# 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:** 73
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1441 "2013-08-21T00:45:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . But if you speak in terms of compromise, then the ultrasound bill seems to be a fair one. > > No? No. It is an undue burden, and, in my opinion, this was the intent of the legislators. They wanted it to be an additional burden on the exercise of the right. I can’t prove this, although some various chowderheads have said things that pretty much make it clear. They maintain a figleaf defense that the bill improves a woman’s access to information – intriguing, given their previous pattern of passing laws preventing women from having access to information. The bias behind these laws is what makes them unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1442 "2013-08-21T00:57:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Trick? Please. Feel free to substitute “killing” for “terminating”, if you like. Personally, I think “terminating” is sufficient if we are looking for a single term to cover post-fertilization birth control, abortion and murder. The alternative is to liberally sprinkle comments with qualifiers and sidebars and footnotes, which I’ve occasionally found myself doing in this thread in an effort to forestall your obvious fondness for semantic tangents like this one. The problem with using a single term to cover post-fertilization birth control, abortion and murder is that invites the inference that they are identical. While each involves a human death, they are not identical and should not be considered identically. > [@](#): > > Anyway, you’re obviously grossed out by vacuum aspiration, D&C and D&X procedures (and the abortive use of mifepristone, I gather), but implantation-inhibition is (barely) okay. That’s fine, for a personal and arbitrary choice. For me, I’m okay with whatever procedure is safest for the woman based (among other factors) on how far along the pregnancy is, because dying from complications isn’t all that arbitrary. I suppose it’s arbitrary, in the sense that almost any standard is arbitrary from a certain point of view. Indeed, back to the sniper versus the hacker: we could imagine someone like you saying that any distinction is arbitrary; they are both murderers and what’s done to a corpse is simply irrelevant, as it’s just meat. > [@](#): > > Pregnancy in general can simply fail, and often does, but does this mean you’d be okay with abortion if the method was sufficiently humane for the fetus? You can assume that I’m not going to be moved by any description of an abortion procedure, now matter how grotesque, because I’ve already put my priorities elsewhere. Not “OK,” but certainly more willing to accept it as a compromise. Consider the death penalty, which I also oppose. But I recognize it’s the law, and there’s very little chance of ending it completely. But if one state brought back drawing and quartering, I’d certainly be a vocal opponent of that – even though in both cases we’re putting a convicted criminal to death. If we must do that, I’d argue, at least let us be humane as we do so. My preference would be to not do it at all, of course. But I recognize that lethal injection is “bad,” but drawing and quartering is “worse.” > [@](#): > > When you say “appear” are we back at the meiosis stage? If so, I don’t see why stopping a pregnancy by “thinning the endometrium” is not considered involuntary homicide (or whatever charge would apply to starving to death one’s child or another person toward whom one has a duty to act) _if_ “general protection of the law” applies to all unique genetic individuals. Because of practical concerns. It would be difficult or impossible to separate proper from improper usage of medications. I already said what I’d permit and what I’d prevent, therapy wise, and that strikes me as the best, most practical approach. > [@](#): > > By the way, I asked earlier about identical twins. Still waiting for a reply on that. And human cloning will become an issue sooner or later. If you’re going to propose an application of law, you might want a more robust phrase than “unique genetic individual”. Indeed. I meant, of course, “unique with respect to the father and mother,” not “unique with respect to every other human.” I did think that was obvious from context, but your invitation to clarify is a fair one. So, yes, twins, triplets, and the like are unique genetic individuals when compared to the parents, even if not compared to each other. Now cloning would, indeed, put a crimp on that definition: we’d then have a human being that was an exact genetic replica of its one single parent. I don’t know the correct answer to that, because while I’m pretty hip to the process of cell division in ordinary human fertilization, I don’t know exactly what happens in cloning. > [@](#): > > Would that concept apply to any situation other than abortion? I get what you _mean_ when you say it, i.e. creating a sciencey justification for a state interest that overrides the woman’s wishes at the earliest possible stage, but it would probably be easier and more honest to just say your premise is “ban abortion, no exceptions.” Thanks, but I’ll decline your kind invitation to adopt that premise and stick with the one I’ve been advancing here. > [@](#): > > Yeah, but I can’t help but notice that’s where your argument went first, and the included attempt at emotional appeal. Guilty. It’s not without reason — the process strikes me as very… attacking. But I admit I did not choose more neutral descriptive options. > [@](#): > > See? That was an “I know you are but what am I?” riposte that was actually _clever_. Yes, I imagine Mark Twain is writhing in post-mortem envy. > [@](#): > > I’ll gladly concede this point, as I’ve conceded other of no importance to anyone but you. Thanks. If you concede two more, I win a bicycle. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1443 "2013-08-21T01:07:16Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Yes, it does. It’s hard to believe that intelligent people think that “sin” is a viable concept and they have guilt because of this religious notion. It’s also hard to believe that we’re having this discussion in America with sanctimonious, jackass, irrational, backwards religious fanatics who literally only give a shit about fetuses and not one damned fucking iota about people when out of the womb. Especially when we have this problem: > [@](#): > > [Stop Acting Like "Bouncing Back" From Labor is Even Possible](http://jezebel.com/stop-acting-like-bouncing-back-from-labor-is-even-pos-1168230225) > > No public health care, no legally protected maternity leave, no government pay cover for maternity leave, apparently no allowance for recovery, and once you have the kid, there’s no legal protection for paid (or unpaid, from what I understand) holiday time to be able to take care of the kid. [This is utterly disgusting.](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/17/opinion/17coontz2-map/17coontz2-map-popup.png) One of eight (EIGHT!!!) fucking countries in the entire world without maternity leave. And all the Republicans and their ilk can think about are ways to force women into pregnancies. Not rational ways like paid maternity leave or day care that isn’t hugely expensive. Oh no. Petty bullshit like this where they get to say “It’s a person, you evil witch! Don’t you dare think of killing it, you selfish slut!” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1444 "2013-08-21T01:27:13Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > It’s also hard to believe that we’re having this discussion in America with sanctimonious, jackass, irrational, backwards religious fanatics who literally only give a shit about fetuses and not one damned fucking iota about people when out of the womb. > > Especially when we have this problem: > > [This is utterly disgusting.](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/17/opinion/17coontz2-map/17coontz2-map-popup.png) One of eight (EIGHT!!!) fucking countries in the entire world without maternity leave. And all the Republicans and their ilk can think about are ways to force women into pregnancies. Not rational ways like paid maternity leave or day care that isn’t hugely expensive. Oh no. Petty bullshit like this where they get to say “It’s a person, you evil witch! Don’t you dare think of killing it, you selfish slut!” > > :rolleyes: It’s certainly fair to lay that quote at my feet. As you know, I am the author of “It’s A Person, You Evil Witch,” now in it’s eighth printing. I’ll be doing a book signing at Foxwoods next month – come by. ---
**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 21, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1445 "2013-08-21T01:39:19Z")
If the point is women have access to information, why not make it mandatory that a clinic offer them photocopies (which they are free to accept or not as they choose) of an ultrasound at approximately their level of gestation, i.e. if the woman is about eight weeks along, offer her images taken from an ultrasound from a woman who was also eight weeks along. Why does it have to be her own pregnancy? Is her pregnancy unique? Would she not get a comparable level of information by looking at someone else’s pregnancy? If a person wants information, does it only count if they do the experiment, or can they look at the research of others? Is information the goal or emotional manipulation? Some combination? Bricker? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1446 "2013-08-21T01:46:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . Would she not get a comparable level of information by looking at someone else’s pregnancy? . . . Real big clue as to the actual intent of the legislation. Excellent point. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1447 "2013-08-21T01:56:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If the point is women have access to information, why not make it mandatory that a clinic offer them photocopies (which they are free to accept or not as they choose) of an ultrasound at approximately their level of gestation, i.e. if the woman is about eight weeks along, offer her images taken from an ultrasound from a woman who was also eight weeks along. Why does it have to be her own pregnancy? Is her pregnancy unique? Would she not get a comparable level of information by looking at someone else’s pregnancy? If a person wants information, does it only count if they do the experiment, or can they look at the research of others? > > Is information the goal or emotional manipulation? Some combination? Bricker? Part of the information is the emotional impact of THIS IS YOUR BABY. Why is that information less palatable, merely because it stirs emotion? ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1448 "2013-08-21T02:04:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with using a single term to cover post-fertilization birth control, abortion and murder is that invites the inference that they are identical. While each involves a human death, they are not identical and should not be considered identically. Did _you_ draw that inference? Certainly I see a difference between using birth control, having an abortion and committing murder - I don’t know how you could honestly infer otherwise just because I used a generic umbrella term. Dogs are mammals, cats are mammals, humans are mammals… so if I use “mammals” in a sentence, do you infer I mean dogs, cats and humans are identical? They certainly have elements in _common_, which is why a group descriptor is possible in the first place. > [@](#): > > I suppose it’s arbitrary, in the sense that almost any standard is arbitrary from a certain point of view. Indeed, back to the sniper versus the hacker: we could imagine someone like you saying that any distinction is arbitrary; they are both murderers and what’s done to a corpse is simply irrelevant, as it’s just meat. You’re free to imagine someone like me saying literally anything. I neither have nor desire any control over your imagination. Do you want to ask what I would _actually_ say about, for example, a quick sniper kill versus a murder with chainsaws and whatnot? > [@](#): > > Consider the death penalty, which I also oppose. Ummmmmm… no. This thread has enough tangents in it already. > [@](#): > > Because of practical concerns. It would be difficult or impossible to separate proper from improper usage of medications. I already said what I’d permit and what I’d prevent, therapy wise, and that strikes me as the best, most practical approach. Some of us prefer actual doctors make that call, and discuss various options with their patients. I don’t see where your input is needed or would even be valuable, unless the pregnant woman is a friend or relative of yours and asks your advice. > [@](#): > > Indeed. I meant, of course, “unique with respect to the father and mother,” not “unique with respect to every other human.” I did think that was obvious from context, but your invitation to clarify is a fair one. So, yes, twins, triplets, and the like are unique genetic individuals when compared to the parents, even if not compared to each other. Oh, that’s what you _meant_. Okay. Glad we cleared that up, because it would be kind of silly to put an ambiguous phrase into law and just figure everyone will instinctively understand what you _meant_, and how the dictionary people should recognize your expansion on the word “unique”. If you want to distill a concept using scientific terminology, it behooves you to avoid ambiguity. Twins have identical DNA, so did you want to expand your definition to epigenetics in pursuit of individual uniqueness? > [@](#): > > Now cloning would, indeed, put a crimp on that definition: we’d then have a human being that was an exact genetic replica of its one single parent. > > I don’t know the correct answer to that, because while I’m pretty hip to the process of cell division in ordinary human fertilization, I don’t know exactly what happens in cloning. It’s only a potential problem because of the DNA-based definition you are choosing. > [@](#): > > Thanks, but I’ll decline your kind invitation to adopt that premise and stick with the one I’ve been advancing here. If you like, but we’ll just continue to poke holes in it. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1449 "2013-08-21T02:06:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Part of the information is the emotional impact of THIS IS YOUR BABY. Why is that information less palatable, merely because it stirs emotion? Can “emotional impact” be considered the same as “information” for the sake of education? It sounds lke what is being _intended_ is a guilt trip. I rarely find guilt trips to be of great educational value. “Emotional manipulation” seems more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1450 "2013-08-21T02:07:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Part of the information is the emotional impact of THIS IS YOUR BABY. Why is that information less palatable, merely because it stirs emotion? Perhaps because it involves a medically unnecessary barrier/delay to exercising one’s right? ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1451 "2013-08-21T02:11:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Part of the information is the emotional impact of THIS IS YOUR BABY. Why is that information less palatable, merely because it stirs emotion? I didn’t ask if it was palatable, I asked if it was _comparable_. You were talking about her getting information, even (rather smugly) tried to imply we were opposed to her having access to information (“Why is that? You’d think that the paragons of choice would be happy that with additional information, different choices were being made.”) but now informing her clearly isn’t the goal; emotionally manipulating her is. So, are you okay with government propaganda in general, or just on an issue-by-issue basis? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1452 "2013-08-21T02:11:34Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Perhaps because it involves a medically unnecessary barrier/delay to exercising one’s right? You don’t a right to an ultrasound-free abortion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1453 "2013-08-21T02:27:55Z")
Well, that certainly settles _that!_ Why didn’t you say so earlier, saved the stress on the hamsters? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1454 "2013-08-21T02:32:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t a right to an ultrasound-free abortion. I did not say that you did. You do however have a right to an abortion. I think there is value in fighting to ensure that a person is free to exercise a right with as few barriers as necessary. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1455 "2013-08-21T02:32:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t a right to an ultrasound-free abortion. Why not? Seriously, why not? One of the basic medical rights is the ability to refuse a procedure. Women can, and do, refuse an ultrasound before giving birth, so why is it suddenly not a right when it’s an abortion? The ultrasound isn’t medically required, so why does she suddenly give up her right to refusal? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1456 "2013-08-21T02:36:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t a right to an ultrasound-free abortion. Does a woman have the right to have an abortion, as currently established under Roe v Wade? ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1457 "2013-08-21T02:43:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t a right to an ultrasound-free abortion. Whoa, talk about finding a penumbra. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1458 "2013-08-21T04:26:47Z")
Geez. He actually concedes that it’s emotional manipulation. The guy’s more honest than usual tonight. I want to counter by allowing every pregnant woman to watch an Operation Rescue protest line in full howl. Just for abstract information, of course, not for any emotional reason. (Oh, yeah, and I said “allow” not “compel by state 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 21, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1459 "2013-08-21T04:29:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t [have] a right to an ultrasound-free abortion. Y’know, this could start a whole new field of constitutional law: -You don’t have a right to free speech… _if you’re not wearing clown shoes_ -You don’t have a right to bear arms… _if you can’t name all fifty state capitals_ -You don’t have a right to a speedy trial… _unless you know where your towel is_ Just imagine, every right with an unnecessary requirement attached. It’ll be a Golden Age! ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1460 "2013-08-21T05:27:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Y’know, this could start a whole new field of constitutional law! I know you were making a joke, but it really could. This is not just about abortion, but also about the right of refusal. Does a governing body have the right to mandate a procedure without it being medically necessary? Is it constitutional for a governing body to say “you can have this medical procedure, but only if you do this one first”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=72) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=74)