# 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:** 79
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1561 "2013-08-24T21:24:17Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I will certainly grant that may have been the position you felt you were taking but it did come across more that people were just terrified at the fact that the sheer number of abortions would be lower. You will grant that this would be a ludicrous position, I’m sure. I think the responses that you received show that the majority of respondents took your comments in the same way I did. I welcome a specific counter example, but to my best recollection no one replied saying that the literal meaning I advanced was absurd, as indeed I grant it was. If the majority of responders to my post read it that way, they still responded with abuse rather than any analytical answer which would have clued me in to the disconnect. Still, my fault for using a phrase which danced with hyperbole. ---
**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 24, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1562 "2013-08-24T22:08:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hmm. > > OK, true enough. My error. Quite so. And further, lest this go uncorrected, I have no objections to non-coercive, non-mandatory efforts to reduce the incidence of abortion, such as: -sex education, to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted/unexpected pregnancies -related to the above, distribution and/or subsidizing of birth control devices and medications, with no barriers to access by minors, as it would be foolish to assume that none are sexually active -Social Security-style assistance to pregnant women, enhanced maternity leave programs, educational bursaries, and other benefits available to women who see their pregnancies to term. I’m open to other suggestions, so long as participation is voluntary. If these reduce the elective abortion rate to zero, my only objection might be to the taxpayer expense, if excessive. ---
**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 24, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1563 "2013-08-24T22:31:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I welcome a specific counter example, but to my best recollection no one replied saying that the literal meaning I advanced was absurd, as indeed I grant it was. > > If the majority of responders to my post read it that way, they still responded with abuse rather than any analytical answer which would have clued me in to the disconnect. > > Still, my fault for using a phrase which danced with hyperbole. I call bullshit on your claim of hyperbole. Post 671: > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I do. I believe you’re not terrified. > > I don’t believe that’s true of others. In fact, I think the vitriol with which one responds to the very idea is a good indication of the amount of terror involved. You concede MaxTheVool (to whom this reply was directed) was not terrified, but maintain without a hint of irony that “others” are indeed terrified, as well indicated by their vitriol. Searchable records are no friends of yours. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1564 "2013-08-24T22:33:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, no – but perhaps that’s because when I said, “…terrified that fewer abortions would be performed…” I didn’t intend to suggest that the lower number was terrifying in and of itself, but rather that they opposed any lowering of the number for other reasons, such as proxy for a loss of control over the issue. You didn’t actually say “terrified that fewer abortions would be performed”: > [@Bricker](#): > > What I think is that those people who supposedly favor choice are terrified that abortion-minded women will see their baby’s face in 3D ultrasound and become emotionally committed to keeping the child. That’s pretty specific as to what pro-choice people are supposedly terrified about. > [@Bricker](#): > > I welcome a specific counter example, but to my best recollection no one replied saying that the literal meaning I advanced was absurd, as indeed I grant it was. > > If the majority of responders to my post read it that way, they still responded with abuse rather than any analytical answer which would have clued me in to the disconnect. Here are some of the first replies to your “terrified” post: > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Your use of the word “terrified” bothers me. I’m pro-choice. I think this is a bad law for any number of reasons, some of them relating directly to the law itself and some in a larger slippery-slope kind of way. None of my feelings about this issue, however, could remotely accurately be described as “terror” that women would get fewer abortions. Why would that scare me? Do you just not believe all the people who say that they find abortion unpleasant and distasteful and wish there were fewer of them, but still think that they should be legal and entirely up to the woman? > [@raventhief](#): > > Yes, this. Thank you Max. Why, **Bricker** , do you think that people who are pro-choice would be terrified by fewer abortions, rather than terrified of legal rights being eroded? That scares me. I hope abortion remains safe, legal and _rare_. Fewer abortions doesn’t “scare” me. Assholes chipping away at the right to choose scares me. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Really? You really think we oppose it because we’re afraid women will change their minds? Why don’t you just take our word that we oppose it because it forces medical procedures on women that neither they nor their doctors want or need? Your response: > [@Bricker](#): > > In my opinion, it’s not simply the overall number of abortion being decreased that inspires this terror – it’s the spectre of such a choice being made by a woman who was already abortion-minded and already at a facility to procure the abortion. And those people that are scared worry that a change at that point somehow validates the theory that the fetus is recognizably and chillingly perceived as a human baby. And that, in turn, obliges them to confront an unpleasant truth about their support of abortion rights. ---
**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 24, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1565 "2013-08-24T23:13:02Z")
Does anyone here have any problem acknowledging that some people do indeed perceive a fetus as a human baby? Anyone scared of the existence of such a perception? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1566 "2013-08-24T23:41:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Does anyone here have any problem acknowledging that some people do indeed perceive a fetus as a human baby? Anyone scared of the existence of such a perception? No. This is the elementary courtesy that they owe us…and we owe them. The entire fundamental perception of reality is different. They and we disagree. We must not say, “Your opinion is stupid.” We should not say “You hate women.” We shouldn’t say, “You are hypocritical.” They aren’t. They believe what they believe. And, likewise, they don’t get to say, “You want to kill babies.” Where it breaks down, in my opinion, is that they are trying to use the force of law to compel us to behave according to their opinions, whereas we’re saying, everyone may follow his own conscience, and neither side should have access to legal compulsion. Pro choice. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1567 "2013-08-25T00:24:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I still deny I’ve done that, with one possible exception. You might characterize my argument about Massachusetts’s rule switching concerning senatorial appointments of a governor that way. I disagree, but for the purposes of this discussion, I’ll accept it. > > Have I _EVER_ done that anywhere else? Or is it your position that my use of that one argument in thirteen years opens up the floodgates to Lobohan’s repeated invocations of nonsense? I don’t think that this thread is the right venue to get into a full analysis of your history of argument-by-accusation-of-hypocrisy, particularly as I’ve started entire threads on that topic (well, at least one). My point about **Lobohan’s** post 1524 is that if he was seriously trying to make an argument, it was a preposterous one; but if he was playing gotcha by randomly accusing you of hypocrisy and thus turning the tables, then I at least see where he was coming from… and if all he was doing was yanking your chain, then who cares if the details were identical or not? ---
**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 25, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1568 "2013-08-25T00:50:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > We must not say, “Your opinion is stupid.” We should not say “You hate women.” We shouldn’t say, “You are hypocritical.” They aren’t. They believe what they believe. And, likewise, they don’t get to say, “You want to kill babies.” Oh, I think we can, and indeed we should, since the “you want to kill babies” claim isn’t vanishing anytime soon. ---
**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 25, 2013, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1569 "2013-08-25T00:54:15Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Where it breaks down, in my opinion, is that they are trying to use the force of law to compel us to behave according to their opinions, whereas we’re saying, everyone may follow his own conscience, and neither side should have access to legal compulsion. Pro choice. You do realize that there are tens of laws that you agree with that are exactly forcing people to behave according to their opinions? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1570 "2013-08-25T01:37:16Z")
Name one that comes even close to mandating an unwanted pregnancy continue. Show me a law I favor that entails the loss of personal bodily integrity. I opposed the draft for that reason. I oppose mandatory public service. I do favor default organ-donation, but with an opt-out process. Name just one law that is comparable to denying a woman the right to an abortion. ---
**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 26, 2013, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1571 "2013-08-26T04:15:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Name one that comes even close to mandating an unwanted pregnancy continue. Show me a law I favor that entails the loss of personal bodily integrity. > > I opposed the draft for that reason. I oppose mandatory public service. > > I do favor default organ-donation, but with an opt-out process. > > Name just one law that is comparable to denying a woman the right to an abortion. I clearly understand the very (if not the most) special position of abortion in this regard. However, as a general rule (therefore beyond only abortion) saying “_everyone may follow his own conscience, and neither side should have access to legal compulsion._” is the highway to chaos. Nobody actually belives that phrase. We may want it for a the things we want, but never as a general rule. We want speed limits. We want building codes. We want testing on drugs. We want clean elections. You can say that all of those things affect others whereas abortion (in your opinion) doesn’t. That is still, however, your conscience telling you that it is relevant for the discussion whetether or not the involvement of others matters. Whay if my conscience says “Screw others, hard”? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1572 "2013-08-26T16:36:10Z")
The problem with your examples is that those things have a clear objective line delineating fact from belief. You can believe you’re safe going at the speed you want, but on average, there’s a safe limit given the cars and roads we have. Abortion is the only thing where the very nature of the thing we’re discussing is up for debate. And don’t handwave away the fact that abortion doesn’t affect anyone else. That’s absolutely true and so that’s a perfectly valid reason to base a pro-choice opinion on. Have one or don’t have one, it makes no difference to me, it will never affect me, and whatever mental change you take from knowing some people are out there having abortions certainly does not rise to the degree to violate someone else’s bodily sovereignty ---
