# I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 5, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746 "2013-07-05T20:19:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 54
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1061 "2013-08-06T14:40:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Huh, I was not aware the allowance of the continued existence of aunts was on such a tenuous basis. That’s not a rebuttal to any point under discussion. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1062 "2013-08-06T14:40:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not any argument, yet. It’s an effort to nail down what types of beliefs qualify as “vaguely-defined and unproven premise[s].” Ah, proving a negative. Tell you what, why not describe some atheist pro-life beliefs you’ve googled up, and we’ll see on a case-by-case basis if they rely on _proven_ (or at least provable) premises. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1063 "2013-08-06T14:41:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not a rebuttal to any point under discussion. Of course not - it’s a mockery of _your_ attempt at rebuttal. I make or imply no claim otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1064 "2013-08-06T14:44:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Ah, proving a negative. Tell you what, why not describe some atheist pro-life beliefs you’ve googled up, and we’ll see on a case-by-case basis if they rely on _proven_ (or at least provable) premises. No, because I believe you’ll be pre-disposed to categorize them as ill-defined and unproven. Instead, I wish to demonstrate that there are other premises which you regard as well-defined and proven which actually rest on similar grounds as the “vaguely defined, unproven premises” you excoriate here. If you were a [remotely honest debater](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16545691&postcount=1063), we could do it your way. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1065 "2013-08-06T14:55:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, because I believe you’ll be pre-disposed to categorize them as ill-defined and unproven. Well, you invoked Sarah Turzo and an atheist pro-life motto (“Because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being”) and gave it some honest analysis (which you did not not challenge, or even address) so that’s one point of evidence against your belief. > [@](#): > > Instead, I wish to demonstrate that there are other premises which you regard as well-defined and proven which actually rest on similar grounds as the “vaguely defined, unproven premises” you excoriate here. And I cheerfully invite you to do so. Feel free to present anything you can find in Sarah Turzo’s writings, or the writings of those with similar beliefs. I’ve already described some potential standards, i.e. someone who argues that abortion lowers literacy or GNP and can provide evidence in support. If those seem like unreasonable hurdles, suggest your own, but they should be actually measurable. > [@](#): > > If you were a remotely honest debater, we could do it your way. Heh, well, I guess I can’t object, since I’ve expressed the same conclusion about you several times in this thread (and on better evidence), but I remain calmly confident in my honesty. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1066 "2013-08-06T14:55:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct – but presumably your argument is that this is an unsatisfactory basis for law – that law should have some well-defined, proven premises on which to rely. > > Yes? > > I’m trying to determine where you draw the line between premises that are “vaguely-defined and unproven premise” and premises that are well-defined and/or proven. I’d more say that it can be shown that ‘the preciousness of life’ has already been shown to be an unsatisfactory basis for preventing the non consensual use of one’s organs to sustain another’s life. The fact that, as a society, we refuse to use the organs of the deceased, even if that person consented to their use, if the family revokes consent goes to show that we value the control of our bodies over the lives of others. To me the inconsistency serves to show that, regardless of the truth value of the claim, the specialness of life principle cannot presently be consistently applied and inconsistent application of principles, in my opinion, leads to bad (in a moral, not a legal sense) law. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1067 "2013-08-06T15:06:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you were a [remotely honest debater](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16545691&postcount=1063), we could do it your way. Your evidence is that in addition to rebutting you, I also mock you? Well, feel free to dismiss the mockery, but the rebuttals remain on the record. Should I link to them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1068 "2013-08-06T15:49:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And I cheerfully invite you to do so. Feel free to present anything you can find in Sarah Turzo’s writings, or the writings of those with similar beliefs. I’ve already described some potential standards, i.e. someone who argues that abortion lowers literacy or GNP and can provide evidence in support. If those seem like unreasonable hurdles, suggest your own, but they should be actually measurable. At the risk of saying, “Ah ha!” . . . . Ah ha. They should be measurable, should they? My point – and the reason I invoked the nephew – is that I think we all agree he shouldn’t murder the aunt, even assuming he won’t get caught. And I think the reasons he shouldn’t do so are NOT measurable. So for you to insist on measurable standards in this debate is not – in my view – consistent with your standards in other moral dilemmas. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1069 "2013-08-06T16:30:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At the risk of saying, “Ah ha!” . . . . Ah ha. > > They should be measurable, should they? > > My point – and the reason I invoked the nephew – is that I think we all agree he shouldn’t murder the aunt, even assuming he won’t get caught. And I think the reasons he shouldn’t do so are NOT measurable. > > So for you to insist on measurable standards in this debate is not – in my view – consistent with your standards in other moral dilemmas. It remains unclear that the potential-murderer nephew, a concept _you_ brought into this discussion, has any relevance whatsoever, or is even a useful metaphor, or anything other than a waste-of-time tangent, really. The reasons society should not be tolerant of murder in the general case are indeed tangible, relating to lowered life expectancy, more violence, more isolation of the wealthy trying to protect themselves… I think it fairly obvious that if society was okay with murder, society would be worse off. If that’s not good enough, I guess I could compile some statistics comparing subcultures (even within a single country) where murder is commonplace versus those where murder is rare. My personal standards regarding legislation are actually pretty consistent. The gist is that: -societies that are based on individual freedom are better than societies that are not (arguably an unprovable axiom, but I think I could find some empirical evidence, given an agreed standard of “better”) -societies need laws and regulation to maintain stability (ditto) -societies should only pass what laws are necessary to maintain stability while infringing as little as possible on individual freedom -as such, those defending a law or proposing a new law must demonstrate that it addresses an issue that causes actual harm and potential instability, lest it affect individuals who are causing no harm or instability -historical observation: we have and had many laws based on beliefs that have been shown obsolete or irrelevant or pseudoscientific, i.e. laws restricting what women can do just because they were women. As our societies become more sophisticated, we can discard these laws, even as we make new ones based on the possibilities our new technologies create, i.e. regulating what happens over the internet, though the internet didn’t exist until fairly recently. And now the specifics: -laws against murder should remain, since murder is demonstrably destabilizing. -laws against abortion should not remain, since abortion is not demonstrably destabilizing. If you want to create some contrived metaphor where a particular murder is not destabilizing (or for that matter one where a particular abortion is highly destabilizing), be my guest. I don’t see these as serious challenges, and I feel perfectly consistent to myself in that. I can think of a few earlier threads where I expressed pretty much these exact concepts and I’ve never seen anything in reply that suggests I should rethink them. I recall **OMG a Black Conservative** saying something along the lines of a woman who wants an abortion is too personally involved in the decision and therefore her judgement is suspect and I recall you saying my sympathy was with a cop-shot drug dealer because in my “liberal heart of hearts” I wanted drugs legalized, but I dismissed both as preposterous, with reasons that anyone is free to accept or not accept as they choose. My conscience is clear, counselor. If you still want to call me dishonest, go ahead. I wouldn’t try to stop you for the reasons I expressed earlier in this post. At most, I’ll just present my evidence why you are wrong and let the observers decide as they see fit. Occasionally, I might mock you. If you want to address the mockery instead of the evidence, I take that in itself _as_ evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1070 "2013-08-06T16:54:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It remains unclear that the potential-murderer nephew, a concept _you_ brought into this discussion, has any relevance whatsoever, or is even a useful metaphor, or anything other than a waste-of-time tangent, really. > > The reasons society should not be tolerant of murder in the general case are indeed tangible, relating to lowered life expectancy, more violence, more isolation of the wealthy trying to protect themselves… I think it fairly obvious that if society was okay with murder, society would be worse off. If that’s not good enough, I guess I could compile some statistics comparing subcultures (even within a single country) where murder is commonplace versus those where murder is rare. And I agree. But I’m asking what, if anything, is wrong with the atheist nephew saying to himself, “Look, whether I murder Auntie or not will have no appreciable affect on society. And I need the money.” > [@](#): > > My personal standards regarding legislation are actually pretty consistent. The gist is that: > > -societies that are based on individual freedom are better than societies that are not (arguably an unprovable axiom, but I think I could find some empirical evidence, given an agreed standard of “better”) Very much so. Why, in another thread just today I read: > [@Tv reporter's blog gets her fired. Right or Wrong?