarily unconscious. But he was conscious, and he could be conscious again, in which case he could suffer from the consequences of what is done to him while he is in the coma. Also, a man in a coma is a harvest, not a seedling that can be easily replanted, but a harvest of many years, or a large tree full of olives. He has developed many important skills, has friends, relatives, maybe people that depend on him. Of course he has that right. And in exercising of that right what would have been a mature harvest of grain is destroyed. > [@](#): > > 1. I am sorry, but this paragraph does not make much sense to me. Gang raped?! That’s what your strawman of a group of hoodlums destroying the farmers field of seedlings translates to if taken as an analogy, yes. > [@](#): > > Except that that “parasite”, is a human being that the woman does not have the right to destroy willy-nilly. It is a seedling on her turf that she can choose to invest in or consider weed, at her own discretion. Because it is her land, and she has every right to do with it as she will. > [@](#): > > Not if it is destroying fertilized eggs it is not. The chance of succes of one single egg being fertilised and then being successfully implanted is very small. Hence the procedure is typically done with multiple eggs. The small chance that everything works out typically resulted in quadruples or more. Nowadays, to increase the successrate further and decrease the likelihood of the pregnancy being successful (it should be clear that nature prefers one child at a time) if more than two implants succeed, some of them are sometimes aborted, iirc. People who use ivf bring a life into the world where they otherwise wouldn’t have. See, may statement is true even if ivf kills fertilized eggs in the process, because those eggs would never have been fertilized without ivf. > [@](#): > > According to you. Yes. But I’m pointing out that’s how you come across to some people - might we wise to be aware of that. You may think you’re being polite, but to many you’re just being very hurtful. Human rights were designed to protect people from suffering. They were not designed to protect a few cells that might one day have the capacity to suffer, but of which the forced protection of its so called rights causes a lot more suffering than it prevents. ---
**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 10, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/498 "2005-04-10T02:28:46Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > If abortions are murder are miscarriages manslaughter? Are eptopic pregnancies attempted murder by the fetus? Of course not. Those are accidental deaths. A crime like manslaughter requires someone with intent. > [@](#): > > We have reached an age where medical knowledge saves many people from what would have been certain deaths. Thankfully it is also an age where women are not enslaved to unwanted pregnancy. So would you say that parents are enslaved by their born children? > [@](#): > > NO woman EVER sees abortion as the easy option (society makes sure that it is not easy) but it IS a perfectly valid option if it fits with a womans own morals. > > Your morals are not the barometer…HERS are. So what if fit a persons moral barometer to kill the homeless? Would that make it ok? Would I be wrong to try and impose my morals on them by stopping them? ---
**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 10, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/499 "2005-04-10T02:30:09Z")
> [@PinkMarabou](#): > > So then you wouldn’t be opposed to me taking out a life insurance policy on the embryo when I found out I was 6 weeks pregnant? That way, if I miscarry (and any subsequent miscarriages), I get lots of money. You are in favor of your policy payments going up at least three-fold? No, I would not. But good luck in finding a company willing to take the risk. ---
**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 10, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/500 "2005-04-10T02:35:55Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > And you live up to the first two syllables of your name when you tell me I endorse infanticide, despite the fact that, oh, I don’t endorse infanticide. You may really want your political opponents to be evil, in order to hide your own desire to sexually torture puppies, but that’s your problem, not mine. Then I really expect you to jump to my defense when people start calling me a tyranical misogynist. > [@](#): > > Desires are a neurological phenomenon. Neonates have brains that are functionally similar to adult brains in this area: while their experiences are such that their desires are far more limited than adult desires, there is no reason to suspect that they lack desires. I say that this is far more controversial than you seem to think. A person needs experience to form desire, some thing that babies, by their nature, are lacking. I still mantain that babies are tabula rasa. ---
**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 10, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/501 "2005-04-10T07:52:50Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Those are Constitutional rights, only. They are by no means a complete list. To be snarky, I could suggest that “the pursuit of happiness” includes an active sex life, but no kids. Those are not constitutional rights. The phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, and they are not rights granted by the state, they are rights that we have by our nature of being conscious, rational, self-aware creatures. They are the philosophical underpinnings of our country stated in its most succinct form. 1.You are allowed to pursue happiness, you aren’t guaranteed it. 2.What if my happiness depended on raping random women. Do I have a right to pursue it? > [@](#): > > Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. YOU want to limit/end MY choices–that makes you anti-choice. You are also anti-abortion (except, of course, when there is PHYSICAL risk to Mom or baby is not viable…question–aren’t those “murders”, too? Or is it a reduced charge/sentence? Manslaughter instead of murder one? What happens to those women–nothing? Oh, but if the woman has a history of post-partum depression and is suicidal or just plain blue once she discovers she is pregnant–that doesn’t count? Just want clarify the crimes of record. 1.Yes it does. I am not trying to take your choice away, I am saying that it never existed. To call me “anti-choice” is just as silly as saying that an abolitionist is anti-property rights. 