# No, you asshole anti-abortion protestor. I do not want her to have an abortion@ **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 28, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624 "2010-04-28T14:31:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/261 "2010-05-05T17:24:21Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, I used the word quantitative purposefully. My point was that **there is an objective, scientific, observable difference between the two clumps of cells. I wasn’t trying to necessarily put a subjective value on either, but rather trying to emphasize why what argument doesn’t hold up from a scientific standpoint**. > > Granted, but if you want to put the word “might” into my sentence, it doesn’t really change my point at all: > > “…between something that eventually **might** become a viable human and something that never will.” If the bolded is your opinion, then from an objective, scientific opinion, you would have to concede that a zygote or early embryo clump of cells is much closer to a tumor in all respects of life than it is to a human person. As others have stated, most humanists put the moral judgment on what constitutes personage at the time of the abortion. A zygote, embryo or even early fetus, certainly doesn’t come close. The pro-life argument of giving special moral status to something simply because it has some potential to become a person not an objective, scientific argument but a metaphysical, subjective argument that requires some belief in destiny or something similar. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/262 "2010-05-05T19:18:47Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > If the bolded is your opinion, then from an objective, scientific opinion, you would have to concede that a zygote or early embryo clump of cells is much closer to a tumor in all respects of life than it is to a human person. As others have stated, most humanists put the moral judgment on what constitutes personage at the time of the abortion. A zygote, embryo or even early fetus, certainly doesn’t come close. No, I don’t have to concede that. The naked eye may say so, but it’s DNA says something far different. We are all what our DNA decided we were going to be, back when we were a tiny clump of cells that might have _looked_ like a tumor. > [@](#): > > The pro-life argument of giving special moral status to something simply because it has some potential to become a person not an objective, scientific argument but a metaphysical, subjective argument that requires some belief in destiny or something similar. That’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/263 "2010-05-05T19:52:06Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > We are all what our DNA decided we were going to be… This is not at all true. Yes, \*many \*of our characteristics are determined by our genes. However, others others have nothing to do with our genes at all (e.g. a human embryo exposed to the drug Thalidomide during early development will have characteristic limb malformations, regardless of its genes). And many, many more are the product of the \*combination \*of genes and environment (e.g., a woman may have a gene that makes her more likely to develop breast cancer, but that does not mean that she \*will \*develop breast cancer). ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/264 "2010-05-05T19:58:05Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > This is not at all true. Yes, \*many \*of our characteristics are determined by our genes. However, others others have nothing to do with our genes at all (e.g. a human embryo exposed to the drug Thalidomide during early development will have characteristic limb malformations, regardless of its genes). And many, many more are the product of the \*combination \*of genes and environment (e.g., a woman may have a gene that makes her more likely to develop breast cancer, but that does not mean that she \*will \*develop breast cancer). What does that have to do with whether we’re human beings or not? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/265 "2010-05-05T20:59:24Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, I don’t have to concede that. The naked eye may say so, but it’s DNA says something far different. We are all what our DNA decided we were going to be, back when we were a tiny clump of cells that might have _looked_ like a tumor. > > That’s absurd. I’m not talking from a perspective of ‘naked eye’. I’m talking about what is a cell and what is an organism that is called a person. Even defining a person is a philosophical definition. Taking it a step further and applying moral specialness to having a potential to be a person is meaningless in the science world. The DNA only tells you what type of organism it has the potential to become. However, it’s still a cell or clump of cells. A tumor also has human DNA in it. Saying it has human DNA means nothing. Human DNA is just a combination of codons and non-coding DNA sequence. Big deal. In fact, tumor cells have a lot in common with embryonic cells. That’s what makes them bad. So really, science can’t give you this kind of pro-life position all on it’s own. You have to start with the premise that “zygotes with potential to become human” has special status. Then you have to ask yourself why you think this has special moral status. Because it has a soul? Because of samsara (Buddhism)? Reincarnation? Don’t mess with Mother Nature? Boy, I sure would be pissed if I never got to be born? Honestly, I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/266 "2010-05-05T21:02:38Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, I used the word quantitative purposefully. My point was that there is an objective, scientific, observable difference between the two clumps of cells. I wasn’t trying to necessarily put a subjective value on either, but rather trying to emphasize why what argument doesn’t hold up from a scientific standpoint. > > Granted, but if you want to put the word “might” into my sentence, it doesn’t really change my point at all: > > “…between something that eventually **might** become a viable human and something that never will.” Well, then the same applies to every gamete. There’s a _quantitative_ difference in the odds of becoming a person for egg cell #297655 versus a ten-week embryo. Is menstruation murder? I really think you want to say qualitative; you sound less crazy that way, though I’d still disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/267 "2010-05-05T21:49:41Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Well, then the same applies to every gamete. There’s a _quantitative_ difference in the odds of becoming a person for egg cell #297655 versus a ten-week embryo. Is menstruation murder? It’s murder on my hips and lower back, does that count? