# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/522 "2005-04-11T18:30:35Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > I understand that this is an easy thing to say when virtually everyone in the thread shares your perspective, but that doesn’t stop it from being either wrong-headed or ironic (or both). Not at all. As I’ve stated repeatedly, I fully support every woman’s chocie, whether it’s pro-choice or right to life. It isn’t my place to make up their minds for them. But when someone tells me they are going to force their opinion on me and make that the only option available, then yes, I am going to argue back. And since this is the Pit, and not Great Debates, I really can’t see why I should be nice about it. We’re talking about limiting the rights of individuals with no medical or legal basis to the person’s argument, other than “I think it’s murder, so it is.” If you call disagreeing with that sort of argument “wrong headed,” then so fucking be it. ---
**Author:** ![griffen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ce7236/32.png) [@griffen2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffen2)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/523 "2005-04-11T18:34:52Z")
I’ve not got the stones to take a side in this fucked up train wreck but I just wanna applaud **Muad’Dib** for the sheer bloody minded, balls to the wall tenacity he’s displayed in this thread. I respect _anyone_ withstand such a huge clusterfucking pileon and keep his cool so well. Nice one! ---
**Author:** ![griffen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ce7236/32.png) [@griffen2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffen2)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/524 "2005-04-11T18:54:34Z")
Spot the missing word. _D’oh!_ ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/525 "2005-04-11T22:42:03Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > We’re talking about limiting the rights of individuals with no medical or legal basis to the person’s argument, other than “I think it’s murder, so it is.” If you call disagreeing with that sort of argument “wrong headed,” then so fucking be it. Disagreeing with that argument is fine. What I was referring to as “wrong-headed or ironic” was your assertion that **Maud’Dib** refuses to consider anyone else’s perspective, whereas you (apparently) have a rich understanding of all points of view, and have simply managed to pick the correct opinion. I find it ironic, in this case, that a member of the (overwhelming) majority is telling a person with a minority opinion that _he’s_ not considering alternate points of view. Here on the left-leaning SDMB, he’d wouldn’t be able to _avoid_ these alternate ideas. > [@robertliguori](#): > > I can give you a valid argument for the Swiftian feeding of the poor to themselves, based on the principles of Sanger. I would laugh my ass off if anyone gave it any respect whatsoever. The premises are damn important. Agreed, but in this case I hardly think that the premises are ridiculous. > [@Arwin](#): > > . . . but I have to point out that the consequences of Maud’Dib’s **arbitrary** decision to want to assign human rights to a bunch of cells within a woman’s body are a deep insult to many people. Bolding mine. It’s been a common refrain here that it is arbitrary to designate conception as the point at which to assign legal and human rights. That’s basically true, but it’s no more or less arbitrary to fully value life starting from conception than to do so starting in the 3rd trimester, or at childbirth, or at 18 months. I think that there are good practical reasons to treat embryos differently from toddlers, but it’s also somewhat arbitrary to value strict pragmatism over more abstract ideals. > [@](#): > > This includes board members, who will very understandably consider Maud’Dib’s stance a personal attack on their life choices. I imagine this is the reason that the pro-choice contingent has, on balance, reacted so harshly to **Maud’Dib** ’s position. Many have considered abortions, or had them, or are close to people who’ve had them, and they don’t enjoy being called murderers. It’s completely understandable that they would then get upset, or even nasty, but the fact remains that it does no good, and that the impulse to anger should be suppressed if possible. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/526 "2005-04-12T01:23:17Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Disagreeing with that argument is fine. What I was referring to as “wrong-headed or ironic” was your assertion that **Maud’Dib** refuses to consider anyone else’s perspective, whereas you (apparently) have a rich understanding of all points of view, and have simply managed to pick the correct opinion. I find it ironic, in this case, that a member of the (overwhelming) majority is telling a person with a minority opinion that _he’s_ not considering alternate points of view. Here on the left-leaning SDMB, he’d wouldn’t be able to _avoid_ these alternate ideas. _Looks futilely through all prior posts for assertion of all knowing enlightenment_ I don’t claim to understand all points of view. But I don’t try to force other people to live by mine. And _that_ is the issue I have with **Muad’Dib’s** statements. As I said way back on page whatever: There’s a huge difference between “I don’t like it and I’m not going to do it.” And “I don’t like it and I’m not going to let anyone else do it.” That is, in total, what he is saying. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/527 "2005-04-12T02:46:37Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > _Looks futilely through all prior posts for assertion of all knowing enlightenment_ > I don’t claim to understand all points of view. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were claiming a kind of omniscience. It’s just that you suggested earlier that **Maud’Dib** was simply refusing to consider alternate viewpoints. That criticism implies that you think you’ve put more thought and effort into your position than he has into his. Which, again, seems odd: “You’re minority opinion was arrived at with more ease than my commonplace opinion.” > [@](#): > > There’s a huge difference between “I don’t like it and I’m not going to do it.” And “I don’t like it and I’m not going to let anyone else do it.” > That is, in total, what he is saying. Yes, but since he believes abortion to be murder, it makes perfect sense for him to say “I don’t like it and I’m not going to let anyone else do it.” To say otherwise would be inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/528 "2005-04-12T08:48:52Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Disagreeing with that argument is fine. What I was referring to as “wrong-headed or ironic” was your assertion that **Maud’Dib** refuses to consider anyone else’s perspective, whereas you (apparently) have a rich understanding of all points of view, and have simply managed to pick the correct opinion. I find it ironic, in this case, that a member of the (overwhelming) majority is telling a person with a minority opinion that _he’s_ not considering alternate points of view. Here on the left-leaning SDMB, he’d wouldn’t be able to _avoid_ these alternate ideas. But he doesn’t show any evidence of actually considering them. He just restates his own position. He doesn’t really come up with any arguments, other than that which follows from a simple phisolophical position that he took up after having had the issue at hand once himself and which he now considers the end-all, with little respect to truth or other people. If he really did consider alternate points of view, he’d have collected real instances of when and why people had abortions, and considered the consequences of his position for those people, and made a checks-and-balances of what it means to have human rights, why human rights were instated, and how such things play out in real life. He might have considered how human beings are no longer living as the animals they were biologically wired to be, and how they are learning to deal with that. How they learnt to increasingly control their environment to the benefit of the species. There is tons of stuff to consider here, which he hasn’t. It isn’t always necessary to consider tons of stuff, but when you take a standpoint in which you decide to call people murderers, even baby-killers, you do have a moral obligation to go a few extra miles. > [@](#): > > Agreed, but in this case I hardly think that the premises are ridiculous. Well, I maintain that you do not understand human life if you think a fertilized cell should have its human rights protected because it one day, one or several years into the future, may become a human (and that human status is defined by characteristics I’m not so sure are even really well understood or considered by MD). > [@](#): > > Bolding mine. It’s been a common refrain here that it is arbitrary to designate conception as the point at which to assign legal and human rights. That’s basically true, but it’s no more or less arbitrary to fully value life starting from conception than to do so starting in the 3rd trimester, or at childbirth, or at 18 months. I think that there are good practical reasons to treat embryos differently from toddlers, but it’s also somewhat arbitrary to value strict pragmatism over more abstract ideals. On the contrary, it can be very dangerous to value abstract ideals and history has shown this. I think the decision to protect the human rights of something that might one day become human to be arbitrary, especially in the context of the human in which and at the cost of which the cell’s rights are to be protected, and the horrible consequences of this position. Whereas human rights themselves are far from an abstract ideal. > [@](#): > > I imagine this is the reason that the pro-choice contingent has, on balance, reacted so harshly to **Maud’Dib** ’s position. Many have considered abortions, or had them, or are close to people who’ve had them, and they don’t enjoy being called murderers. It’s completely understandable that they would then get upset, or even nasty, but the fact remains that it does no good, and that the impulse to anger should be suppressed if possible. Of course the impulse to anger should be surpressed (I’m doing my best myself …), but obviously being called a mass-murderer and what not doesn’t really help. Especially since it is … ahem … backed up so well with ‘scientific arguments’ and an ‘in-depth consideration of the human condition.’ ---
