Me? It’s not just me. I’m not the one asserting my own opinion is fact.
I’m asserting that this particular opinion – the wisdom of requiring ultrasound before an abortion – is shared by the legislature of Wisconsin.
You’re the one typing out these declarative rules as though you have the power to compel belief in them.
This is very interesting. I’m not trying to corner you, by the way, but hopefully you better understand one of the reasons that many pro-choice people have- many of us believe that outlawing abortion would result in lots more dead women who try to get back-alley abortions- obviously a demand exists and probably always will, so basic econ tells us that this demand will be met one way or the other.
Do you feel this way because of the ratios I posited? I’m curious because by your answer, you seem to feel that saving the lives of two fetuses/unborn/whatever is not worth the death of one pregnant woman. Would a ratio of 4 to 1 change your mind? What ratio of saved babies / dead pregnant women would be a satisfactory result so you would be OK once again with banning abortion?
My response was to the quote above. Can you see the big difference between “he executed” and having a soapbox?
I was responding to this question:
So I guess I’d want to know how you answered the same question. You asked me “…even if it meant that the parent would die…” but then seem stunned that I replied with a similar absolute.
Your question assumed that the death pf the parent was a given. Didn’t it? Why, then, do you leap on me for offering the same kind of assumption as though it’s a fatal flaw in the plan?
What I’m taking this post to mean is that if Rick Perry is justified in creating onerous, unnecessary regulations concerning abortion, then DC’s onerous, unnecessary (and no longer in existence) regulations about gun ownership are also justified.
My, this doesn’t sound like a position that you’d usually take.
But as I noted, those extreme gun registration requirements have been overturned by the DC Council and the Metropolitan Police, so that even someone with as little ability to follow directions as Emily Miller (I hope for her sake that she’s never tried to do her own taxes, get a driver licence, or applied for a mortgage) can own firearms in DC. So, by the transmutable properties of justifying onerous regulations, I guess that means that Texas’ proposed regulations on abortions are no longer justified.
Shucks.
It’s never going to happen. All you do when you outlaw abortion is get illegal abortions and maimed and dead women. Most rational people simply don’t want that. I really wish you’d admit that and get over it.
I don’t like abortion.
But I know the feeling of a missed period when you don’t want to be pregnant and the unreal dread that comes with it. It’s a horrifying feeling that does not deserve fatuous platitudes and empty, hollow reassurances that mean very little to the person involved. I am pro-choice, Bricker, not because I don’ t value life or children. I have two I adore very much. I am pro-choice because I recognize that pregnancy and childrearing are so important (and frankly so very, very hard!) they should only be done by as much as possible under as close to the ideal circumstances as possible.
A failed birth control pill or a broken condom, let alone someone else’s religious beliefs that have nothing to do with your own, should not be the dictates of those circumstances.
In my understanding, the vast majority of pregnancies lead to successful births with no complications for the mother.
If I were to learn that the ratio were even one more mother’s death for ten unborn children saved, I’d reconsider the issue.
I am simply pointing out to you that pregnancy is not a risk free venture. Not only that but it carries serious risks for a significant number of people who get pregnant and causes a few hundred deaths a year. You have yet to admit these facts.
So basically it’s just a numbers game for you. You are willing to sacrifice a certain number of women as long as you believe you can save more lives from making abortion illegal. Exactly how many women a year are you willing to sacrifice? Please give us some hard numbers. How many dead women do you feel are okay?
With the draconian abortion laws that Bricker favors, how will a dangerous pregnancy be defined? The one sort of pregnancy that even he thinks might be terminated?
Wives, daughters & mistresses of prosperous men will find complaisant doctors & expensive, private clinics willing to offer discreet D&C’s–just because. Just as it was when abortion was in the verge of legality. (I remember those days, but Planned Parenthood equipped me to survive my foolish years without an unfortunate pregnancy.)
