# 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:** 16
**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, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/301 "2013-07-11T13:10:33Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > 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. Sure. So if I can step in and take a stab at it, the crucial difference is that you owe no duty that society is prepared to recognize to the violinist. If you saw the violinist wandering dazed in the street (due to the buildup of toxins from his ailment, perhaps) you are free to disregard him and go about your business, and society does not impose any particular duty to assist him. But if your infant child were wandering about the street, it would be a criminal violation to fail to assist your child. Why the difference? Because society is willing to impose, upon the biological parent, duties that do not inure to the random passerby. ---
**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, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/302 "2013-07-11T13:17:17Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > An arm is human. I can chop off my arm if I want. What’s so different about a fetus? Your arm is unambiguously yours, with a genetic makeup that is, uniquely, you. (Although I would point that society is actually prepared to step in and prevent you from chopping off your arm, so even this example fails). The fetus is not. The fetus is, genetically, a separate human being. Unless you have mastered self-reproduction via parthenogenesis[sup]\*[/sup]… but I can’t say that here, lest I violate the rule concerning a mention of other posters going to fuck themselves. - Yes, I know, not a precisely accurate summary of parthenogenesis. I went for the humor. Sue me. ---
**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, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/303 "2013-07-11T13:25:54Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > A child with their whole life ahead of them is worth more than a prisoner on death row. They’re both human beings. Killing the prisoner won’t being back his victims or save any more lives. Killing the prisoner is vengeance, bloodlust, and nothing more. It’s not an effort to save a life - at most, it’s an effort to save money. I would argue that an abortion procured as a result of legitimate fear of medical complications in the pregnancy makes MORE sense than killing a prisoner on death row. And when you add in the depressing fact that at least eighteen cases [we know of](http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/) involving a prisoner on death row actually involved a person wrongly convicted and later exonerated via DNA testing, it’s pretty clear that the mere appelation of “prisoner on death row” is absolutely insufficient to allow anyone to conclude that we’re talking about a human being that deserves to die. We kill prisoners on death row because we allow ourselves to disregard the value of human life. Period. ---
**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, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/304 "2013-07-11T13:27:29Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > 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. Thank you. And I hope, in some future discussion, you won’t paint pro-lifers as being universally inconsistent on these points. Some are. Not all of us. ---
**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, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/305 "2013-07-11T13:50:36Z")
I daresay the best argument agasint arbitrary hoop-jumps is that there’s no end to them. Once it becomes okay to impose a useless time-wasting task in order to discourage something (because the political will to simply outlaw it is lacking), it’s okay to add another, and another, and then it becomes a competition as to who can be the most righteous, with anyone who thinks things have gone too far dismissed as a backslider or traitor or such. [ul] [li]Arbitrary task #1 added.[/li] [li]The disliked behaviour drops slightly, does not stop.[/li] [li]Arbitrary task #2 added, since #1 obviously didn’t get the point across.[/li] [li]The disliked behaviour drops slightly more, does not stop, because it turns out to many people, the behaviour is very important to them.[/li] [li]Arbitrary task #3 added. \*That’ll \*show them![/li] [li]The disliked behaviour drops more, but does not stop, and by now workarounds have been found for Tasks #1 and #2, because (still) it turns out to many people, the behaviour is very important to them.[/li] [li]Arbitrary task #4 added, with the intent of being particularly onerous.[/li] [li]People who supported (or were at least willing to tolerate) Tasks #1 and #2 express concerns about the impositions of #4 and the costs of enforcing it. Accusations begin within the group of lack of resolve. People who supported #2, once thought of as extreme, are now relative moderates because they don’t support #4. Phrases like TINO (Tasker In Name Only) are coined and thrown around. People who don’t support more regulation get accused of _loving_ the disliked behaviour, of secretly practicing it themselves. A few Taskers get embroiled in scandals, uncovered by the gossip-hungry press, who just _love_ stories of hypocrisy.[/li] [li]Social costs of enforcing #1 through #4 increase. People who were once honest are now criminals. More law-enforcement resources are diverted. Someone charismatic is arrested or killed, gets public sympathy. Officials are corrupted into selectively applying the laws (or not applying them at all). The laws are increasingly seen as a burden and nuisance (which was the intent) and ignored (which was not).[/li][/ul] I suggest that someone who thinks adding an arbitrary regulation is an okay means to get a desired end consider the people who would love to add a _thousand_ arbitrary regulations of increasing harshness for the same goal. It’s tempting to put barriers in the paths of your opponents, but consider what \*your own side \*might do, if there were no barriers to putting barriers. ---
**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, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/306 "2013-07-11T14:06:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Same general way a bacterium does. I do not think this is true, a zygote cannot respond to external stimuli. So cite? ---
**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, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/307 "2013-07-11T14:16:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thank you. And I hope, in some future discussion, you won’t paint pro-lifers as being universally inconsistent on these points. Some are. Not all of us. As I don’t recall ever painting pro-lifers in such a universal fashion, I share your hope that I don’t start. ---
**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, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/308 "2013-07-11T14:25:24Z")
> [@martu](#): > > I do not think this is true, a zygote cannot respond to external stimuli. So cite? [Sure. A zygote responds to the occurrence and frequency of cytoplasmic Ca[sup]2+[/sup] oscillations.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334266/) ---
**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, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/309 "2013-07-11T14:34:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Most of the pro-choice crowd (from what I can tell) don’t believe that this WI law will reduce the number of abortions due to the mother seeing an ultrasound, but because some women will not be able get an ultrasound due to travel/expense/other difficulties. So most of us see this as a blatant, cynical end-run around the system. ---
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/310 "2013-07-11T14:42:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Most of the pro-choice crowd (from what I can tell) don’t believe that this WI law will reduce the number of abortions due to the mother seeing an ultrasound, but because some women will not be able get an ultrasound due to travel/expense/other difficulties. So most of us see this as a blatant, cynical end-run around the system. On what basis do you (if indeed you share this belief) conclude that the major effect of the law will be inability to get an ultrasound? The women are given a free ultrasound; what expense is involved? ---