**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 15, 2005, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/529 "2005-04-15T07:49:24Z")
First off, sorry that I am taking so long to respond. With work and school I have had very little extra time. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > Yes, but who would pay for the hospitalizaiton of the infant? The woman? that is an undue burden on a crime victim. The rapist? Catch him first, and garnish his wages(if any)? Sure if we catch him. Otherwise society will probably be forced to pay the check as we already do for a large percentage of births. Although the Libertarian in me is laothe to admit it. > [@](#): > > Hey, I am not for late term abortions–but look at the alternative above. How is this conundrum solved? > > IMO, the woman was most likely obese and not aware of the “symptoms” of pregnancy, but also she may have been in a deep denial. > > According to my ER nurse friends, it happens at least once a year–girl comes in and delivers a baby–she and parents didn’t “know” she was pregnant… I don’t see how this negates the unborn childs right to life. ---
**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 15, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/530 "2005-04-15T07:52:14Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > I think we’re seriously going to muddy the waters by considering rape victims in this discussion. The biggest reason- how do we know they were raped? > > If we’re discussing the rule of law here and not just our own moral opinions, rape should not make one bit of difference in the law. If you build the fabled ‘rape, incest, life of the mother’ exclusion into any restrictive laws, I will bet cash money that you’ll have a sharp increase in the number of women claiming that they were raped. What would you demand then, to prove they were not lying? Would they have to name the perp? get an indictment? A conviction? I think that’d go over like a lead balloon. > > Bear in mind, in the event that such a stupid piece of legislation were to pass, I would fully support someone lying about being raped to avoid being forced to bear a child. That’s even given my strong feelings about those that fabricate rape allegations now. You make a very interesting point that I had not considerd. I still hate the situation of rape because then the woman has absolutely no responsibility for the fact of the child she is carrying. Then, although the child still has a right to life, I can really see arguments for abortion. The situation makes me sick. ---
**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 15, 2005, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/531 "2005-04-15T08:02:04Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > My friend Brian loves punk music. He hates The Man. He makes a mean lasagne and can eat a prodigious amount of it. One day, he hopes to own a record shop in downtown Manhattan. He sculpts industrial metal sculptures in his free time. > > And then he’s hit by a car and collapses into a coma. > > Quiz: > > 1. If Brian wakes up, what type of music will probably give him pleasure? > 2. If Brian wakes up, who will he hate? > 3. If Brian wakes up, what will his favorite food be? > 4. If Brian wakes up, what will his dream job be? > 5. If Brian wakes up, how will he express his artistic leanings? > > My friend Julia discovers that she’s four weeks pregnant. > > Quiz: > > 1. If Julia gives birth, what type of music will give the child pleasure? > 2. If Julia gives birth, who will the child hate? > 3. If Julia gives birth, what will the child’s favorite food be? > 4. If Julia gives birth, what will the child’s dream job be? > 5. If Julia gives birth, how will the child express its artistic leanings? > > Bonus question: > What’s the difference between Brian and Julia’s potential child? > > Lemme answer the bonus question for you: Brian has a personality, complete with desires, dreams, hopes, fears, an identity, and so forth. That personality is suspended, just as mine is suspended for a split-second every time I sneeze; however, it **has** existed and it **will** exist, and we know what it looked like and we know what it will look like. If we kill Brian, then we kill an existant (albeit suspended) personality. > > Julia’s fetus has no personality–no desires, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no identity, and no so forth. It’s not that there’s a suspended personality; **the personality has never existed**. Now, it **may** exist in the future, if Julia decides to carry the embryo to term and is lucky enough to be successful in doing so. But if Julia decides to abort the embryo, then no personality is destroyed: no desires, no dreams, no hopes, no fears, no identity is destroyed, because no has existed there. > > That’s why I do not equate a person in a coma, or a person sneezing, with an embryo. > > Daniel One day while walking in town Brian is mugged and shot in the head. The greivous wound leaves him in a coma. The doctors come and tell you that the brian you knew is gone. The nature of the wound has destroyed his personality. He will no longer like the samethings he did, he will have to discover new preferences. He will not even remember anything about his life. However, he will wake up and he will be restored to healthfullness and full mental faculty. Does Brian still have a right to life while lying in the coma? Don’t forget that such injuries with such aftermaths have occured. ---
**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 15, 2005, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/532 "2005-04-15T08:16:45Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Ok, what about an embryo that splits into two? Is each embryo unique? In what way? Yes they are unique in that they are separate and