# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/141 "2013-07-09T19:38:28Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > No women are not born pregnant, they are born with the child-bearing _capability_. Their status of ‘child-bearer’ :rolleyes: is by no means a biological inevitably. Some women never have children. Pregnancy isn’t an idiopathic condition, unlike testicular cancer. Women are sick and tired of being defined by their reproductive capabilities. They are equal citizens, not vessels of procreation. But by all means continue to pontificate about basic biology defining women’s status and the stupidity of other people. It’s not like female biology has ever been used as a reason to limit women’s social status/power before. Like it or not, females as a sex do have the biological inevitability of being the child bearing sex. Any negative connotations that you associate with that are your own. Females and males both by definition are defined by their reproductive capabilities. Nothing about that means that all women must have children or be vessels of procreation, that they are not equal citizens, that they have limited social status or power. Your argument is stupid because you are criticizing people for targeting women when addressing pregnancy related issues. No shit. They’re the only ones capable of being pregnant. It isn’t remotely the same as forcing someone to donate an organ against their will. Your stupid argument equating the two and then continuing on to state it as an example of women’s unequal standing in our society is idiotic. This is just an incredibly poorly thought out analogy, and it seems to be the basis for your entire argument. It is massively more logical to just simply state that you believe it is immoral to force a woman to complete a pregnancy against her will. Laws protecting public lactation target women. It isn’t because we hold women to a higher standing than men. It’s because of biology. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/142 "2013-07-09T19:42:46Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I happen to agree with you… but I feel like that’s just one of many somewhat arbitrary lines that occur during pregnancy, and one that I pick because I have to pick SOMETHING, because it’s clear to me that aborting a one-day-before-birth baby is nearly identical to murdering a baby, while aborting a one-month embryo is not, so there has to be a line. That is, you seem to think that the right and wrong of it all is pretty cut and dried, and I’d say that I end up in the same position that you do, but because it’s the best position I can come up with in a complicated and gray situation. I agree. There is no simple right or wrong answer. But legally, there has to be cut off, unless we want the government involved in our most private, intimate issues. The government weighing in at fetal viability seems like the best place. I personally would like to see all abortions happen in the first trimester, because it’s safer for women, less complicated, more affordable with less trauma all around. That being said, there will always be some need for later term abortions (health of the mother, fetal abnormality). What I would like to see is unrestricted access to first trimester abortions, so that if a woman is pregnant in the second trimester it is because she actually wants to be. Not because unnecessary obstacles are legislated in order to prevent her from carrying out her decision in a timely manner. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/143 "2013-07-09T19:53:00Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > …Not because unnecessary obstacles are legislated in order to prevent her from carrying out her decision in a timely manner. Have they even been entirely honest about that? Seems to me they hem and haw and try to present some other sort of justification, but won’t come right out and 'fess up that they are looking to make it more difficult to get something that they don’t have the power to forbid. It’s like they wanted to re-assert Prohibition, but can’t, so they pass laws saying, sure, you can buy alcohol, provided you buy it during an elephant stampede in a blizzard on the Forth of July… ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/144 "2013-07-09T19:55:08Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Like it or not, females as a sex do have the biological inevitability of being the child bearing sex. No, women are not inevitable child-bearers. Pregnancy does not occur spontaneously like puberty. Many women choose not or can not have children. It is a biological capability, not inevitability. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Your argument is stupid because you are criticizing people for targeting women when addressing pregnancy related issues. This isn’t my argument at all, the stupidity you keep yammering about is completely your own. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/145 "2013-07-09T20:13:55Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > No, women are not inevitable child-bearers. Pregnancy does not occur spontaneously like puberty. Many women choose not or can not have children. It is a biological capability, not inevitability. No shit. I did not say they were. In fact, I think I specifically distinguished between the female sex and individual females. You are deliberately being obtuse and misrepresenting me. Because of our biology, as a sex women are the child bearers and men are not. As far as I know, no one has proposed any pregnancy related laws on women who are not pregnant. Therefore, your crazy strawman argument about not all women being pregnant (by choice or otherwise) has no bearing on the abortion debate whatsoever. Essentially, what is your point in yammering on about this? > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > This isn’t my argument at all, the stupidity you keep yammering about is completely your own. Let’s see. Why would I ever think you are doing that? [QUOTE=EverwonderWhy] Yes, for me it is clear, either mandate blood/tissue/organ donation of ALL people, including corpses, or you can not mandate continued pregnancy and childbirth of pregnant women without reducing them to involuntary biological incubators. [/QUOTE] Oh that’s right. Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what you are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/146 "2013-07-09T20:37:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > That’s a poor analogy, because both our ethical and legal systems recognize a huge distinction between compelling someone to begin doing something and compelling them to continue doing something. For instance it’s much harder to evict someone than it is to refuse to rent to them in the first place. And you’re permitted to walk past a drowning person without rendering aid, but you can’t begin to help them and then stop without incurring liability. ---