2.No, they are no more murders then killing in self-defense is. 3.I do not understand your last two sentences, please clarify and expand on them. > [@](#): > > You were the one who brought up **detaining** women while pregnant. I took that line of thought to a logical conclusion–and brought in the men, who seem to be somewhat lacking in your scheme of things. Where is their responsiblity? Where is their accountability? Why not give force vasectomies on those deadbeat dads? You have no problem limiting women’s choices, why not men’s, too? 1.No, you did not take it to its logical conclusion. I am advocating that people are held responsible for the unborn to the same degree that they are held for the born. If that is so draconian then why don’t we have such concentration camps for parents now? 2.You are right. It is not fair and men are not held as responsible for a pregnancy as a women. Also, no, I would not necessarily be against enforcing a vasectomy on a deadbeat dad. We do close to it now through court rulings baring a person from having any more children (although quite rarely and mostly to deadbeat mothers). > [@](#): > > I have no idea what you are talking about here–what doesn’t exist? What do you mean that a legitimate choice never existed in the first place? I speculated about sterilizing men to eliminate abortion–draconian? sure! but so is outlawing abortion. Forced sterilization doesn’t “exist” b/c it has not been legislated…yet (heh)–but the PREMISE can be explored–or don’t you deal in theories and ideas? I am saying that the right to have an abortion never existed. It is as during the Civil War, they did not take away the right to own slaves, the right to own slaves never existed in the first place, it was always wrong to do even if it was supported by law. All I have been doing here is dealing in “theories and ideas”. > [@](#): > > Oddly enough–some abortions are done in self-defense. The mother decides that for whatever reason, she cannot carry this pregnancy to term. What about the multiple implants done in fertility treatments? OFTEN, the docs advocate the “removal” of 1-2 implanted eggs–_to ensure viability of the remaing embryos_ --what is that to you? > > How ironic–the woman would be jailed for murder, under your system, but all she is trying to do is have kids! :eek: 1. You cannot decide to kill in self-defense “for whatever reason”. You have to be under threat of bodily harm or mortal threat to do so. 2.It is to me that it is still murder because they placed the embryos in the position of danger, it was not by accident that the embryos were in peril. 3.She would be jailed just as a woman who decided one day that “I can’t afford to care for both of my children, I should kill one so that the other will have a better life” would be. > [@](#): > > Not just for that–you also said that you are pro-abortion IF the mom’s life is in danger…whatever happens to your prescient being then? Yup-baby killer, according to YOUR construct. I don’t understand the point you are making here. > [@](#): > > Jeebus- people in coma don’t have this. People with Alzheimer’s/senile dementia/severe mental retardation don’t have this–what are you advocating-wholesale slaughter at nursing homes? Now, that is radical. Have you not read the whole thread? I have already used the example of people in a coma in the opposite fashion several times already. People in a coma have a right to life because they will wake up, just a fertilized cell will eventually wake up. Just because you are temporarily unconscious your right to life does not disappear. > [@](#): > > That is too bad-since it is happening now. Do we tell these folks that you’ll get back to 'em? Yes. Just because I am sure about some things does not mean that I am sure about others. I will be the first to say that I don’t have all the answers. > [@](#): > > No…we just let the women do all that… Again, I do not understand the point you are making. > [@](#): > > how ya gonna do that? Life would be quite different under your rule, eh? I firmly believe that all rapists and perps of incest should be found and dealt with, soundly > but think of the manpower needed to trace all molesters of nieces and daughters…my mind boggles. Just because it is difficult does not mean that we must not try our hardest to do it. How many serious crimes do people get away with everyday? Does this mean that we should give up on trying to enforce the law? [qutoe]If you don’t see how comparing women to _ROADS_ is misogynistic–I cannot help you. Mentall illness and post partum depression is not the same as a car crash–You cannot equate the two. [/quote] I was comparing the women stricken with mental illness to people injured or killed in automobile accidents, not to roads. I am saying that there are aspects of the two situations that are similar. Your insinuation that there is anything misogynistic in trying to compare examples is bizarre, laughable, and insulting. What sort of examples and comparisons would you approve of? > [@](#): > > Plus, your analogy does not work: roads are there to be used by all people–some roads have restricted access and some are not paved or even posted. But if you have a car–you get to CHOOSE which route/road you take, AND you take your chances in that car…just like if you are an adult–you get to CHOOSE to accept the pregnancy or have an abortion. Restricted access roads can be likened to third term abortions–or I could just continue to beat this comparison to death. I think that I did not make the analogy clear enough and that you misunderstood me. What I meant is that by banning abortion there will be some women who are indirectly hurt through mental illness etc., by allowing driving there are also people who are indirectly hurt trough accidents. However, although there are people indirectly hurt by driving we do not outlaw it because the benefits far outweigh the costs. Similarly, outlawing abortion should not be stopped because a small percentage of people will be indirectly harmed is not a good enough reason to do otherwise when so many children will be directly saved. > [@](#): > > Mental health is as important as physical–sometimes, more so. (ask a schizophrenic or someone battling anxiety attacks which they would rather have–their disease or something like asthma–most would pick a treatable physical disorder). Believe me, you will get no argument from me on that point. > [@](#): > > Baby comes before Woman, in your eyes. You keep saying no, but yes, it does–potential Baby trumps actual Woman to you. That position is inherently misogynistic. 1. No. They are equals in my eyes. 2. Again, no, I view the baby as an actual, not a potential and the baby does not trump the mothers life. If it did I would not support abortion to save the mothers life. 3. It is not misogynistic because that it is women we are discussing does not matter. If it were men who carried the child the situation would be exactly the same. This is what I meant when I said “I don’t care about your uterus”. That women are the ones who get pregnant and are burdened with this responsibility is entirely incidental. > [@](#): > > FWIW-again, I doubt highly that there is anyone who is thrilled about abortions. I do think that it is a cruel fact of life that these kind of decisions must be made. > > Making abs illegal will not make them “go away”–it will make them dangerous and deadly. It wil occur with or without your approval–abortion is as old as man. > > I dont’ understand how making it dangerous makes you morally superior to anyone (the reverse could easily be argued) or how driving abortion underground makes things better for your “self-awareness consciousness”. I, myself, would be incredibly self aware that I had driven some women to use a coat hanger or caustic chemical to hurt herself, possibly damage the fetus–even maim it w/o killing it etc…where is your conscience then? Murder is as old as man and making it illeagal does not make it go away, but we still must fight it the best we can. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649.md?page=26)