**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 26, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1573 "2013-08-26T19:50:44Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The problem with your examples is that those things have a clear objective line delineating fact from belief. You can believe you’re safe going at the speed you want, but on average, there’s a safe limit given the cars and roads we have. You may think that there is a speed that makes sense to you, because you have (correct me if i’m wrong) the goal of making roads safe. What if I don’t care about road safety? What if I want everyone to be able do 200 kph in the school zone? What if I know I’m not safe or others are safe? You belief is that people being safe is better tan people not being safe. What if I didn’t agree. What if my belief were that the best way to drive was “_Drive as fast as you can, all the time_”? see that I say “best” not safest". > [@](#): > > Abortion is the only thing where the very nature of the thing we’re discussing is up for debate. Not quite. > [@](#): > > And don’t handwave away the fact that abortion doesn’t affect anyone else. That’s absolutely true and so that’s a perfectly valid reason to base a pro-choice opinion on. Have one or don’t have one, it makes no difference to me, it will never affect me, and whatever mental change you take from knowing some people are out there having abortions certainly does not rise to the degree to violate someone else’s bodily sovereignty You’ve just accepted that the problem is the definition. AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS “PACT OF SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA” \*Article 4. Right to Life 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.\* “does not rise to the degree…” is you own personal opinion, not a fact. ---
**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 26, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1574 "2013-08-26T20:55:30Z")
“In general” ? How spinelessly bold. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1575 "2013-08-26T21:14:44Z")
Article 21:3 “Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.” “Usury” is certainly bad, all the Major Dudes agree on that. However, the miracle of compounded interest is not something to be trifled with. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1576 "2013-08-26T21:34:08Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I clearly understand the very (if not the most) special position of abortion in this regard. > However, as a general rule (therefore beyond only abortion) saying “_everyone may follow his own conscience, and neither side should have access to legal compulsion._” is the highway to chaos. . . . That’s the point: abortion is different. There isn’t anything like it in law. Personally, I oppose paying taxes to build nuclear weapons. I consider nuclear weapons to be as immoral as you consider abortion to be. But I’m not out to sue the government to exempt me from paying for nukes. You, meanwhile, have won laws exempting tax money from paying for abortions. Ready to fight to repeal those laws? If not, you’re a hypocrite. La. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1577 "2013-08-26T23:50:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You may think that there is a speed that makes sense to you, because you have (correct me if i’m wrong) the goal of making roads safe. > What if I don’t care about road safety? What if I want everyone to be able do 200 kph in the school zone? > What if I know I’m not safe or others are safe? You belief is that people being safe is better tan people not being safe. What if I didn’t agree. > What if my belief were that the best way to drive was “_Drive as fast as you can, all the time_”? > see that I say “best” not safest". What’s your point? To what part of the abortion debate is that analogy apt? I could just as easily say what if I don’t care about killing people as long as they are killed? This doesn’t add anything to the debate. Looking back at the posts above, you came up with those 4 examples including speeding because you think that having people choose their conscience on that issue is somehow comparable to people doing it for everything. Like people have mentioned time and time again, speeding or building codes or drugs or elections affect other people, lots of other people. Other than in your own mind, a woman choosing an abortion affects nobody except her and her doctor, and even if we were somehow so opposed to that as to ban abortion, you still don’t touch upon body autonomy. In what sense should we forcibly make women carry an unwanted fetus to term because its somehow better than the alternative? It doesn’t affect anyone else, so its fine to let people choose their conscience. Just like how your favorite color may be green and mine may be purple, it doesn’t affect anyone else so nobody should give a damn what people choose. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You’ve just accepted that the problem is the definition. > > AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS “PACT OF SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA” > \*Article 4. Right to Life > > 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.\* > > “does not rise to the degree…” is you own personal opinion, not a fact. And you’ve just decided to accept that opinion as fact as well. These are not persons that rise to that level of protection, or else abortion would be illegal. Because factually in this country it is not illegal, then it is you who bears the burden in proving that fetuses are persons. My belief is not opinion, it is fact that we do not consider fetuses to be people. Just wondering, what difference does it make to you if somebody gets an abortion anyway? Why are you so hung up about it? ---
