# 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:** 83
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1641 "2014-01-17T14:29:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > We all know what the law is. My comment was directed at what I think it should be. And I have a feeling I’ve said that to you before. Yes, but in this argument, the floor keeps shifting. Proponents of “a woman’s right to choose” point out, with pious certitude, that the law respects that right. _Roe v. Wade_ is regularly invoked to buttress their claims. But when the specific aspect switches to an area the law does not support, the nimble dancers are equally quick to shift to claims they were speaking about what the law should be, not what it is. So, yes, I get it: you believe that the law SHOULD elevate bodily autonomy to a level in which the countervailing interest of the life of the fetus is not a factor. Are we discussing what the law, or what it should be? I believe the law SHOULD begin by weighing the life of the fetus equally with that of the mother: they are both human beings. I am sad it does not. That seems like a quick discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1642 "2014-01-17T14:35:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I believe the law SHOULD begin by weighing the life of the fetus equally with that of the mother: they are both human beings. How would that work? If the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy, judging both mother and fetus as equal under the law creates a stalemate, with no legal solution. Is that the way law is supposed to work? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1643 "2014-01-17T15:02:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How would that work? If the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy, judging both mother and fetus as equal under the law creates a stalemate, with no legal solution. Is that the way law is supposed to work? Does the law start by valuing your life and mine equally? ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1644 "2014-01-17T15:27:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does the law start by valuing your life and mine equally? Assuming the answer you’re expecting is “yes”, what happens when his life requires the direct and ongoing biological exploitation of your life, i.e. he needs steady blood transfusions from you? It’s a conflict not resolved by a determined state of equality. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1645 "2014-01-17T15:54:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Assuming the answer you’re expecting is “yes”, what happens when his life requires the direct and ongoing biological exploitation of your life, i.e. he needs steady blood transfusions from you? It’s a conflict not resolved by a determined state of equality. Correct. The law DOES start out by valuing our lives equally. That balance may then change based on the particular factual circumstances that place us in the situation in which the continuation of one life may threaten the continuation of the other. So if the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy, judging both mother and fetus as equal under the law does not create a stalemate… we assess the particular facts in play. For example, if the “threat” is a physical condition that, from a medical standpoint, has a strong likelihood of ending the mother’s life, we can weigh the two in balance of the mother, because the child is the threat. And we can act, medically, intending to save the life of the mother and accepting the likely death of the child as an unintended secondary effect of that action. But if the “threat” is simply that the mother doesn’t want a child, there’s no risk to her life, medically speaking, and in that case weighing nine months of “biological exploitation” against “death” would favor the unborn baby. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1646 "2014-01-17T16:03:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. > > The law DOES start out by valuing our lives equally. That balance may then change based on the particular factual circumstances that place us in the situation in which the continuation of one life may threaten the continuation of the other. > > So if the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy, judging both mother and fetus as equal under the law does not create a stalemate… we assess the particular facts in play. > > For example, if the “threat” is a physical condition that, from a medical standpoint, has a strong likelihood of ending the mother’s life, we can weigh the two in balance of the mother, because the child is the threat. And we can act, medically, intending to save the life of the mother and accepting the likely death of the child as an unintended secondary effect of that action. > > But if the “threat” is simply that the mother doesn’t want a child, there’s no risk to her life, medically speaking, and in that case weighing nine months of “biological exploitation” against “death” would favor the unborn baby. And on that last paragraph we differ, and I’ll defend her right to make that choice just as I’d defend your right to refuse to give **Fear Itself** blood transfusions to maintain his life, even if you were the only one who could do so and the risk to you (medically speaking) was nil. I don’t even have to play justification games where the result I really want but feel guilty about is made okay because it’s an “unintended secondary effect” of some other action. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1647 "2014-01-17T16:21:38Z")
So, the law regards the life of the “unborn baby” as equal to the life of the mother. Then it follows that if someone is responsible for, say, a traffic accident that causes a miscarriage but otherwise does not harm the woman, then that person is guilty of manslaughter, or negligent homicide? Is this principle commonly applied in our courts? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1648 "2014-01-17T16:31:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, the law regards the life of the “unborn baby” as equal to the life of the mother. Then it follows that if someone is responsible for, say, a traffic accident that causes a miscarriage but otherwise does not harm the woman, then that person is guilty of manslaughter, or negligent homicide? Is this principle commonly applied in our courts? Yes? Of course, it shouldn’t because the law doesn’t regard the life of the unborn baby as equal to the life of the mother. Nevertheless, a majority of states have variations on fetal homicide laws (often specifically focusing on vehicular homicides, in fact). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1649 "2014-01-17T23:56:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but in this argument, the floor keeps shifting. Proponents of “a woman’s right to choose” point out, with pious certitude, that the law respects that right. _Roe v. Wade_ is regularly invoked to buttress their claims. > > But when the specific aspect switches to an area the law does not support, the nimble dancers are equally quick to shift to claims they were speaking about what the law should be, not what it is. I don’t believe that you are being caught up by sneaky equivocation and clever reasoning by people making arguments about abortion based on their personal beliefs as opposed to arguments strictly based on constitutional jurisprudence. At this point, it is very rare for people to make strictly doctrinal-based arguments, and when they do, it’s obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1650 "2014-01-18T00:16:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Good grief. You said, “It’s argumentative, disputatious, and contentious, and that, too, is a poor basis for lawmaking in a free country. Laws are best based on consensus, not on ‘Gotcha!’” > > I replied, “I’ll keep that in mind,” while linking to the Affordable Care Act website. . . . A classic case of apples and oranges, and also of unfair presumption on your part. As it happens, I would have preferred that the ACA been the result of consensus. The Republicans insisted on “gotcha,” even though the act was carefully crafted to include Republican contributions to health care reform. “Romneycare” and all. So: you shit in the well, by making an unfair comparison, which had no more purpose than a cutesy-poo “gotcha,” but which lacked any formal communicative or debating power. You do this all the damn time. It makes you rather more disliked, even here in the Pit, than liked, and makes you nearly a laughing stock in Great Debates. You don’t “debate.” You pull ploys. I hold this to be low behavior. (Ah, but see my next thread! I really love your taste in music!) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1651 "2014-01-18T20:50:52Z")
[Federal judge strikes down North Carolina ultrasound law.](http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/17/3542219/judge-declares-nc-abortion-ultrasound.html) ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1652 "2014-01-19T03:57:51Z")
I’m entirely in agreement with **Bricker** here, except that I would have a broader ‘serious health threats to the mother’ exception. There’s no clear line between conditions that are life threatening and ones that aren’t. But other than that, pro life all the way, because I think the life of the unborn child is much more important than the ‘bodily autonomy’ of the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1653 "2014-01-19T04:06:17Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > But other than that, pro life all the way, because I think the life of the unborn child is much more important than the ‘bodily autonomy’ of the mother. Would you support someone kidnapping you and forcibly removing one of your kidneys or lungs for their own use, then? It’s the same principle. And what if the woman who you force into the role of a breeding slave kills herself because of what you are doing to her? Where’s your “unborn” then? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1654 "2014-01-19T13:57:52Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I’m entirely in agreement with **Bricker** here, except that I would have a broader ‘serious health threats to the mother’ exception. There’s no clear line between conditions that are life threatening and ones that aren’t. But other than that, pro life all the way, because I think the life of the unborn child is much more important than the ‘bodily autonomy’ of the mother. Opinions on the value of the life of the unborn child and such are fine, but do you believe women and doctors should be prevented by force of law from performing abortions if they both deem it necessary? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1655 "2014-01-19T15:12:27Z")
**iiandyiii** yes, absolutely. and unless there are serious medical threats to the mother, it’s never necessary. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1656 "2014-01-19T15:39:30Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **iiandyiii** yes, absolutely. and unless there are serious medical threats to the mother, it’s never necessary. I feel differently, obviously. I don’t feel like any individual or government should be making decisions about what’s medically necessary and unnecessary for other people – that should be left up to individuals and their doctors. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1657 "2014-01-19T15:57:51Z")
How can we trust politicians to determine what is and isn’t a ‘serious medical threat’? Remember, it is mostly Republicans who want to ban abortion, the same guys who thought the Iraq war was a good idea, along with shutting down the government and promoting the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old. Why put these judgments in their hands? Besides, anti-abortion sentiments are nearly always motivated by religious beliefs, which have no place in our body of law, no matter how fervently you may disagree. Faith is no substitute for competence, especially where the law is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1658 "2014-01-19T17:09:58Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **iiandyiii** yes, absolutely. and unless there are serious medical threats to the mother, it’s never necessary. So please move to Vatican City or Saudi Arabia. You’d like their laws better. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1659 "2014-01-19T18:22:25Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **iiandyiii** yes, absolutely. and unless there are serious medical threats to the mother, it’s never necessary. And, again, that’s fine if you are talking about your personal morality. But this should have no impact on the decisions and rights of your fellow citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1660 "2014-01-19T22:05:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, the law regards the life of the “unborn baby” as equal to the life of the mother. Then it follows that if someone is responsible for, say, a traffic accident that causes a miscarriage but otherwise does not harm the woman, then that person is guilty of manslaughter, or negligent homicide? Is this principle commonly applied in our courts? Yes, this principle is applied in the majority of states. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=82) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=84)