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-reporters-blog-gets-her-fired-right-or-wrong/664892/283): > > I have noticed that people who often cry freedom usually mean that to be the freedom to suffer, the freedom to be exploited, the freedom to have everyday choices blow up in your face as to destroy them and their families. > > I’m sure that the TV reporter just loves the freedom to be fired for joking on a blog. I’m sure the many people who have posted rants about their jobs on their personal Facebooks love having the freedom of their boss to snoop into their lives and be fired, I’m sure that the single-parent family suffering in poverty because the layoff that caused the parent to lose their job because their CEO can get a bonus believes in exactly the kind of freedom you do > > Freedom is a means to an end, it is not intrinsically good in and of itself. If more freedom means more unhappiness, more poverty, more crime, and more suffering, then I wish we have less freedom, as much less as it takes to lower poverty, lower crime, and lower suffering > > If you love freedom so much, move to Somalia. I hear they don’t even have laws there, its paradise :rolleyes: Obviously this comment goes directly to the conundrum of weighing personal freedom against the need you also recognize: “…societies need laws and regulation to maintain stability.” How we determine the point at which those lines are drawn, though, is … …well… it’s a process that involves “vaguely defined, unproven premises.” Or doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1071 "2013-08-06T16:59:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Obviously this comment goes directly to the conundrum of weighing personal freedom against the need you also recognize: “…societies need laws and regulation to maintain stability.” > > How we determine the point at which those lines are drawn, though, is … > > …well… it’s a process that involves “vaguely defined, unproven premises.” > > Or doesn’t it? The subtext here, obviously, is that because freedom must be consistent in every instance, even when it doesn’t make sense. Why don’t you just ask what you really want to ask, Bricker? If I want to play games, I’ll load up Tetris ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1072 "2013-08-06T17:07:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I agree. But I’m asking what, if anything, is wrong with the atheist nephew saying to himself, “Look, whether I murder Auntie or not will have no appreciable affect on society. And I need the money.” There’s nothing wrong with the nephew saying that or anything else to himself, or at least nothing I’d consider requiring anyone’s intervention. Are you really asking if it’s okay for him to go ahead and kill his aunt, because that’s rather different. I’m not keen on trying to resolve the contradictions you clam to see between my views and YogSosoth’s. I gather he’s pointing out that freedoms can be abused and freedom is not protection from bad outcomes. I have no argument, there. The relevance to abortion laws in general and Wisconsin’s in particular remains unclear. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1073 "2013-08-06T17:29:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > -laws against murder should remain, since murder is demonstrably destabilizing. > -laws against abortion should not remain, since abortion is not demonstrably destabilizing. I’m hesitant to dip my toe back into this train wreck of a thread again, but I don’t think that there should be laws against murder because it’s destabilizing, there should be laws against murder because the only purpose of even HAVING a society with laws is to protect the rights of the members of the society, the most precious of those rights being the right to be alive. I’m sure there are some contrived situations in which making certain types of murder legal would actually make things more stable, but they would still be wrong because murder. And, speaking as someone who is firmly pro-choice, I don’t think that a purely “ah, well, society functions better when abortion is legal, end of argument” argument is satisfying or decisively compelling, because it ignores the elephant in the room, which is that we all (or at least almost all) claim to value human life, which is normally well and good because it’s clear what is a human life (a human) and what isn’t (a tree). But pregnancy blurs that line, because it’s what creates new human lives, and it’s not clear where in that process a human life really becomes a human life. Which of course is something that reasonable people can and do disagree on. But I think it’s very important to acknowledge that side of things. Any argument for why abortion should be legal that also implies that purely-voluntary-one-day-before-birth-abortion should be