# How stupid do these anti-choicers think we are? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 6, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813 "2013-07-06T21:36:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/221 "2013-07-10T19:17:31Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > \*\*Bricker \*\*does not think life is sacred. He stated straight up that he’s willing to let poor people die if seeing to it there they have access to affordable health care affects his pocketbook. He’s also an apologist for torturers. Absolutely untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/222 "2013-07-10T19:20:07Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > You’re the one arguing that all life is sacred. Yet you turn around and blithely dismiss the literally deaths of actual women as being minor compared to the number of births. > > Why is that? Is all life sacred or isn’t it? All life is equally sacred. Are you asking me to value one person’s life over another? Where did I blithely dismiss anything? I have compared life to life, equally. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/223 "2013-07-10T19:21:32Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Why are you undertaking this arguing tactic? What percentage of women abort because of the fear of health risks from a pregnancy versus the percentage that simply don’t want the baby? I’d have to think it’s something like 99.5% abort because they don’t want to have a baby. I can’t possibly think there are any abortions where the primary reason is fear of pre-eclampsia, for example. > > Bricker is completely correct that in 21st century United States pregnancies are not significant risks of death or series medical conditions. Of course that doesn’t mean they are not completely riskless, but nothing is. Further, certain demographics are certainly much riskier than others (older women, overweight women, young teenagers, already unhealthy women), and certainly women that choose to give birth at home or outside of hospitals are at more of a risk. However, if you are an average woman that gives birth in a hospital in the U.S., the risk of death is near non-existent. You’re just wrong and so is he. All the risks I cited are very real and occur in a statistically significant number of pregnancies. If you’d ever been through pre-e or hyperemesis, what makes you think someone wouldn’t think twice about a pregnancy? I had the latter during my first pregnancy. I didn’t want another pregnancy for a long time after that. I was terrified of one in fact as the pain had been so bad. If you personally had spent a few weeks throwing and begging a doctor for pain relief I can assure you, you might feel the exact same way. While the risk of death may be real if statistically insignificant, the risk of medical complications for many women most certainly isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/224 "2013-07-10T19:22:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **LavenderBlue** brings up some points and a perspective that I can’t. > > Suppose, **Bricker** , that at least for some women, being pregnant and giving birth are extremely unpleasant and involve significant amounts of suffering, in addition to the risk to health/life we’ve already discussed. Let’s say it’s equivalent to 9 months of general serious discomfort and periodic bouts of pain equivalent to the greatest pain you’ve ever felt, capped by the much greater pain of labor. Does that change your calculus at all? If pregnancy involves great suffering for at least some women, do you believe all women (setting aside victims of rape/incest/etc, as I assume you’re ok with abortion in those circumstances) should be mandated to continue their pregnancies against their wishes? > > Is there an amount of pain and suffering that would change your mind, or is ANY amount of pain and suffering worth saving the unborn child? Sure, if a given case involved a pregnancy that resulted in nine months of general serious discomforts and periodic (non-labor) bouts of “the greatest pain I’ve ever felt,” I’d be willing to consider the case. But since very few pregnancies actually meet that condition, why should I want a general rule based on the rare case? ---
**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:** [July 10, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/225 "2013-07-10T19:23:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All life is equally sacred. > > Are you asking me to value one person’s life over another? > > Where did I blithely dismiss anything? > > I have compared life to life, equally. How convenient. Equality means never having to make a decision. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/226 "2013-07-10T19:26:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All life is equally sacred. > > Are you asking me to value one person’s life over another? > > Where did I blithely dismiss anything? > > I have compared life to life, equally. You are. You shrug when I point out that pregnancy kills and injures women. Yet you want permission to force them into it against their will to save something you think is life. Your position on this issue is incredibly extremist. You believe that an ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as a full grown living women. You are prepared to force her into surgery to uphold that belief. You’re a right wing theocrat. I am grateful that most Americans are not. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/227 "2013-07-10T19:29:26Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > You would be wrong. I was trying to find a way to get my third pregnancy aborted when I miscarried specifically because I had pre-eclampsia/toxemia during the last three months of my second pregnancy. And yes, I was on birth control…my IUD was still in place when I miscarried, and I later had to have it taken out. > > Now, it’s true that I didn’t want to have another kid, especially since I got knocked up again so soon after giving birth. But my primary reason for seeking an abortion was because I really was scared of pre-eclampsia. I very much doubt that I would have survived another pregnancy. And I know that my husband wouldn’t have survived it, because I was ready to kill him. Do you dispute the primary point that the vast majority of abortions occur because women don’t want a baby versus fear of death or ailment? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/228 "2013-07-10T19:31:54Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > The one in three chance of serious and major surgery like a c-section that is currently faced by American women is not a small risk. As long as you fail to admit that pregnancy involves real risks for the woman in question, it is impossible to take you seriously when you natter on about this subject. > > I have been accused of being patronizing and insulting to the anti-abortionist in this thread but it is very hard to see someone as anything but a jackass who hates and loathes women when he refuses to admit that pregnancy carries serious risks. > > I would never demand any man take a roughly one in three risk of major surgery just to adhere to my moral beliefs. Especially when those moral beliefs were in conflict with my own. > > Seriously, Bricker. A C-section is major surgery. I’ve been lucky enough to avoid one but the tales my friends have told me about their own were pretty horrifying. Yes, a C-section is major surgery. But why is the rate of C-sections so high? In 1965, less than 5% of births were via C-section. Is it possible that the large number of C-sections today arise from women are asking for C-sections with no medical rationale? At least [one (PDF) study](http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LTM-III_Pregnancy-and-Birth.pdf) points out: > [@](#): > > Among those women who had had a cesarean in the past, 14% had a vaginal birth > after cesarean for the most recent birth, while 86% had a repeat cesarean. Of women > with a previous cesarean, 48% were interested in the option of a VBAC, but many > of these women (46%) were denied that option. The most common reasons for the > denial of the VBAC were a medical reason unrelated to the prior cesarean (45%) or > unwillingness of their caregiver (24%) or the hospital (15%). So this would appear to be a case of “Don’t piss on my leg and then tell me it’s raining.” In other words, the reason for the high percentage of cesarean births is something other than medical necessity. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/229 "2013-07-10T19:33:01Z")
I dispute your claim that NO woman would abort because of fear of health complications. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/230 "2013-07-10T19:34:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, if a given case involved a pregnancy that resulted in nine months of general serious discomforts and periodic (non-labor) bouts of “the greatest pain I’ve ever felt,” I’d be willing to consider the case. > > But since very few pregnancies actually meet that condition, why should I want a general rule based on the rare case? Most pregnancies involve serious discomforts. Most involve all sorts of horrible things like morning sickness, heartburn, weight gain, back aches, horrible headaches followed by hours and even days of what is said by most people to be the greatest pain they’ve ever felt. If you’d ever woken up nine weeks pregnant and spent the next month throwing up from morning sickness you might agree. I had the worst headaches and was told I really couldn’t take anything to relieve them as it might be dangerous for the fetus so I just suffered. Again I’m grateful that you are not king of the universe and women may choose to avoid such hells. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/231 "2013-07-10T19:34:22Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > You are. You shrug when I point out that pregnancy kills and injures women. Yet you want permission to force them into it against their will to save something you think is life. I don’t shrug. I know that the mother’s death as a result of pregnancy is extremely rare, but the death of the unborn child as a result of abortion is effectively 100%. And I balance the two risks. > [@](#): > > Your position on this issue is incredibly extremist. You believe that an ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as a full grown living women. You are prepared to force her into surgery to uphold that belief. That’s not quite true. I’d happily accept a ban on abortion with exceptions for ectopic pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/232 "2013-07-10T19:34:23Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > You are. You shrug when I point out that pregnancy kills and injures women. Yet you want permission to force them into it against their will to save something you think is life. Am I missing something? Where is Bricker supporting forcing women into pregnancy? There’s a fairly large chasm between forcing women into pregnancy versus supporting existing or expanding restrictions on abortions. Almost everyone supports some restrictions on abortions. Usually the primary question ultimately boils down to how far those restrictions should extend. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/233 "2013-07-10T19:35:37Z")
**Dave** , Obviously every woman will have her own set of reasons - which she will have considered very carefully and in full knowledge of the consequences. So? Is it your point that some reasons for baby-killin’ might be OK and others not? If so, if you’re willing to allow anything at all as a justification, then guess what? That makes you pro-choice, amigo. The only thing then left to discuss is why \*your \*choice should override the woman’s. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/234 "2013-07-10T19:36:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How convenient. Equality means never having to make a decision. Is that intended to be some kind of logical rebuttal? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/235 "2013-07-10T19:38:11Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > You’re just wrong and so is he. All the risks I cited are very real and occur in a statistically significant number of pregnancies. If you’d ever been through pre-e or hyperemesis, what makes you think someone wouldn’t think twice about a pregnancy? I had the latter during my first pregnancy. I didn’t want another pregnancy for a long time after that. I was terrified of one in fact as the pain had been so bad. If you personally had spent a few weeks throwing and begging a doctor for pain relief I can assure you, you might feel the exact same way. > > While the risk of death may be real if statistically insignificant, the risk of medical complications for many women most certainly isn’t. But my point isn’t that complications don’t happen; it is how many abortions occur because of fear of complications of death versus how many just don’t want a baby. Surely you would agree that most abortions occur because of the latter, right? Now, I don’t know whether the percentage is 75%, 90%, 95% or what, but my guess is that it is very very high. If that is the case, shouldn’t an argument focus on the far more likely reason that women have abortions instead of the remote cases? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/236 "2013-07-10T19:40:39Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Some numbers just to make Bricker happy: > > Gestational diabetes effects about 4% of pregnancies: > > [http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-gestational-diabetes-basics](http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-gestational-diabetes-basics) > > Pre-eclampsia about one in twenty: > > [Preeclampsia: Signs, causes, risk factors, and treatment | BabyCenter](http://www.babycenter.com/0_preeclampsia_257.bc) > > Hyperemesis (which I had where you pretty much literally cannot keep food because you are throwing up so often – affected the Duchess of Cambridge last December and she was in the hospital as a result) is about two percent of all pregnancies: > > [http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/hrpregnant/hypereme.html](http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/hrpregnant/hypereme.html) > > And yeah, as I said, C-sections among American women are indeed about one in three: > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/24birth.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/24birth.html) > > These conditions are not pinpricks. Pre-e is very hard to treat even today. Half of all women who get it have no known risk factors. GD can lead to life long diabetes and we all know had bad that is. The hyperemesis I suffered from for about three weeks was indeed hell. I was begging for morphine because I was in so much pain. > > I would never ask someone else to take those risks against their will. Never. I am grateful that my religion and most Americans agree with me. So… the conditions you list are: 4% 5% 2% and the already-discussed C-section. Suppose I said, “Let’s ban abortion, but allow it in any case in which the mother has a medical risk of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, or hyperemesis ?” That would seem to address your worry. But I’m pretty confident you’d STILL be opposed… right? So that suggests to me that your real objection isn’t medical. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/237 "2013-07-10T19:41:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, a C-section is major surgery. > > But why is the rate of C-sections so high? In 1965, less than 5% of births were via C-section. Is it possible that the large number of C-sections today arise from women are asking for C-sections with no medical rationale? > > At least [one (PDF) study](http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LTM-III_Pregnancy-and-Birth.pdf) points out: > > So this would appear to be a case of “Don’t piss on my leg and then tell me it’s raining.” In other words, the reason for the high percentage of cesarean births is something other than medical necessity. From my reading on the subject there are quite a lot reasons for the rise including the reasons you cite. It’s not just selfish women too posh to push as the Brits say. What we probably need to do is work on reducing those rates to help women and their babies be healthier. A good vaginal delivery is safer for all concerned and has a much faster rate of recovery. I was lucky to have two despite some serious medical concerns. I had a far faster recovery than a friend who gave birth at nearly the same time and had an emergency C-section because of placenta previa. What we don’t need to do is force them into a pregnancy they don’t want. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/238 "2013-07-10T19:44:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… the conditions you list are: > > 4% > 5% > 2% > and the already-discussed C-section. > > Suppose I said, “Let’s ban abortion, but allow it in any case in which the mother has a medical risk of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, or hyperemesis ?” > > That would seem to address your worry. But I’m pretty confident you’d STILL be opposed… right? > > So that suggests to me that your real objection isn’t medical. But you don’t want that, Bricker. You want all abortions illegal because you think the fetus is a person. Why should it matter to you if a woman kills that fetus because of hyperemesis or because she just doesn’t want to be pregnant? You still think it’s a killing and essentially murder no matter why. You’ve made that quite clear. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/239 "2013-07-10T19:48:16Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Am I missing something? Where is Bricker supporting forcing women into pregnancy? There’s a fairly large chasm between forcing women into pregnancy versus supporting existing or expanding restrictions on abortions. Almost everyone supports some restrictions on abortions. Usually the primary question ultimately boils down to how far those restrictions should extend. Bricker wants abortions illegal in nearly all cases. He’s essentially stated that over and over again. How is that not forcing a woman into a pregnancy? Most Americans really don’t want to overturn the framework of _Roe v. Wade_. Bricker does and admits this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/240 "2013-07-10T19:50:35Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > But you don’t want that, Bricker. You want all abortions illegal because you think the fetus is a person. Why should it matter to you if a woman kills that fetus because of hyperemesis or because she just doesn’t want to be pregnant? You still think it’s a killing and essentially murder no matter why. You’ve made that quite clear. I don’t want the mother to die to save the child. I don’t want the child to die to save the mother. But in the case where one or the other must happen, I have no problem choosing the mother to live. So I don’t want the mother to kill the child if there’s only a 5% chance that she’ll die. But as a matter of law, I don’t propose that my own feelings become the law (at least until you all recognize your rightful ruler, King Bricker I.) So as a matter of public policy, I’d be very happy with a ban on abortion and an exception for any case in which the mother has a medical risk of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, or hyperemesis. Would you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=13)