# 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:** 66
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1301 "2013-08-15T23:17:24Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > I’m not sure if there is any relatively brief form of ultrasound, like a quickie scan of some kind. Transvaginals, like pelvic ultrasounds, require the consumption of 32 to 40 ounces of water an hour before the procedure, no peeing allowed till it’s over (30 to 60 minutes later—gah!), and I can only say from personal experience with the pelvic one (twice) that it is stressful and painful just to hold it in one’s bladder that long. > > Just had to add the details. But you have to have the experience otherwise you won’t _know_ that it is a **baby** \*\*\*\*\*\* in your tummy. ---
**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 15, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1302 "2013-08-15T23:31:40Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > But you have to have the experience otherwise you won’t _know_ that it is a **baby** \*\*\*\*\*\* in your tummy. Well, you’ll know, but you won’t _know_ know it, if you get my meaning. Your knowledge will not be within an acceptable range, it’ll be an insufficient level of “know”. For some value of “know” – no. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1303 "2013-08-16T01:28:53Z")
“Know” means “No!”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1304 "2013-08-16T01:34:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > This represents a nuance lacking in your views of post 781: > > So it was fair and reasonable then, but not necessary now. Fair and reasonable then. Fair and reasonable now. But not necessary then. And not necessary now. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1305 "2013-08-16T02:22:06Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Maybe I missed it but are people here advocating illegal avenues to overturn such a decision? Aren’t they, instead, debating the matter in an attempt to sway opinion in order to affect the democratic process in what they would feel is a positive way while people in the state follow legal avenues to block portions of the legislation? . . . I recommend a third course, which is to get the courts to reject the law on the grounds of it being an undue burden to the exercise of rights. This is certainly not “illegal,” but it is also not appealing to the democratic process. Instead, it’s appealing to the courts to uphold the Constitution. ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1306 "2013-08-16T02:22:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fair and reasonable then. > > Fair and reasonable now. > > But not necessary then. > > And not necessary now. See, for it to be reasonable, there’d have to be a _reason_ for it, and even then not a greater number of reasons against it. I sense this is the major point of contention. “Fair”… that’s just not applicable at all. Plus there’s your tacit admission to getting approval by doing what is popular instead of what is logical. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1307 "2013-08-16T02:24:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Of course I’m sometimes unhappy living under democracy. So are you. Sometimes, we (both you and I) are not in the majority. > > I will certainly not stop in my efforts to change the laws I don’t agree with, and neither will you. > > I’ve given some reasons: you are attempting to defend the use of compulsory law in mandating an advertisement of one particular viewpoint to recipients who are not voluntarily willing to receive this advertising. I, having more respect for freedom, oppose this. How did you react to the federal mandate that cigarette companies display pictures of people with throat stomas on their packaging? And while I agree it’s appropriate to work to change laws you don’t like, I don’t agree you can refuse to accept their existence or legitimacy in the meantime. “And, no, I do not agree to go by the numbers,” seems to dismiss the voters’ legitimacy, rather than accept it and argue for change. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1308 "2013-08-16T02:26:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > See, for it to be reasonable, there’d have to be a _reason_ for it, and even then not a greater number of reasons against it. I sense this is the major point of contention. > Well, that plus your tacit admission to getting approval by doing what is popular instead of what is logical. Are you proposing we abandon our democracy in favor of a technocracy? Or do you want to cut right to the chase and declare yourself Supreme Leader? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1309 "2013-08-16T02:29:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you proposing we abandon our democracy in favor of a technocracy? > > Or do you want to cut right to the chase and declare yourself Supreme Leader? I notice you think that card is of greater value than it is. _Nyahh! It’s already the law!!11_ is something that someone supporting segregation might have said, you know? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1310 "2013-08-16T02:30:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Or do you want to cut right to the chase and declare yourself Supreme Leader? Were you planning to resign, or abdicate? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1311 "2013-08-16T02:35:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Were you planning to resign, or abdicate? I imagine he plans on ascending bodily into heaven to become Jesus’ personal beard groomer. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1312 "2013-08-16T02:36:02Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I recommend a third course, which is to get the courts to reject the law on the grounds of it being an undue burden to the exercise of rights. This is certainly not “illegal,” but it is also not appealing to the democratic process. Instead, it’s appealing to the courts to uphold the Constitution. That would fall under the umbrella of \*legal avenues \*which it was theorized that \*\*Bricker \*\*would take. ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1313 "2013-08-16T02:36:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you proposing we abandon our democracy in favor of a technocracy? No, I’m proposing your democracy have greater respect for the ideals it supposedly claims, and that your population use reason instead of truthiness as their guide when it comes to legislation. Well, and also not to be suckered by the Republican Party using emotional hotbutton issues to distract you from the manipulation of wealth in favour of their patrons. > [@](#): > > Or do you want to cut right to the chase and declare yourself Supreme Leader? Fine, I declare myself Supreme Leader. The limiting element is that I’m not deluded enough to think I should try to enforce my moral sense on people who I’ve decided but won’t admit are too stupid to run their own lives, so I’m only Supreme Leader on paper. Or computer screens, whatever. Astonishing. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1314 "2013-08-16T04:24:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m sorry, I fell asleep while you were talking about your trivial female troubles. > > –is the attitude I would have if I were Bricker or a Wisconsin Republican. Understood. Perhaps we could insert Walker into Bricker, or vice versa, while one or the other’s bladder is full and see how long it takes till he pukes his guts out. (I very nearly did, and I wasn’t even pregnant. Pardon me–I believe in full disclosure of every last detail.) ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1315 "2013-08-16T18:50:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say the actual reason is not as important as whether or not a fair observer would call it reasonable. In other words, if a non religious group was opposed to abortion because they felt that a prolonged drought would be the result of abortions, I’d say that would be un reasonable, not rational. If they were of the opinion—correctly or incorrectly—that the baby is sentient or that we should end life once conceived, then I’d say the were rational reasons. From the sites, I haven’t seen any irrational arguments against abortion from atheist groups. I don’t personally agree with their reasoning, but it is rational. I think the only reason we dignify the life at conception argument is because of religion. I looked at those cites too and all I see is a bunch of meandering logic trying desperately not to mention god. To me, they are as unreasonable as saying droughts follow abortions. We simply have to disagree on this point because I don’t humor those types of arguments. If they have another argument, I’ll listen, but trying to equate the cells during early pregnancy with an actual birthed human being is, to me, ludicrous > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think that’s a principled or constructive way to debate. YMMV Everyone has their line. If I were to cuss at you and insult you and ramble on about how the we’re all part of the universe and energy can’t be destroyed, and abortion is simply change so its ok, as is murder, then you wouldn’t give me the time of day either. I just have a lower threshold for what I consider obvious religious ploys. They can prove me wrong if they stick to facts but drag out the life and conception thing and I’ll just start zoning out > [@magellan01](#): > > Okay. What that argument boils down to is that you want to be able to prove someone to be a hypocrite. So what. They may be hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean that either of their seemingly contradictory stances are wrong or invalid. And you want to use your own assumptions to do that. Take the example of someone being opposed to abortion and in favor of the death penalty. One can easily apply criteria by which they fairly be characterized as being a hypocrite. But so what? Does that assessment invalidate both of their positions? One? Which one? And it doesn’t take in to account that they might have perfectly valid reasons, exhibiting consistent thinking, that apply. For instance, they might not feel compelled to extend the same thinking to an innocent life that they do to a muderous one. Its not simply about hypocrisy. That’s their means of getting to an irrational argument. It looks to me like you are saying that they may be likened to a stopped clock, accidentally correct. Well, if their argument is we should care about something, and I can show that they don’t care, I think that attacks the core of their reasoning and can, in fact, invalidate it. Like I said, I looked at those websites and the sum of their reasoning seems to be that life begins at conception and that its valuable. If that’s true, you’d think they would be more willing to do less in order to achieve more: support health care/sex ed./contraception to reduce more abortions. If they don’t, then their argument looks to be merely a religious one, which is intrinsically invalid based on the fact that its religious. Even if they are accidentally correct, they are not convincing, because if they don’t care about fetuses, why should I? That is a valid conclusion to take if the basis of your entire argument is that we should care. I already don’t care, you’re preaching to the choir here, so in order to mount a good argument, they need to not be hypocritical and actually care > [@magellan01](#): > > Well, it depends what you mean by “religious”. If you mean mentioning something tied to a specific religious doctrine, then I’d agree. But I am of the opinion that the question of how we came to be is NOT first and foremost a religious question but a philosophical/scientific one. Assuming that every religion ever known to man is completely wrong, that does not invalidate the _concept_ of a grand watchmaker. Again here we will have to disagree. There is no watchmaker. Full stop. The only way we can argue its existence is from some kind of