**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, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/311 "2013-07-11T14:43:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Sure. A zygote responds to the occurrence and frequency of cytoplasmic Ca[sup]2+[/sup] oscillations.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334266/) Your Google fu has failed you, that experiment involved oocytes not zygotes, so cite? Or, at this point, you could admit that your definition of personhood includes an unknown, undetectable entity you would call a soul. It would be the honest approach. Functioning brains are what make people, well, people. It is what we value most in people is it not? Legs, arms, kidneys even hearts can be replaced but brains? No brains make people, without one you are not a person. ---
**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, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/312 "2013-07-11T14:51:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On what basis do you (if indeed you share this belief) conclude that the major effect of the law will be inability to get an ultrasound? The women are given a free ultrasound; what expense is involved? Can you show where the women are getting a free ultrasound? The law mandates that a list of places that offer a free ultrasound be provided but does not mandate that such places exist or are located in every location. ---
**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, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/313 "2013-07-11T14:55:42Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Your Google fu has failed you, that experiment involved oocytes not zygotes, so cite? Did you read the study, or just the title? > [@](#): > > The studies of early mouse, hamster, and human embryos have established some of the limits of light tolerance of developing zygotes. It is evident that human embryos can develop normally, to blastocyst or even to full term, when exposed to light for \<1 second every few minutes for periods of several days (25, 26). To use our method of monitoring cytoplasmic movements as an indicator of successful fertilization **or development potential, it will probably be necessary to expose human zygotes to light every 10 seconds for several hours**. However, it remains to be determined whether this level of light exposure will have any detrimental effect on the rate of embryo development. > [@](#): > > Functioning brains are what make people, well, people. It is what we value most in people is it not? Legs, arms, kidneys even hearts can be replaced but brains? No brains make people, without one you are not a person. I don’t agree with you. ---
**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, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/314 "2013-07-11T14:56:44Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Can you show where the women are getting a free ultrasound? The law mandates that a list of places that offer a free ultrasound be provided but does not mandate that such places exist or are located in every location. Are you asking for a copy of the list? ---
**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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/315 "2013-07-11T15:02:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you read the study, or just the title? I missed that bit, ignorance fought thank you. > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with you. Because of the soul right? Come on just admit it. ---
**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, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/316 "2013-07-11T15:12:46Z")
> [@martu](#): > > I missed that bit, ignorance fought thank you. No problem – and it wasn’t “Google-fu,” but “PubMed-Fu.” 🙂 I think Google is an awesome tool, but for a question like that, it seems to produce more noise than signal. > [@](#): > > Because of the soul right? Come on just admit it. I certainly agree that a soul is involved; I don’t base my determination on the presence of a soul. ---
**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, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/317 "2013-07-11T15:20:27Z")
> [@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? So, I answered this question. Now one for you: In the various threads about the prosecution of George Zimmerman for shooting and killing Teryvon Martin, several posters have expressed sentiments similar to the following: > [@State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1554): > > The ‘few months to a year’ in jail is a lot shorter than the time that Martin will be dead, which is FOREVER. > > You want to carry a gun around, and have the ‘right’ to exercise mind-numbingly poor judgement that results in you shooting someone dead? Sorry dude, you absolutely should end up in court. > > I don’t think he’s guilty of 2nd degree murder, but reckless homicide / manslaughter or some other charge? Abso-fucking-lutely. Either way, I still expect him to walk because of how skewed the law is (and how mind-blowingly bad the prosecution was \). > > So congratulations; he won’t spend the next 20 years in jail. I’m not going to lose a wink of sleep over any jail time he serves or any legal bills he has. Small price to pay for the ‘right’ to play wannabe-cop. This seems to embody the same sort of attitude: I don’t care what the actual law says; because I am convinced of the wrongness of Zimmerman’s actions, I am willing to see the law ignored to impose some consequence on him, even acknowledging that the consequence is not mandated by the law. Do you agree? ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/318 "2013-07-11T15:22:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On what basis do you (if indeed you share this belief) conclude that the major effect of the law will be inability to get an ultrasound? The women are given a free ultrasound; what expense is involved? Well, it’s costing _somebody_ something. If the woman isn’t charged directly, doesn’t the clinic have to pay for it, which they pass onto patients in higher bills generally? Is there a provision in the law allowing the clinic to bill Medicare for pre-abortion ultrasounds, or would that be government funding of abortion? Further, I trust getting an ultrasound is not an instant process. The woman’s _time_ is being wasted, as well as that of whoever is operating the ultrasound machine. I suggest that if this is important to pro-life groups, let _them_ pay for it and offer it as a free service to pregnant women. ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/319 "2013-07-11T15:22:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On what basis do you (if indeed you share this belief) conclude that the major effect of the law will be inability to get an ultrasound? The women are given a free ultrasound; what expense is involved? Because many women don’t live nearby these free ultrasound locations, and many other day-to-day difficulties can pop up making it difficult for some women to get an extra, unnecessary medical procedure, even a free one. ---
**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, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/320 "2013-07-11T15:25:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, I answered this question. And I tried to supply a “well-crafted argument” against arbitrary procedural barriers in post #305, albeit as a general comment and not specific to abortion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=17)