individual. Two protons are utterly identical, to the point where it is impossible to mark them as separate in any way. However they are still unique. They are still separate. You still have proton one, and proton two and they will always be their own particular protons with their own particular history. > [@](#): > > What about when the embryos merge back together again? What happened to those two “unique” lives? If that were to happen then they are no longer two separate lives, but are one again. Life is fuzzy at that level, that does not deprecate its reality or its importance. > [@](#): > > The person in a coma has a previously established identity of personhood. The lifetime of memories, hopes, dreams, etc is _already programmed into their brain_. The fact that it’s not currently active doesn’t stop the personality from being in there somewhere. > > It’s the difference between destroying an empty canvass (which also had “potential”) and destryong a Picasso painting. The unborn is an empty canvass. Nothing has been painted on it yet. You can read the above post, but also think of it this way. Say you and the artist were the last people on Earth. You have what is the last, and last possible, canvas and set of paints and brushes on Earth. The artist is about to paint what will be his last and greatest work, a testament to the former, lost glory of man. There is no doubt that this is what his work will accomplish, he has a very good track record. However in a fit of unprovoked rage you burn the canvas, piss in the paints, and break the brushes. Was something not lost? ---
**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 15, 2005, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/533 "2005-04-15T08:20:56Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I believe abortion _is_ taking responsibility. Say I have a debt to Bob. I have fallen behind in payment and in fact can’t afford to pay him at all. Bob has been getting very antsy about the money. I try to avoid him because every interaction leads to uncomfortable questioning about the money. But now Bob is seeking _me_ out. I can no longer avoid him, but I still can’t pay him. So I borrow a gun and shoot Bob in the head. I no longer have a debt and can live without worry about it. Is this not taking responsibility for the debt? ---
**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 15, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/534 "2005-04-15T08:29:32Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Infants aren’t tabula rasa. They have, and can, experience warmth and coldness, and hunger and satiety. There’s no reason to suspect that they cannot desire warmth and satiety. > > As I’ve later said, however, I should’ve included the capacity to suffer–to experience pain–as one of the traits of an entity whose rights I’ll recognize. I’ll also include the capacity to experience emotions. > > You may justly accuse me of wanting to extend stronger protection toward chimpanzees if you’d like; but accusing me of advocating infanticide is absurd. > > Daniel An insect can experience all of those things. I can build a robot that can experience all of those things. Do those have a right to life? Also, if I am correct, then yes, you are advocating infanticide. However I also believe that you don’t believe it, and would never in your right mind advocate it. Therefore you are not a monster. ---
**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 15, 2005, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/535 "2005-04-15T08:42:36Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Yikes. This is an intimidating thread to jump into at this point, but… > > First of all, I think this whole issue is a difficult and troubling one. Anyone who is 100% confident that they are exactly right about it, and happy with all the implications of that position, is either stupid or deluded. > > Secondly, while I disagree strongly with **Maud’Dib** ’s position, I have to say that I feel that he is being hilariously and unfairly piled on. He’s basically being polite and logical about things. He is NOT, himself, calling people murderers or waving grisly photos in their faces. But he’s being accused of a number of things, from circular arguments to misogyny, which are totally unfounded, and I have to say, I’m pretty impressed by the extent to which he’s sticking by his guns with basic good humor. In particular, if he says “I view that child in your belly as a full human being with a right to life, thus, I will not let you kill it”, that does NOT mean that he values its life more than yours. His position follows perfectly if he values both your life and the life of the fetus equally, and would rather have it alive and you inconvenienced than it dead and you alive. Now, there are plenty of other problems I have with his position, but claiming that he has somehow demonstrated that he doesn’t value the life of women, views them only as containers for men’s seed, is something that is NOT supported by anything he has posted in this thread. > > Anyhow, as to the situation at hand, the reason I disagree with **Maud’Dib** ’s position is that he is making everything black and white. In his view, something is either human or it isn’t. There’s a magic dividing line at which point things go from being meaningless collections of cells to Human Beings. And I don’t think such a line can be drawn. Of course, the current laws also draw such a line, albeit