# 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:** 15
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/281 "2013-07-10T21:46:34Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > No. But if the fetus survives the abortion, it should not at that point be killed. But you understand that you are on the extreme side of abortion rights, correct? Do you draw the line anywhere? Do you think any abortion should be illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/282 "2013-07-10T21:47:20Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I disagree with Bricker about both fetuses and Terry-Schiavo-equivalents, but there’s certainly a significant difference between them, which is that fetuses presumably WILL develop human brain activity, which Terry-Schiavo-equivalents will not. Will, sure, but not currently. An acorn will be a tree, but if you toss it in the fire, you haven’t destroyed a tree. The world is full of overlapping possibilities. And ending a potential human isn’t killing a real, thinking one. I understand that some might have a quibble with that, but I’d say you have to agree that at the time of an early abortion, a fetus doesn’t possess what we typically value in human life. That is to say, conscious thinking and feeling. The utterly mindless are human in nothing but shape. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/283 "2013-07-10T21:58:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Will, sure, but not currently. An acorn will be a tree, but if you toss it in the fire, you haven’t destroyed a tree. The world is full of overlapping possibilities. And ending a potential human isn’t killing a real, thinking one. I understand that some might have a quibble with that, but I’d say you have to agree that at the time of an early abortion, a fetus doesn’t possess what we typically value in human life. That is to say, conscious thinking and feeling. > > The utterly mindless are human in nothing but shape. I agree, which is part of why I think abortion should be legal. But I can’t really argue that my position is the clearly and decisively correct one and anyone who disagrees is just deluded, which is how I feel about, say, the scientific validity of evolution. Our society tends to like dividing things with hard and fast laws: under 18, no voting. Over 18, voting. And one of the most fundamental divisions is human vs non-human. It’s not surprising that something like a 4-month-gestated embryo/fetus which straddles the line between human and not makes us uncomfortable, doesn’t neatly fit into our ethical or legal system, and provokes different responses from different people. ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/284 "2013-07-10T22:00:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Will, sure, but not currently. An acorn will be a tree, but if you toss it in the fire, you haven’t destroyed a tree. The world is full of overlapping possibilities. And ending a potential human isn’t killing a real, thinking one. I understand that some might have a quibble with that, but I’d say you have to agree that at the time of an early abortion, a fetus doesn’t possess what we typically value in human life. That is to say, conscious thinking and feeling. > > The utterly mindless are human in nothing but shape. But a six day old human baby is relatively mindless compared to an adult. Do you think it is less immoral to kill the baby? equally? moreso? Surely there are other factors than their relative brain functions. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/285 "2013-07-10T22:15:58Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I think it shows that every one of us faces questions over what is a worthwhile monetary sacrifice for our fellow man, and we all draw the line somewhere. Sure. Bricker drew the line at doing anything that results in less money for him. Not sure why I should think such a person gives a fuck about other people at all, much less holds their lives in particularly high regard. And he’s okay with torturing people. His argument, if I recall, was that it wasn’t torture because the people whose policy included torture said it wasn’t torture. I was not convinced. > [@](#): > > I think the criticism should be more thoughtful and nuanced than what you did. Then write your own post defending the guy. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/286 "2013-07-10T22:52:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Self defense laws I do favor, because someone is entitled to defend their life – I don’t elevate the life of an attacker over the life of a would-be victim. So, we do agree that “any human who is alive is not worth killing” is not actually true. We just disagree on where to draw the line. I believe that deadly force is justified to prevent the use of my organs being co-oped by another in order to maintain their life. You believe that the force of law should be brought to bear in order to force people to allow their organs to be used as life support for others (at least in the case of familial relationships). Would you be willing to extend that generally? Perhaps put everyone on a list and randomly choose compatible donors from the general population for organs that can be live donated? Given the combined low odds of being chosen plus the low mortality rate of say a kidney transplant I would say that the odds for the donor of a satisfactory outcome are better than the odds for the pregnant woman giving birth and more lives would be saved. Perhaps you might feel that goes too far. An alternate would be mandatory organ donation upon death. Zero chance of a bad outcome for the donor and life saving organs available for those who need it. Surely any discomfort felt by grieving relatives is overshadowed by the potential saving of sacred lives. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/287 "2013-07-10T22:58:01Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > If separating two conjoined twins will cause one to die, but the other to live a normal life, who should decide if it should be done? :dubious: **I** will, I’m their pimp, and they’re worth more the way they are now! ---