**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 9, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/147 "2013-07-09T20:41:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And you’re permitted to walk past a drowning person without rendering aid, but you can’t begin to help them and then stop without incurring liability. What if they grab you, putting you at risk of being pulled under? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/148 "2013-07-09T20:45:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What if they grab you, putting you at risk of being pulled under? That would be a defense. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/149 "2013-07-09T20:45:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And you’re permitted to walk past a drowning person without rendering aid, but you can’t begin to help them and then stop without incurring liability. In the mean time, can you respond to my post #99 when you get a chance? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/150 "2013-07-09T20:55:40Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I wish you guys would stop making me support and defend Bricker, but while I’m strongly pro-choice and believe that he is wrong about the issue as a whole, he’s clearly on the logically correct side of many of the exchanges going on in this thread. That is, it certainly the case that a lot of people are making absolute statements like “a fetus is not a person”, or “No person has the right to lay claim or authority over another person’s biological processes” as if they were established scientific fact that Bricker was ignorantly or stubbornly ignoring, when in fact they are not. Abortion is a lot of things but one thing it is NOT is some black and white issue where it’s just utterly morally and ethically clear that abortion is completely 100% a medical procedure exactly like any other with no further implications. I’m sorry I missed this post before!! **Max** , thank you so much for posting this. It’s very frustrating to wonder if the logical arguments simply aren’t recognized, or people are ignoring the logical victory because they simply know if their hearts they’re right. > [@](#): > > **Bricker** : Do you consider abortion to be murder? Just as bad as “real” murder? That is, do you think that a college student who has a failed condom and gets a first-trimester abortion is morally equivalent to someone who gets a gun and puts it to the head of another adult human being and looks them in the eye and pulls the trigger, not in self defense at all? Do you think abortion providers who might perform dozens of abortions a week are morally equivalent to, I dunno, concentration camp guards or something? If so, if you really think that there are that many people running around in the US who are that evil, how can you possibly stand it? Yes, I think it’s murder, in my personal technical sense, but it’s absolutely NOT as bad as what you’re calling “real” murder. The key difference is that the vast majority of folks who get abortions do not regard the fetus as a human being, and the law is solidly on their side in this regard. So someone who procures an abortion has every right to believe she is doing something legally permissible and morally acceptable. I disagree with that latter conclusion, of course, but can’t call it objectively wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/151 "2013-07-09T21:10:20Z")
Yet you have no problem with legislative masquerades, pretending to care about the health of the mother while harassing and obstructing an entirely legal option. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/152 "2013-07-09T21:11:03Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > You are deliberately being obtuse and misrepresenting me. Pot meet kettle. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Because of our biology, as a sex women are the child bearers and men are not. Women have the _capability_. Unlike animals, biology is no longer human destiny. You are the one adamantly defining women by their reproductive capabilities as the ‘child bearing sex’. Outside of zoology or religious fundamentalism, that is rarely used in modern society as a definition of women. Again, since not all women bear children and the ones who do are only actively pregnant or nursing for a small fraction of their life span - what are women when they are not actively ‘child-bearing’? How are men defined? The ‘ejaculatory sex’? How about people are people, regardless of their biological sex, entitled to equal rights. No, as a society we no longer define people by the reproductive organs or capabilities. Biological sex, is certainly an important characteristic,\* but one of many\* that make up a person’s social demographic, as well as their medical demographic. Defining women by their reproductive organs/capabilities has long been used as a tool of oppression, why women shouldn’t have the vote, be in the workplace, go to college or deserve equal pay for equal work, etc. Defining women as the ‘child bearing sex’, is an extremely poor definition, if not out right offensive. Comparing mandatory continued pregnancy and childbirth to people consensually undergoing medical procedures according to their biological need is a total non sequitur. The state is not trying to compel pap smears, prostate exams, testicular cancer, (your ridiculous analogies) or ejaculation, sperm production, sperm harvesting, etc, but trying to mandate a biological process of pregnant women. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/153 "2013-07-09T22:09:18Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Women have the _capability_. Unlike animals, biology is no longer human destiny. You are the one adamantly defining women by their reproductive capabilities as the ‘child bearing sex’. Outside of zoology or religious fundamentalism, that is rarely used in modern society as a definition of women. What are you going on about this craziness for? You are once again misrepresenting me. Have I said anything about women being born pregnant or whatever you are trying to claim? I am defining women by their reproductive capabilities in a thread talking about sexual reproduction; it’s sort of fucking relevant here. > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Again, since not all women bear children and the ones who do are only actively pregnant or nursing for a small fraction of their life span - what are women when they are not actively ‘child-bearing’? How are men defined? The ‘ejaculatory sex’? How about people are people, regardless of their biological sex, entitled to equal rights. Again, you are being obtuse. In the context of a discussion of aborting pregnancies and why you think women are being singled out, it seems fairly relevant to bring up the sexual reproductive capabilities of people. Jesus Christ, what is your problem here? Let people be people, regardless of biologic sex? I’d agree with you if we were