at a different place. And the “human life begins at viability outside the mother” folks, of whom I’m basically one, ALSO draw such a line. > > But no such line can be perfect… as has been discussed several times in this thread, there are plenty of examples that challenge any such line… brain dead people, badly deformed babies, Terri Schiavo, and Fred Phelps just to name a few. > > So there’s a good argument to be made that a 2-week-old-fetus is a human, and a good argument to be made that it isn’t. (Let’s not ignore the fact that both arguments are reasonable, by the way… **Maud’Dib** ’s belief that a 2-week-old fetus is human is hardly some random piece of idiotic BS that he just pulled out of his ass. I mean, it’s not like he’s saying “all bricks of swiss cheese that weight more than 3 pounds are human beings with full rights and responsibilties thereto”. And in fact, the fact that so many people who are pro-choice also claim to be troubled by abortion, hope abortions are as rare as possible, etc., indicates to me that a lot of people, at some level, feel the attraction and solidity of that argument.) So, we’re in a bit of a quandary. As God didn’t leave us a notarized Is-It-A-Human-Being testing kit (well, at least, he didn’t leave it to us non-Catholics), we, as a society, have to figure out where/how to draw the line in the overall best manner possible. > > Thus, while it’s obviously dangerous and troubling to be making life or death decisions based on how convenient we find the outcome to be, well, this is a dangerous and troubling topic, and I see no reason not to try to establish a policy which does as much good for people in general, both born and unborn, and families, and society as a whole, as possible. > Another thought: One of the troubling aspects of this whole topic is that thinking too much about whether fetuses are human can lead one to question whether babies are human, as has, in fact, happened several times in this thread. But is that such a horrible thing? There have been plenty of human societies in which a baby wasn’t considered to be “real” in some sense until it was a year old, or learned to talk, or learned to walk, or had undergone a spiritual journey, or what have you. That seems pretty weird to us now, but there’s nothing inherently inhuman or inhumane about it. And I’m sure that even if 10-month-old babies weren’t considered truly human, it was generally not acceptable to randomly kill them for fun. > > To look at it in a slightly grim fashion, I’m friends with a married couple who have twins who are almost a year old. If one of those twins had died during childbirth, it would have been difficult and horrible for the parents, but only a fraction of as bad as it would be if it happened now. Part of what makes us human is our interactions with other people and their knowledge of, and love of, us. And yes, there are all sorts of troubling implications of this line of thought… Wow, I really appreciate your post **MaxTheVool** , it really eases a lot of the frustration to know that there are other people willing to lend the same credence and respect to another’s arguments as you are trying to do. You are a class act. Of course it then pains me to disagree with someone who has been so polite to me. I still say that life begins, as well as the right to life, at conception. Among other reasons (that I have already stated) because it is the only non-fuzzy point in the baby’s life. Quickening is fuzzy, the formation of the brainstem is fuzzy, the point where the child can survive outside the womb is fuzzy but the moment of conception is not fuzzy. It is a definite that then the new life began and to get in the way of this developing process is to end that life. ---
**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 15, 2005, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/536 "2005-04-15T09:21:33Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Good post, **Max**. > I suppose what has me most bent out of shape (to the point that I am actively trying to ignore him) is his attitude that sex is for making babies and making babies only, if you have sex, you should be prepared to have a baby. Such is factually not the case. On part one I actually agree, sex has many more purposes than simply making babies. I have in fact said as much and I am all in favor for whatever birth control you want that will prevent conception. However, what you are doing _is_ making a baby, I mean that is what sex at its basic level is. Think of it this way: Say that you love cooking. The experience of it enlivens you. You cherish exploring through old family recipes trying to rediscover some delightful, yet forgotten, dish. You pour over every detail in the planning stage. You eagerly anticipate the trips to market to buy and peruse new ingredients. Mixing and preparing the components with the same passion as that of a life long chemist fills you with a penultimate joy. Every step fills you with purpose and meaning. Cooking adds a flavor to your life that without would make everything dull and lifeless. However you don’t really care about the results, you just like the act of cooking. So you turn off the oven, and unplug the electric mixer, but still go through the motions of cooking. Now you may love everything about the act, and you may make it far more than it once was, but you are still committing the act of cooking so don’t be surprised if you end up with a