**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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/288 "2013-07-10T23:42:16Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > So, we do agree that “any human who is alive is not worth killing” is not actually true. We just disagree on where to draw the line. True. I support it as a general, aspirational statement; i agree that there are times it may be necessary to kill a given human being. > [@](#): > > I believe that deadly force is justified to prevent the use of my organs being co-oped by another in order to maintain their life. You believe that the force of law should be brought to bear in order to force people to allow their organs to be used as life support for others (at least in the case of familial relationships). OK. But in a society, we surrender some of our rights to self-determine such questions. Edward may believe he has the right to use deadly force to protect his car stereo from being stolen; society may (or may not) agree. So it’s not solely a question of what you believe – it’s which of your beliefs society is prepared to adopt as guidelines. > [@](#): > > Would you be willing to extend that generally? Perhaps put everyone on a list and randomly choose compatible donors from the general population for organs that can be live donated? Given the combined low odds of being chosen plus the low mortality rate of say a kidney transplant I would say that the odds for the donor of a satisfactory outcome are better than the odds for the pregnant woman giving birth and more lives would be saved. No. Part of the duty that a pregnant mother owes to her unborn child arises from that biological relationship. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you might feel that goes too far. An alternate would be mandatory organ donation upon death. Zero chance of a bad outcome for the donor and life saving organs available for those who need it. Surely any discomfort felt by grieving relatives is overshadowed by the potential saving of sacred lives. I’d be in favor of that, yes. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/289 "2013-07-10T23:56:19Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I disagree with Bricker about both fetuses and Terry-Schiavo-equivalents, but there’s certainly a significant difference between them, which is that fetuses presumably WILL develop human brain activity, which Terry-Schiavo-equivalents will not. > > I am, however, a little bit curious, **Bricker** , whether your opposition to disconnecting the braindead from life support is that morally you see no difference at all between that and any other act that causes a “human” to “die”, or whether it’s more practical, in that it’s hard to be totally certain they’re really brain dead and will never recover, and you’d rather the law be overbroad rather than try to make distinctions that might be abused? The latter. Disconnecting someone from life support is a very close question, but when I see [Kate Adamson](http://www.kateadamson.com/about-kate), I shudder. Kate’s family was told that there was no hope for her following a stroke, and they eventually agreed to pull her feeding tube. She began to starve – for eight days. Then her husband couldn’t stand it and demanded the tube be re-inserted. Kate recovered. She was worse off than Terri Schiavo – she was ventilator dependant, for example; Schivao could breathe. I am not persuaded that medical science can correctly determine that a patient is beyond hope, given the occasional “Oopsie!” in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/290 "2013-07-11T00:08:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m skeptical that you are particularly knowledgeable about how much pain a pregnant woman goes through, or how common particularly painful pregnancies are. What would you say to a pregnant woman who told you she was in serious discomfort, and occasionally, terrible pain, who wanted to abort? Do you think this woman should have the right to end her pregnancy? **Bricker** , you might have missed this post from the end of the last page. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/291 "2013-07-11T00:29:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m skeptical that you are particularly knowledgeable about how much pain a pregnant woman goes through, or how common particularly painful pregnancies are. What would you say to a pregnant woman who told you she was in serious discomfort, and occasionally, terrible pain, who wanted to abort? Do you think this woman should have the right to end her pregnancy? The problem with pain is that it’s hard to objectively quantify it. Even the classic “on a scale of 1 to 10,” does not guarantee that any two people’s scales are similarly calibrated. But I’d be happy to accept an abortion law that forbid abortion except in cases of legitimate medical complications, and then I’d accept serious discomfort, and occasional terrible pain as a valid medical complication – not because I believe the fetus in this case is any less human, but because I would rather save the majority of unborn children who would no longer be aborted under this plan. ---
**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 11, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/292 "2013-07-11T00:41:56Z")
I’m okay with Bricker’s standards, if doctors have 100% discretion in the matter and the determination of the presence of legitimate medical complications (and thus clearance to obtain an abortion with no other regulatory procedural hoop-jumps) can be done over via phone or e-mail. Okay, instant messaging, too. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/293 "2013-07-11T00:43:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. But in a society, we surrender some of our rights to self-determine such questions. Edward may believe he has the right to use deadly force to protect his car stereo from being stolen; society may (or may not) agree. > > So it’s not solely a question of what you believe – it’s which of your beliefs society is prepared to adopt as guidelines. I would submit that the answers that society would give to the questions I’ve asked you, as exemplified by my understanding of current law, would tend to favour my ideal more closely than yours. I do respect your principled positions. You are much more consistent in the application of your premise than other pro-lifers that I’ve spoken with. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/294 "2013-07-11T01:00:34Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > But a six day old human baby is relatively mindless compared to an adult. Do you think it is less immoral to kill the baby? equally? moreso? Surely there are other factors than their relative brain functions. A rock or even a cockroach has no significant consciousness. A baby is a furiously recording blank slate that probably experiences reality in a way we can’t possibly imagine. The line for me, at least, is at the mind. A rock or a fetus doesn’t have one. A baby does, perhaps as not as much as an adult, but it’s enough. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/295 "2013-07-11T02:22:30Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > A rock or even a cockroach has no significant consciousness. A baby is a furiously recording blank slate that probably experiences reality in a way we can’t possibly imagine. > > The line for me, at least, is at the mind. A rock or a fetus doesn’t have one. A baby does, perhaps as not as much as an adult, but it’s enough. Needless to say, I was on Pullet’s machine. I beg forgiveness. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/296 "2013-07-11T05:26:05Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > The line for me, at least, is at the mind. A rock or a fetus doesn’t have one. A baby does, perhaps as not as much as an adult, but it’s enough. A reasonable position… but of course a mind isn’t something that clearly and unambiguously doesn’t exist at 100 days of pregnancy, and then clearly and unambiguously DOES exist at 101 days of pregnancy. So even if everyone agreed with your general principle, that wouldn’t necessarily let us all come to agreement on what the law should be ☹ ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/297 "2013-07-11T07:55:48Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Ding ding ding. You’re entire core argument is a non sequitur. I don’t know what kind of GOTCHA! you think you’ve uncovered, because the only thing you’ve revealed is your failure to grasp the difference between rational, informed people consensually undergoing medical procedures or biological processes according to their own unique biology – and the state mandating they do so against their will. Hint: only one of those situations involves a violation of _body autonomy_. You know, _body autonomy_ the whole premise in the framing of the argument. _Body autonomy_, one of the core principles in Bioethics. So while I’m flattered you seem to think I came up with that argument all on my own will nilly, alas no, it’s the basis of many, many arguments in bioethics and abortion. Starting most notably over 40 years ago with Judith Jarvis Thomson’s _A Defense of Abortion_ (1971). One of the most widely published essays on the topic. > [@](#): > > In _A Defense of Abortion_, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment: > > “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” > > Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: \*\*the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person’s body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. \*\*“\*f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due.” > > For the same reason, Thomson says, \*\*abortion does not violate the fetus’s right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman’s body—to which it has no right. \*\*Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a ‘Good Samaritan’ who goes beyond her obligations \*\*\*\*\* emphasis mine And many papers have been published since, using very similar analogies (_Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate_, by Margaret Olivia Little (1999) is another good one) Nor was I the only one to pose such analogies in this thread. Now, I realize even reasonable people can disagree with such a position (and actually many papers have been published in response doing just that), but at least they can frame their disagreement in the actual logic of the argument, rather than just calling it “stupid” due to their own ignorance and inability to grasp the concepts being presented. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/298 "2013-07-11T09:31:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and potential for reproduction. How the hell does a zygote have a ‘reaction to stimuli’?? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/299 "2013-07-11T13:02:59Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Another question for Bricker: suppose a law was passed that was, utterly 100% clearly and directly, nothing more than something to make getting an abortion a hassle. IE, “applicants must get 10 different forms and fill them all out in number 2 pencil, not straying outside the prescribed areas…” etc etc. Would you support that law? Given that abortion is constitutionally legal in the US, is/should it be legal for lower jurisdictions such as states to put totally arbitrary restrictions in place to make it more difficult to get abortions? Does it matter in answering that question what the feelings of the majority of the populace of that jurisdiction believes? I don’t want to answer this question. But I will. I would acknowledge that the law was a totally arbitrary and transparent attempt to limit abortion, and would admit that as such, the law was ripe for challenge. But I’d probably support it being passed, understanding that I was supporting a cynical end-run around the system, but believing that the saving of lives was of enough value to justify the end-run. I don’t say I’d do this without conflict. I hate it when my opponents do stuff like this – but quite frankly, I hate it mostly because they fail to admit that this is their goal. At least, thinks I, I’d be willing to admit the pretextual nature of the law even as I supported it. And because I’m on the edge on this question, I suspect that a well-crafted argument could push me to the other side and make me withdraw such support. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/300 "2013-07-11T13:06:21Z")
> [@martu](#): > > How the hell does a zygote have a ‘reaction to stimuli’?? Same general way a bacterium does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=16)