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/268 "2010-05-05T22:04:33Z")
Thank you for making the thread less boring for a moment, **Freudian Slit**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/269 "2010-05-05T23:29:31Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > I think the borderline of viability is why abortions are restricted to before a certain date like they are now. If we develop artificial wombs that can grow a fetus from conception to birth, we’d have to re-visit abortion laws. In fact, if you could transplant a fetus from a woman to an artificial womb, abortions might become obsolete. If they could re-visit the 13 million kids living below the poverty line in the US at the same time, that’d be great. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/270 "2010-05-06T03:18:06Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Well, then the same applies to every gamete. There’s a _quantitative_ difference in the odds of becoming a person for egg cell #297655 versus a ten-week embryo. Is menstruation murder? > > I really think you want to say qualitative; you sound less crazy that way, though I’d still disagree. It’s people who compare zygotes to tumors who sound crazy. It’s perfectly clear that are not the same thing…anyone with the tiniest smattering of knowledge about biology understands that. What value one wants to place on it based on that knowledge is up to them, but in any case, the analogy is fairly weak. That was the only point I was trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/271 "2010-05-06T03:38:00Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I’m not talking from a perspective of ‘naked eye’. I’m talking about what is a cell and what is an organism that is called a person. Even defining a person is a philosophical definition. Taking it a step further and applying moral specialness to having a potential to be a person is meaningless in the science world. > > The DNA only tells you what type of organism it has the potential to become. However, it’s still a cell or clump of cells. A tumor also has human DNA in it. Saying it has human DNA means nothing. Human DNA is just a combination of codons and non-coding DNA sequence. Big deal. In fact, tumor cells have a lot in common with embryonic cells. That’s what makes them bad. It is of course true that tumor cells have human DNA (I just read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, BTW…an excellent read). There’s still a specific difference between a tumor in which cells are merely replicating themselves and not specializing and developing into an actual organism. > [@](#): > > So really, science can’t give you this kind of pro-life position all on it’s own. You have to start with the premise that “zygotes with potential to become human” has special status. Then you have to ask yourself why you think this has special moral status. Because it has a soul? Because of samsara (Buddhism)? Reincarnation? Don’t mess with Mother Nature? Boy, I sure would be pissed if I never got to be born? Honestly, I don’t get it. No, I agree that science can’t do it’s on its own. Personally, my stance evolved from the fact that going backward from birth, I can’t find a dividing line between “person” and “not a person” that to me makes sense, other than conception. So, yes, that is somewhat subjective. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/272 "2010-05-06T04:37:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Personally, my stance evolved from the fact that going backward from birth, I can’t find a dividing line between “person” and “not a person” that to me makes sense, other than conception. So, yes, that is somewhat subjective. I can. It’s when the person who owns the uterus decides either “_This thing growing inside me is not something I want to continue hosting_,” or “_This thing growing inside me is a baby that I want to give birth to._” ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/273 "2010-05-06T04:58:01Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I can. It’s when the person who owns the uterus decides either “_This thing growing inside me is not something I want to continue hosting_,” or “_This thing growing inside me is a baby that I want to give birth to._” Uh, ok. Good for you. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/274 "2010-05-06T05:14:36Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > \ Personally, my stance evolved from the fact that going backward from birth, I can’t find a dividing line between “person” and “not a person” that to me makes sense, other than conception. So, yes, that is somewhat subjective. It is subjective, no doubt. I don’t have a problem with defining anything that can’t live on its own as not a person. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/275 "2010-05-06T14:27:25Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > \*\*It’s people who compare zygotes to tumors who sound crazy. \*\* It’s perfectly clear that are not the same thing…anyone with the tiniest smattering of knowledge about biology understands that. What value one wants to place on it based on that knowledge is up to them, but in any case, the analogy is fairly weak. That was the only point I was trying to make. Again, no. Maybe the danger is people who have just the ‘tiniest smattering of knowledge about biology’. People who have a bit more than the tiniest smattering would know that, for example, a teratoma has a hell of a lot more in common with an early embryo than an early embryo has with a human baby. In fact, people who do research on this have found that embryonic cell transplantation sometimes results in a teratoma. What’s a teratoma? It’s a tumor that originally came from either germline or early embryo cells with the potential to form tissues and organs. Did you know that you can make a parthenogenic mouse that can grown into adulthood with just oocytes and no daddy in sight? Not hard to do at all once we learned a bit about imprinting. So really, nothing special, biologically, about a zygote. Other cancer cells are like zygotes and early embryo cells because they’re not differentiated and divide. They’re motile so that they can metastasize. They can move into certain types of tissues and take residence using the same signal transduction pathways as normal developing cells. In fact, many cancer cells can even be differentiated under certain circumstances. All you need to do is fix the mutation that made them cancerous in the first place or use drugs that alter their epigenetic state. So when you know a lot more about the biology, you’ll start to think that the cancer cell-zygote analogy is anything but weak. Ok, sorry for boring anyone who reads this. I’ll shut up now. :o ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/276 "2010-05-06T14:31:40Z")