Bricker is on the side of those who want to close down women’s health clinics–even those that don’t offer abortion. Because contraception is* also* immoral. (If a few women don’t get the Pap smear that might save their lives, too bad.)
He’s also on the side of politicians who cut funding for health care & education–making raising a child harder. Along with those who eagerly cheer on the next state-sponsored execution. And Rick Perry, who just announced he won’t try for Governor again and will be praying about his future political plans; he wasn’t so fervid until quite recently.
Perry is an idiot & Bricker can act intelligent at times. But they are blood brothers…
Because thousands of already born people die every day because we do not grant them the right to violate the body autonomy of another person in order to survive. If their ‘right to life’ does not justify assailing the body autonomy of another person, how can fetal life? Even a corpse’s body autonomy can not be violated against their consent and they are already dead and don’t even need their body parts anymore! Why does a corpse’s body autonomy garner more respect than what you afford a pregnant woman?
Why do you think the state has the right to legally mandate the use of a pregnant woman’s body against her will, when the state does not mandate this of any other person? You don’t think this speaks volumes about women’s status in society. When only her body can be violated and no one’s else’s?
Either women are equal citizens or they are not. What you are advocating for is NOT equality under the law, and that is why I am right and you are wrong.
I think you’re missing something- I’m positing that the additional deaths come from botched back-alley abortions, not from pregnancy complications. I’m suggesting that outlawing abortions will cause lots of deaths from illegal abortions.
I agree that – at present – most rational people don’t favor outlawing abortion.
I wish that would change.
And I believe it will change, if most rational people begin to accept the essential humanity of the unborn child. Right now, that’s not the case, so I’m on the minority side of this issue.
I don’t agree that this would be the result. I think that back-alley quality abortions are a thing of the present: witness Gosnell and his parade of horrors.
Except that your view of the law is not the correct one. You alone don’t get to determine what the law is, any more than I alone do. We have institutions that authoritatively do that.
And in general, ultrasound requirements are being upheld. Stenberg v. Carhart upheld prohibitions against partial-birth abortion. So how can you say you’re right, when the US Supreme Court says that there ARE circumstances in which we can require an abortion not be performed and that this does not violate “equality under the law?”
I oppose capital punishment and I don’t favor any laws concerning contraception.
What does that do to your argument?
How many of the bussed-in anti-choicers in Austin are disagreeing with any of Rick Perry’s publicity seeking policies? Quick, find a link. Find just one of them explaining how they reject his definition of “pro-life.”
They are your allies…
That sounds like lowering the standards for rationality. Seriously, “accept the essential humanity”…? It’s like wanting people to rationally accept Jesus as personal lord and saviour, or any other ethereal concept.
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.
(Note that I’m not necessarily saying I disagree with either “a fetus is not a person” or “no person has the right to lay claim or authority over another person’s biological processes”, just that these are positions that can’t just be stated and boom you win the argument, they have to be explained and debated and defended.)
That said, I do have a few questions for various participants in this thread:
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?
EverWonderWhy: Suppose you and a stranger were both in a building and it collapsed, knocking you unconscious and SEVERELY injuing the stranger. Medics arrive on the scene, and see that the stranger desparately needs a transfusion of blood, and through some weird confluence of events realize that the stranger and you share a very unusual blood type. They’re getting more blood of that type flown in, but it won’t be here for an hour, so they hook up a little cross-transfusion-thing so that some blood from your veins is flowing into the stranger’s body keeping him alive. (I’m sure that such a thing does not actually exist, but this is a hypothetical.) A half hour later, you wake up, and see what is going on, and it is explained to you that in another half hour the blood supply will show up, and they can unhook you, but if you unhook yourself now, the stranger will certainly die. Do you have the moral right to demand to be unhooked? If there were a law to covert his very contrived situation, what should it be?
The vast majority of pregnancies lead to live births, and the mothers live. This doesn’t mean that the mothers experience no complications, though.
Is it only maternal deaths that you’re concerned about? How about permanent physical health consequences? How about permanent emotional/psychological consequences?