evidence. There is none. Therefore, this is not an argument from science but from faith. Your mistake as I see it is plain in your post, as you pair philosophy and science together. Rather, you should have said its not a “religious/philosophical” question but a scientific one. Science says there’s no watchmaker. There is no proof for such a thing and to speculate on the unknown is philosophy. Until we get proof of that, any kind of proof, then the correct and objective stance has to be that ID is false. CERTAINLY even if there are disagreements, it does not meet the level of falsifiability necessary to be included alongside science classes. If they want to teach ID, it belongs in a philosophy or religious class, not science > [@magellan01](#): > > So, the answer is for you to not argue honestly and fairly. Why would you so easily cede the higher ground. I say force them to argue 100% rationally, secularly. If they revert back to religion, then I think they’ve conceded their argument (and I’d tell them so). But if they leave religion off the table, the fair—and the rational—thing to do is not bring it up yourself. > > I have to agree with **Bricker** , here. Surely, those in society must make certain assumptions about life. And we have. If not, nothing is objectively wrong with murder, rape, slavery. Right? Hey, I’m horny…oh, look a cute college girl about to walk to her car in the dark. Score! The problem is that once one drops arguments like life begins at conception, or that its intrinsically valueable, then rationality goes out the door. Look what I asked Bricker above that you responded to. Murder is defined as bad, so we don’t do it. Abortion is not murder because its not defined as murder. If you want to change the definition, then its up to you to provide a justification that doesn’t begin with “its just valuable”. We kill people in war, on death row, or as self defense. Death is not intrinsically bad. Therefore, if we say a fetus doesn’t deserve life because it’s a fetus, we’ve associated it with the qualities that are already within those who we legally kill already. A valid opposing argument is not simply “but a fetus is life and life is valuable” when we see all around us that life is not so valuable that its always preserved. If you want to preserve it, its up to you to tell me why that particular thing should be preserved and do so without resorting to the things I mentioned above. Can you do that? I’m assuming you’re against abortion. And let me respond to something you wrote to someone else. So what if a fetus looks to feel pain? Since when have we ever used feeling pain as justification that something shouldn’t be killed? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1316 "2013-08-16T19:13:03Z")
**magellan01** : Don’t you get it? Pro-life is axiomatically wrong. a pro-life atheist is either trying to hide his religious beliefs or he is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1317 "2013-08-16T20:08:22Z")
Can’t we just settle for “exceedingly rare”? I suppose if I stretch things a bit, I could easily call myself a “pro-life”, in that I have a visceral reaction to abortion as being something I wish did not happen. But that is not an argument, it is simply what I feel. What I _think_ is that I have no business telling a woman whether or not she is to bear a child. Even if the prospective child is mine own, time enough to show what a great Dad I can be when he starts to follow me around asking for food and money. And I haven’t any doubt that someone could make an argument against abortion on a strictly non-religious basis. Thing is, very few of those who describe themselves as “pro-life” do so. It is primarily founded on religious and/or moral assumptions that I cannot even reasonably argue because I don’t share the assumptions the argument centers upon. I am entirely willing to accept that an atheist may make an argument against abortion, I don’t see why I should care. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1318 "2013-08-16T21:02:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How did you react to the federal mandate that cigarette companies display pictures of people with throat stomas on their packaging? . . . I don’t approve. Mandated speech is scarcely distinguishable from mandated silence. I don’t like loyalty oaths, either, and I refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1319 "2013-08-16T21:05:49Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **magellan01** : Don’t you get it? Pro-life is axiomatically wrong. a pro-life atheist is either trying to hide his religious beliefs or he is stupid. If you have a secular case for it, then feel free to make it. I’m not going to go against the vast majority of instances where one tries and fails to do so and pretend there’s an equivalency. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1320 "2013-08-16T23:19:01Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > If you have a secular case for it, then feel free to make it. I’m not going to go against the vast majority of instances where one tries and fails to do so and pretend there’s an equivalency. I think there’s a very strong secular case for making abortion illegal. I just think it’s weaker than the case for keeping abortion legal, which is why I am pro-choice. Whether someone agrees with me or not can quite reasonably come down to how much weight they put on various factors involved, which is something that reasonable people can disagree about. (Which isn’t to say that I don’t think that a good portion of the people who disagree with me are frothing-at-the-mouth religious nutbars, but it’s certainly not ALL of them, and I don’t think we gain much by pointing out that a bunch of them are, and then patting ourselves on the back about how non-nutbar-y we are.) Contrast that to an issue like, say, gay marriage, in which there is basically no secular argument for keeping gay marriage illegal at all. (Magellan notwithstanding.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=67)