completely legal and moral and ethical is one that probably needs some more subtlety. (And by the way, the whole “ **Bricker** only opposes abortion because he’s religious” line of debate is futile and ridiculous, for several reasons: 1. As he has pointed out, plenty of non-religious people, not to mention religious people of other faiths than his, also oppose abortion 2. There’s no requirement that people’s opinions about things do NOT at some level originate in their religion. Take any controversial position in society right now, and you can bet dollars to donuts that some number of the people on each side hold positions that they believe at least partly are informed by the ethical and moral beliefs that come from their religion. Are those positions just invalid? When we have national elections and debates should we just exclude people from expressing or supporting their beliefs unless they can prove that every single link in the chain of reasoning behind that belief is 100% secular? 3. There’s a big difference between “why do I believe X? because my religion says precisely X, so I believe X, that’s all I got, end of debate” vs “why do I believe X? Well, my religion believes Y, which is something that some people disagree with but is not in and of itself supernatural, and then I apply ethics and morals and logic in a reasonable way to Y and come to the conclusion X”. Bricker believes that human life begins at conception. Part of why he believes that is probably due to Catholicism, but frankly, that’s not a ridiculous thing to believe in any case. Certainly it’s not something that requires belief in the supernatural or suspending of reason. From that he comes to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal. I disagree with his premise and disagree with his conclusion but I don’t see “well, you’re Catholic, so your argument is invalid” as being a particularly meaningful rebuttal.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1074 "2013-08-06T17:34:57Z")
Any reader wishing to see what an honest debater does is invited to read post 1073 and take copious notes. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1075 "2013-08-06T17:53:11Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > And, speaking as someone who is firmly pro-choice, I don’t think that a purely “ah, well, society functions better when abortion is legal, end of argument” argument is satisfying or decisively compelling, because it ignores the elephant in the room, which is that we all (or at least almost all) claim to value human life, which is normally well and good because it’s clear what is a human life (a human) and what isn’t (a tree). But pregnancy blurs that line, because it’s what creates new human lives, and it’s not clear where in that process a human life really becomes a human life. Which of course is something that reasonable people can and do disagree on. But I think it’s very important to acknowledge that side of things. Any argument for why abortion should be legal that also implies that purely-voluntary-one-day-before-birth-abortion should be completely legal and moral and ethical is one that probably needs some more subtlety. I’m also firmly pro-choice, and I’ve never been troubled by the blurriness of the line between human life and non-human life. A fetus is human life, fine, whatever, I’m still pro-choice. I’m philosophically untroubled with the idea of a purely-voluntary-one-day-before-birth-abortion, or at least I see efforts to ban such rare (or even nonexistent) cases as likely to impede women who are facing serious _non_-voluntary medical problems late in their pregnancies where abortion is the least-bad outcome, and these cases aren’t all that rare. Besides, I never said or even suggested “end-of-argument”. I invite you or Bricker or anyone to bring evidence to light and if it’s good, I’ll revise my argument accordingly. As for Bricker’s personal reasons… do they matter? I just want a tangible, measurable explanation how Wisconsin’s law (and abortion laws in general) is a net benefit to society. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1076 "2013-08-06T17:58:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Any reader wishing to see what an honest debater does is invited to read post 1073 and take copious notes. I lack confidence in your ability to discern and identify honest debate. I don’t want to insult MaxtheVool, I’m sure he’s sincere, but his interpretation of my argument is flawed and just because it appears sympathetic to you doesn’t make his position honest and mine not. Unless “honest” is taken to mean “sincerely believes something that is objectively incorrect or unsupported”, which I guess is valid but not useful. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1077 "2013-08-06T18:09:57Z")