Not boring; between your clear writing here and **El\_Kabong** and **LonghornDave** in the BP thread, I’ve learned a lot this week, most on one read-through. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/277 "2010-05-06T15:53:48Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I suggest then you have a look in the mirror and decide if you loathe yourself, since my holding different opinions than you do does not make me stupid (or vapid or a twat). And, again, “I hate stupidity” doesn’t answer the original question. No, you being a vapid twat is what makes you a vapid twat. There are plenty of people on this board I’ve disagreed with to whom I’ve never applied that perjorative. As far as my answer to your question goes, apparently you’re \*so \*fucking thick that I need to spell it out for you. Going through an experience you don’t care to repeat more than once because you made the same mistake again and again (which is how I was \*originally \*reading **FGIE** ’s story) is _stupid_. Get it now, tardface? > [@](#): > > As to abortions being a reasonably traumatic experience for many women - so? Are you again making the (stupid) assumption that abortion must have been traumatic for all of these women? No, I was reading FGIE’s story, wherein it was clear that in at least one of the cases, the woman wasn’t sure that she wanted an abortion. And I never said that an abortion was mentally traumatic for \*all \*women. It is, however, a medical procedure that carries a certain amount of \*physical \*risk for \*any \*woman who undergoes it. > [@](#): > > That is a decision you have made. You do not have the right to impose that decision upon anyone else. No, it’s _science_, you ignorant sow. The problem is that \*you \*seem to be attaching special relevance to whether a fetus is alive or not, whereas I’m not. I’m just stating a fact. I’d love to see you try to argue that there’s no difference between a dead fetus and a live one. (Protip: If the dead one isn’t expelled from the mother’s body, you’re probably going to want to go in there and remove it.) Do you also have to convince yourself that a mosquito isn’t alive before you can smack one when it lands on your arm? :rolleyes: As I said, and you apparently skimmed over in your rush to tell me how wrong I am, the question is not whether or not a fetus is \*alive \*('cause it is), the question is whether or not it’s a _person_. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > It’s murder on my hips and lower back, does that count? :rimshot: ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/278 "2010-05-06T17:09:27Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Again, no. Maybe the danger is people who have just the ‘tiniest smattering of knowledge about biology’. People who have a bit more than the tiniest smattering would know that, for example, a teratoma has a hell of a lot more in common with an early embryo than an early embryo has with a human baby. In fact, people who do research on this have found that embryonic cell transplantation sometimes results in a teratoma. What’s a teratoma? It’s a tumor that originally came from either germline or early embryo cells with the potential to form tissues and organs. Did you know that you can make a parthenogenic mouse that can grown into adulthood with just oocytes and no daddy in sight? Not hard to do at all once we learned a bit about imprinting. So really, nothing special, biologically, about a zygote. > > Other cancer cells are like zygotes and early embryo cells because they’re not differentiated and divide. They’re motile so that they can metastasize. They can move into certain types of tissues and take residence using the same signal transduction pathways as normal developing cells. In fact, many cancer cells can even be differentiated under certain circumstances. All you need to do is fix the mutation that made them cancerous in the first place or use drugs that alter their epigenetic state. > > So when you know a lot more about the biology, you’ll start to think that the cancer cell-zygote analogy is anything but weak. > > Ok, sorry for boring anyone who reads this. I’ll shut up now. :o Ok! Go on head and shut up, then. You did your duty for science today and dropped some heavy jewels on my head, at least. I will file your post away in my head and use that knowledge when I need to educate a fool. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/279 "2010-05-06T22:21:02Z")
> [@descamisado](#): > > Not boring; between your clear writing here and **El\_Kabong** and **LonghornDave** in the BP thread, I’ve learned a lot this week, most on one read-through. tanks! [QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated] Ok! Go on head and shut up, then. You did your duty for science today and dropped some heavy jewels on my head, at least. I will file your post away in my head and use that knowledge when I need to educate a fool. [/QUOTE] Well, someone needs to stick up for poor 'ole science. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624/280 "2010-05-07T04:09:01Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I can. It’s when the person who owns the uterus decides either “_This thing growing inside me is not something I want to continue hosting_” Well, it’s not a website either. 🙂 And as a pathologist who deals with teratomas on an occasional basis (“Take that, teratoma! Back! Back!”), the comparison with fertilized eggs/embryos doesn’t strike me as something you’d want to inject into the abortion debate. Pro-abortion rights as I am, I think there’s little to be gained with such comparisons. Embryos have human potential. But they aren’t human beings according to what I think are reasonable criteria. Teratomas have only the potential to grow into bigger teratomas\*, and in unusual cases to become malignant. \*I’ve considered writing a Stephen King-esque short story (“The Terrortoma of Tinsel Town”) in which a teratoma escapes confinement, grows to giant size and oozes around Hollywood on its pseudopods, drowning its celebrity victims in a sea of loathsome keratinous goo. I’ll entertain offers for the movie rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-asshole-anti-abortion-protestor-i-do-not-want-her-to-have-an-abortion/537624.md?page=15)