cake. > [@](#): > > Also the attitude that, once a woman becomes pregnant, all other plans for her life cease to matter. School, career, travel, whatever; makes no difference. > It also seems there’s a tendency by most pro-life people to disregard what happens after the pregnancy, as was alluded to earlier. There’s a prevalant attitude of “you should have thought of that before you had sex.” Considering that child is supposedly their concern, they have astonishingly little regard for said child as soon as it takes its first breath. Do they care if that child is born to someone completely ill equipped to care for it? No. That’s her problem, “She should have thought of that before she had sex.” Do they care if she’s so overwrought emotionally that the child ends up neglected or abused? No. “She should have thought of that before she had sex.” Do they care if that child is malnourished? Three guesses on the answer. And it’s a pat answer, isn’t it? Truly, how do you respond to something like that? How do you defend yourself against it, even though it’s a huge pile of steaming horse shit? > It’s the mother’s problem, but it’s the child that suffers. Not that they care. At least the child was born, and that’s the main thing, after all. Suffering is good for the soul, right? I understand your feelings, but the idea is first things first. Say a policeman saves a woman from a violent rape, does he necessarily make sure that the women gets the crisis counseling that she so seriously needs? No. Say that the same policeman catches a couple of kids who committed a string of small robberies, does the policeman then follow up on the kids to make sure that they get off the bad life track they were on? No. Now don’t give me examples of when this does happen, that would be missing the point and things were not and are not always like that. The point is that you have to set your priorities and the most pressing matter is saving the life of the child. Many right-to-life groups do offer support for women in crisis, whether that is more immediate counseling, baby needs, to even community run day-care for single moms (such as the one my sister uses). There are other, more extreme, works such as the group C.R.A.C.K (C.R.A.C.K. (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) who pay drug addicted women to get sterilization, or other long term birth control done and which I have donated to. The _life_ of the child is undoubtedly important, but first you have to make sure that he even has a shot at one. ---
**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 15, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/537 "2005-04-15T09:22:35Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Personally, I don’t care if a fetus is human, alive, a person, sentient, Republican, socialist, ill-tempered, or mechanically inclined. While it’s inside a woman’s body, she can decide its fate becuase I value her rights more than its. Why? ---
**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 15, 2005, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/538 "2005-04-15T09:24:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > As this discussion is just begging for yet another Wacky Hypothetical, suppose that a dear friend of yours was, through a freak accident, implanted into some innocent person’s body, and will remain there for 9 months. So this innocent person suddenly is being parasitized by your friend. But your friend didn’t ask for it. What should happen? I was given almost this exact scenario in my intro to philosophy class. I did not have a satisfactory answer to it then either. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/539 "2005-04-15T10:05:37Z")
**Muad Dib** , I believe abortion is morally wrong and should only be considered as a last resort. I _know_ it’s an issue which doesn’t lend itself to satisfactory answers. That is the precise reason I am so ardently, vehemently politically pro-choice. You said, "I have in fact said as much and I am all in favor for whatever birth control you want that will prevent conception. " As I’ve told you, using a barrier method _ **quadruples** _ one’s risk of pregnancy. Quadruples. And that’s only comparing the least effective hormonal method against the most effective barrier method, not counting male sterlization. Hormonal methods usually work by preventing ovulation and thickening cervical mucous to the point where sperm can’t get through to fertilize an egg. It’s only been in the past couple of years, usually in the context of stories about pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control, that I’ve read that they can prevent implantation and that information has come from people and groups who oppose abortion. I’d love to see some hard numbers on how often the Pill or any other hormonal method prevents implantation. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that hormonal methods result in fertilized eggs failing to implant much less often than barrier methods failing to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I’d guess that happens 10 or even 100 times less often. Hormonal methods of birth control are intended to prevent ovulation and fertilization, rather than implantation. Indeed, the only form of birth control designed to prevent implantation is the IUD. By the way, thickening cervical mucous alone won’t prevent implantation – the cervix is at the opposite end of the uterus from the one a fertilized egg enters. By the way, I have some information for you about people who are suffering from suicidal depression, having been in that position. They aren’t routinely locked up. In fact, it’s actually very difficult to do so. I consider this a very good thing. You see, a couple of years ago when I was laid off, I did become suicidally depressed to the point where I called a suicide hotline. When I told my therapist about this, she asked why I didn’t call her. I told her the reason I didn’t call her was _because_ I was afraid she’d have me locked up, aka involuntarily committed. That fear has prevented me and others from seeking help. A person who is depressed to the point where he or she is considering suicide is already in the grip of irrational pain and fear, even though the basis for those emotions may appear perfectly rational to them. Add the prospect of being locked away against their will, and you will only reduce the likelihood of them seeking any help and increase the likelihood of them actually succeeding in committing suicide. Please understand that many of us who support women’s right to a safe, legal abortion do so because we _have_ thought the situation through, both the pros and the cons and we don’t deny the existence of the cons. We _have_ to consider rape, because we can be raped. We have to consider what happens if birth control fails because it does. In my case, I have to consider not only my physical health, but my mental health. I hope I’m never in the position where I do face an unwanted pregnancy. I’ve taken steps to make sure I never do, but those steps include using the very hormonal contraception you would have banned because of a slight, unknown possibility. I’ve also discussed what would happen if that happens with each gentleman I’ve had sex with. In point of fact, most of the them have said we’d keep the child, not that that is _any_ of your business. Still, you come along and accuse me of supporting murder and slavery because I use a hormonal method and I do realize that sometimes abortion is the least bad choice. You’ve graciously made allowances for abortion if the woman’s physical health is in danger; you’ve made no such allowance for mental health. If I were pregnant in a situation where I could not adequately support myself until the child was born and by adequate, I mean being able to pay for food, housing, utilities and clothing (my current wardrobe will not accomodate a full term pregnant, even if I do sew elastic into things), and I was unable to obtain an abortion, there is a very real chance I would attempt suicide. Do you understand what you’re telling us? Do you understand how unreasonable your position looks to us? CJ ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/540 "2005-04-15T11:44:52Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > Why? Firstly I want to say how impressed I am with your ability to defend your position without becoming angry and in a way that generaly doesn’t seek to offend or provoke those who disagree with you. As to the why. When a woman is pregnant there may only be two humans involved (mother and zygote), or three (mother, father and zygote). Consider the positions of all three. The mother: (presuming this is an unwanted pregnancy) She gets to carry the would-be-person in her body FOR MONTHS, she gets to feel the him/her kick. She will see scans and hear heartbeats. She gets to feel the joy that is labour (basketball through a garden hose anyone?). She then gets to decide if she should keep a child she didn’t want or have it adopted. If she keeps it when she and never planned to be pregnant then I’m fairly sure it will not be an easy path for her or the baby. If she chooses to adopt it out she will make a childless family very happy. Will she ever get over it though? Has any adopted person not wanted to find their birth mother to see why they were “unwanted”? The father: He decides how much he likes the mother. If he likes her he does doctor visits with her and makes supportive noises. If he has gone off her then he just fucks off. If she keeps it he may have to fork over some money. The zygote: Well it just lives or dies. It isn’t really aware of either cause it’s far too undeveloped to vote, debate or care. I understand you believe abortion to be moraly/religously wrong. Please just understand that your morals are not shared by all. I promise never to force anyone you know or love to have an abortion if you promise not to prevent anyone who wants an abortion from having one. I also promise to never wonder why the loudest advocates for the death penalty are anti-abortion (I’m not saying that is you…it just makes me wonder). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2005, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649/541 "2005-04-15T12:06:37Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > I also promise to never wonder why the loudest advocates for the death penalty are anti-abortion (I’m not saying that is you…it just makes me wonder). I’ll take a driveby at that, **calmkiwi** : because they think that death should be handed out to those who deserve it, which doesn’t include those who’ve done nothing wrong except being conceived inconveniently. Both viewpoints are independently arguable, I’m just saying they are not mutually exclusive. You can wonder also why the exact opposite is true. :: drives off :: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-abortion-protesters/297649.md?page=28)