For Bricker, here’s how I would respond: > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (And by the way, the whole “ **Bricker** only opposes abortion because he’s religious” line of debate is futile and ridiculous, for several reasons: > > 1. As he has pointed out, plenty of non-religious people, not to mention religious people of other faiths than his, also oppose abortion That’s fine for them. But if Bricker uses the same religious arguments, then he is standing up for those positions and all that they entail. That’s where he’s wrong > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 1. There’s no requirement that people’s opinions about things do NOT at some level originate in their religion. Take any controversial position in society right now, and you can bet dollars to donuts that some number of the people on each side hold positions that they believe at least partly are informed by the ethical and moral beliefs that come from their religion. Are those positions just invalid? When we have national elections and debates should we just exclude people from expressing or supporting their beliefs unless they can prove that every single link in the chain of reasoning behind that belief is 100% secular? There is, however, a necessity that religion doesn’t come into play when deciding laws that affect the irreligious, or the differently religious. If his religion is ok to base a law on, then why not mine? Why not none? People like to say religious is fine to have and use in public society, but that’s assuming everyone has the same religion. My (non) religion tells me its fine to abort fetuses so long as they are connected to the mother by the umbilical cord, so that includes the time all the way up until birth. Tell me that’s wrong and someone else’s religion is right > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 1. There’s a big difference between “why do I believe X? because my religion says precisely X, so I believe X, that’s all I got, end of debate” vs “why do I believe X? Well, my religion believes Y, which is something that some people disagree with but is not in and of itself supernatural, and then I apply ethics and morals and logic in a reasonable way to Y and come to the conclusion X”. Bricker believes that human life begins at conception. Part of why he believes that is probably due to Catholicism, but frankly, that’s not a ridiculous thing to believe in any case. Certainly it’s not something that requires belief in the supernatural or suspending of reason. From that he comes to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal. I disagree with his premise and disagree with his conclusion but I don’t see “well, you’re Catholic, so your argument is invalid” as being a particularly meaningful rebuttal.) Its ridiculous because as a belief, it can be shown to be wrong, or based on irrational factors. If I believe something that is factually wrong, that’s still my belief and I can hold it. It doesn’t give me any credibility with people who knows that is wrong, or who hold other, also wrong beliefs. The reason why its bad, if true, that he’s Catholic and believes abortion is wrong based on Catholic tenets is because I’m not fucking Catholic. You want to make a law based on your religion and tell me why I can do what I want to do? Then I’m going to do the same, but based on what I believe. We can have this ideological battle as much as possible but neither of us will ever get the moral upper hand until we realize that we need to find what is factual in the debate, and we need to look at it objectively without religion, because at the very least, no matter what we believe, facts will not change, reality will not change, and it is the only thing we can base a sound policy on. Not some book written by shepherds thousands of years ago ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1078 "2013-08-06T18:24:13Z")
Say what you will, but the man has a positive genius for changing the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1079 "2013-08-06T18:25:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . -laws against murder should remain, since murder is demonstrably destabilizing. > -laws against abortion should not remain, since abortion is not demonstrably destabilizing. . . . And, even more emphatic, laws against abortion should not be passed, since such laws themselves are demonstrably destabilizing. They lead to significant measurable social harm. They are unfair to women; they hurt women. It always comes down to no more than a difference of opinion. Some people think a fetus is of the higher importance than a woman’s personal autonomy over her body…and other people don’t. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1080 "2013-08-06T18:35:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m philosophically untroubled with the idea of a purely-voluntary-one-day-before-birth-abortion Seriously? Do you think mothers should be allowed to kill one-day-old babies? If not, can you give a completely convincing and compelling explanation that justifies the distinction you make? > [@](#): > > , or at least I see efforts to ban such rare (or even nonexistent) cases as likely to impede women who are facing serious _non_-voluntary medical problems late in their pregnancies where abortion is the least-bad outcome, and these cases aren’t all that rare. See, I agree with that. I think most laws or discussions of “partial birth abortions” are really smokescreens for other issues. But that doesn’t stop me from being troubled by the issue as a whole. > [@](#): > > I just want a tangible, measurable explanation how Wisconsin’s law (and abortion laws in general) is a net benefit to society. This thread has gotten pretty much infinitely hijacked at this point, as is typical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=53) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=55)