**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 27, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1578 "2013-08-27T03:07:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > “In general” ? How spinelessly bold. Yup. > [@elucidator](#): > > Article 21:3 “Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.” > > “Usury” is certainly bad, all the Major Dudes agree on that. However, the miracle of compounded interest is not something to be trifled with. Ok. > [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s the point: abortion is different. There isn’t anything like it in law. > > Personally, I oppose paying taxes to build nuclear weapons. I consider nuclear weapons to be as immoral as you consider abortion to be. > > But I’m not out to sue the government to exempt me from paying for nukes. You, meanwhile, have won laws exempting tax money from paying for abortions. > > Ready to fight to repeal those laws? If not, you’re a hypocrite. La. Are you saying that if I don’t follow your beliefs (i.e. not suing the governement or trying to repeal laws) I’m a hypocrite? Why would I want to repeal laws I like? (As an aside, since I’m not American nor live in the US, US laws don’t affect me > [@YogSosoth](#): > > What’s your point? To what part of the abortion debate is that analogy apt? I could just as easily say what if I don’t care about killing people as long as they are killed? This doesn’t add anything to the debate. To the whole “just let eveyone follow their conscience” stuff and my stating that such a policy leads to chaos. > [@](#): > > Looking back at the posts above, you came up with those 4 examples including speeding because you think that having people choose their conscience on that issue is somehow comparable to people doing it for everything. Like people have mentioned time and time again, speeding or building codes or drugs or elections affect other people, lots of other people. You assume, as per your conscience, that the fact that they affect others is relevant. That is a belief, that is following your conscience and forcing others to do what you want. > [@](#): > > Other than in your own mind, a woman choosing an abortion affects nobody except her and her doctor, and even if we were somehow so opposed to that as to ban abortion, you still don’t touch upon body autonomy. In what sense should we forcibly make women carry an unwanted fetus to term because its somehow better than the alternative? > > It doesn’t affect anyone else, so its fine to let people choose their conscience. Just like how your favorite color may be green and mine may be purple, it doesn’t affect anyone else so nobody should give a damn what people choose. Of course, a big chunk of the abortion debate is personhood. You have not solve it by declaring it finished. > [@](#): > > And you’ve just decided to accept that opinion as fact as well. These are not persons that rise to that level of protection, or else abortion would be illegal. Because factually in this country it is not illegal, then it is you who bears the burden in proving that fetuses are persons. My belief is not opinion, it is fact that we do not consider fetuses to be people. I agree that legally in the US fetuses don’t have the exact same right as other people. That in itself doesn’t make it a scientific fact, simply a legal fact. > [@](#): > > Just wondering, what difference does it make to you if somebody gets an abortion anyway? Why are you so hung up about it? The killing innocents usually doesn’t make me happy. What difference does it make to you if your neighbour beats the crap out of her husband? Why are you so hung up about it? I’s a sad day when the measure of a law is if it affects me directly. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1579 "2013-08-27T03:24:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > . . . Are you saying that if I don’t follow your beliefs (i.e. not suing the governement or trying to repeal laws) I’m a hypocrite? > Why would I want to repeal laws I like? I’m saying it’s hypocritical to favor laws that exempt your own moral minority from having to pay taxes to support something you oppose…but denying me the same moral exemption. Why do I have to pay for nuclear weapons, yet people who oppose abortion are assured that no tax money ever goes for that? Why is their morality respected, but mine is not? That’s hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > (As an aside, since I’m not American nor live in the US, US laws don’t affect me Okay, fair enough. Didn’t know that. Imagine I’m addressing Randall Terry. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1580 "2013-08-27T07:09:11Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You may think that there is a speed that makes sense to you, because you have (correct me if i’m wrong) the goal of making roads safe. > What if I don’t care about road safety? What if I want everyone to be able do 200 kph in the school zone? > What if I know I’m not safe or others are safe? You belief is that people being safe is better tan people not being safe. What if I didn’t agree. > What if my belief were that the best way to drive was “_Drive as fast as you can, all the time_”? > see that I say “best” not safest". Perhaps a better analogy are states with helmet laws, which require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. Question: for those arguing against Bricker: 1)How do you feel about helmet laws? 2) how would you feel about a law that allowed motorcycle riders to not wear a helmet only after they watched a video about head trauma in motorcycle accidents? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=78) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=80)