talking about any other random topic, but we’re specifically talking about women’s pregnancies. It’s sort of a discussion topic where the sexual reproductive differences is important. > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > No, as a society we no longer define people by the reproductive organs or capabilities. Biological sex, is certainly an important characteristic,\* but one of many\* that make up a person’s social demographic, as well as their medical demographic. Yes, exactly. It’s an important characteristic at certain times. When discussing sexual reproduction is exactly one of those specific times. > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Defining women by their reproductive organs/capabilities has long been used as a tool of oppression, why women shouldn’t have the vote, be in the workplace, go to college or deserve equal pay for equal work, etc. Defining women as the ‘child bearing sex’, is an extremely poor definition, if not out right offensive. Comparing mandatory continued pregnancy and childbirth to people consensually undergoing medical procedures according to their biological need is a total non sequitur. The state is not trying to compel pap smears, prostate exams, testicular cancer, (your ridiculous analogies) or ejaculation, sperm production, sperm harvesting, etc, but trying to mandate a biological process of pregnant women. Wait, just a minute. My irony meter is about to explode. Can I repeat some of this again? > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Comparing mandatory continued pregnancy and childbirth to people consensually undergoing medical procedures according to their biological need is a total non sequitur. Ding ding ding. You’re entire core argument is a non sequitur. Let’s re-read your own words again. > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > For me, yes, unless you can legally justify the mandatory use of another person’s body and biological processes against their will and mandate this of ALL people, not just pregnant women – then you have no argument. So far, all I hear is how this should just only be mandated of pregnant women. NO, unacceptable. That speaks volumes about women’s equal status in society. Comparing the unique situation of a woman’s pregnancy to other procedures like blood transfusion or organ donation like you have continuously done, is absurd. Stating that it is immoral to force a woman to complete a pregnancy against her will stands on its own. I think many people against abortion rights would even agree; they just weigh the immorality of that versus aborting a fetus differently. To overkill this, you say outlawing abortions is equivalent to forcing people to donate organs. That this speaks to our disregard of women in this society. If we disregard women so much then why don’t we harvest their organs involuntarily? If you think our society just thinks of women as these breeding sacks of organs, why is it that abortions is the one and only way that we show this disregard? Seems to me that we could save a lot of the more highly valued men’s lives if we could just do this totally morally equivalent act. We need organs pretty bad. We’re in short supply of different types of blood. Why aren’t people calling for this? ---
**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 9, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/154 "2013-07-09T22:18:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That would be a defense. Okay, what if, in their thrashing, they forced an inflatable life preserver into your body and began expanding it, causing considerable discomfort and possible significant injury or death? Absurd question on its face, I’m sure, but if we’re going to analogize, we may as well make an analogy as close to the actual and unique and challenging circumstances of pregnancy as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/155 "2013-07-09T23:34:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And you’re permitted to walk past a drowning person without rendering aid, but you can’t begin to help them and then stop without incurring liability. But you need not endanger yourself completing the rescue. As carrying a pregnancy to term does involve a danger to the mother doesn’t she have the option to act to remove that danger to herself? ---
**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, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/156 "2013-07-10T01:51:19Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Co-opting of another person’s organs without their consent should never be justified for any reason. > > (see, I can play this game too! wheeee!) :dubious: Again?! Look, I told you, I’m sorry I didn’t ask you first, I’m sorry I didn’t sterilize my Bowie knife and for the infection and everything, and that I didn’t know about your chloroform allergy, but I **needed** that kidney! And it was delicious! ---
**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, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/157 "2013-07-10T04:55:07Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Follow the money, indeed: [Rick Perry’s sister may personally profit from Texas abortion clinics closing](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221712/-Follow-the-Money-Rick-Perry-Abortion-Edition). She’s the VP of United Surgical Partners International, which runs the estimated 5 clinics that will be able to remain open after the bill passes. I guess that’s one way to eliminate the competition. What? Don’t tell me that Perry would use his position to help his friends and family make a profit! ::cough cough Gardasil cough cough:: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/158 "2013-07-10T05:05:29Z")
Hardly necessary. Gov Perry has demonstrated a phenomenal intuition when it comes to profitable real estate investments. ---
**Author:** ![fudrucker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fudrucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fudrucker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/159 "2013-07-10T06:33:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > So if that baby has a genetic defect and needs a kidney ASAP, and you’re the only available donor within range, you should be strapped to a gurney and operated on without your consent? lol people have rights. including babies. so now you are the arbitrator of who lives and who dies? sounds kinda nazi to me. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813/160 "2013-07-10T09:59:35Z")
> [@fudrucker](#): > > lol people have rights. including babies. so now you are the arbitrator of who lives and who dies? sounds kinda nazi to me. Yes absolutely right people, of which babies are a subset of, have rights. Here’s the thing though - fetuses are not people, they are parasites living at the whim of their host. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-stupid-do-these-anti-choicers-think-we-are/662813.md?page=9)