What a ridiculous argument. Women have this right, and they can get an ultrasound if they want to. Forcing women to get an unnecessary medical procedure is unconscionable.
It doesn’t seem paternalistic to you? Do you at least understand the sentiment of those who believe this law seems to imply that women aren’t smart or moral enough to make this decision on their own without government interference?
Because nothing else makes sense to me. We start from the proposition that there is something uniquely valuable about human life. Humans are not simply the animal that happens to be at the top of the food chain at present. Humans are something special.
For this reason, laws protect humans, much more strongly than they protect other animals.
So when does a human come into existence?
If it’s not at the moment of conception, I cannot imagine a principled bright-line rule for any other moment. Birth, of course, is reasonably bright-line, but it’s not principled, because it’s clear to me that a baby two days before birth is still a fully-formed human being, deserving of the law’s protection.
When else?
Do you believe that having an ultrasound, and having a doctor explain the visible features of the unborn baby, will result in any fewer abortions?
If it does, then doesn’t it suggest that a woman who was seeking an abortion, hears and sees the humanizing information about her pregnancy, and decides not to… doesn’t it seem that this woman did not have all the relevant information?
Um… how is this anything but legally? We’re talking about a bill passed by the legislature and signed into law, yes? In what universe is that “fiat” and not “legally?”
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m pro-choice. I agree there should be a cutoff for the termination of non-threatening pregnancies and I think the current standards are probably fine. I’ve known women who used abortions simply as a birth control method (honestly, one woman I’m aware of has had three) and I think that’s disgusting but I don’t know how to prevent those instances while still providing a needed service to women who aren’t complete shitbags. Still, I think those people are in the minority and the availability of safe and legal abortion is overall a good thing and I think the hoops that somebody has to jump through should be minimal (as in, no more difficult than a quick google search and a phone call).
That said, I have a question. This is the first image of my current pregnancy, taken transvaginally at about 7.5 weeks. Since the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and most of those occur prior to 9 weeks, this is a good approximation of what most women will see. At this stage in development, we did not hear a heartbeat. We couldn’t even see it with an abdominal ultrasound and only barely saw it when we switched to TV.
If I’m a pregnant woman and I don’t want to continue with a pregnancy and I’m at the clinic and this is what you’re showing me (at the expense of my time, money, etc), what is that supposed to accomplish? You want to point out body systems? What? That’s a glob connected to… Pac-Man. What are you pointing out? I genuinely believe that this whole process would annoy me more than anything. It’s not like women don’t know the potential that comes with a pregnancy, that it’s going to be a person some day; they just don’t want it.
It almost feels like nothing more than a guilt trip.
No, it merely would show that it is possible to sway the choices of someone, especially someone in a stressful and vulnerable situation, if you put enough pressure on them. We all already know that.
Anyone who didn’t actually know that allowing a pregnancy to continue to its natural conclusion would likely result in a baby is not someone who society should be encouraging to be a parent.
Then make it purely voluntary, with the woman able to casually refuse the procedure.
“Would you like us to perform an ultrasound and explain the visible features of your unborn baby?”
“No.”
The value of even this degree of government intrusion into a medical matter is unclear to me.
You didn’t answer my question. In your example, the woman is deciding not to know.
She’s deciding not to know she’s pregnant? You’re seriously saying that?
Yes, you are.
Wow.
That is no argument for the value of anything a woman gets out of going to a false-flag “Pregnancy Crisis Center.” How does it apply any better in this context?
I assume, Bricker, that you are aware of previous postings to the effect that the medical community of Wisconsin is solidly opposed to this legislation. Perhaps you’ll take a moment to explain why they are wrong?
They’re not wrong. They’re just not applying any consideration to the unborn child’s medical interests. Their medical judgement is restricted only to the pregnant mother.
In what school of debate did you learn that you could erase an opponent’s argument by declaring that it doesn’t exist?
Well that’s sort of interesting, what is the “something” that makes human life uniquely valuable? What makes humans special?
By “conception” do you mean fertilization? That special hug that a daddy haploid germ cell gives to a mommy haploid germ cell when he loves her very, very much?
Personally, I find it odd because in almost any other instance I can imagine, you would be the one eviscerating your opponent for supporting the enactment of legislation which would increase cost and the use of finite resources without actually providing support that such legislation would have any effect.
This seems to be a case where you support legislating on the truthiness of the proposal that if it saves lives it is worth it where there is at least a prima facie argument that merely showing pictures of developmentally appropriate photos would provide a similar effect without imposing undue travel burdens, costs or unnecessary use of limited resources. I would expect you to actually provide a cite to indicate that there would be enough of a difference in result to justify the additional costs you are imposing.
No. I believe that requiring women to get unnecessary procedures that may require long drives or other expenses may prevent women from getting abortions, or at least legal abortions. I believe this could result in more complications and deaths for pregnant women.
I don’t believe it does. I believe pregnant women know what’s inside them, and showing them a picture of it is pointless except to make it more difficult to get an abortion.
I – and our general system of law – hold that truth to be self-evident.
Yes. The terms “conception” and “fertilization” are essentially synonymous. The moment of first mitosis following the union of sperm and oocyte.
So if you were to learn that some women who were set on abortion changed their minds after this kind of description and demonstration, would you revise your opinion?
By the way Bricker, after fascinatingly declaring (in another thread) that you don’t believe banning abortion would be worth it if it resulted in a greater number of women dying (or at least greater than a 10 to 1 ratio of saved fetuses vs dead pregnant women), you gave up on that line for some reason.
This is the most interesting thing you’ve said, IMO. If we were to show you statistics that showed a significant increase in dead and seriously injured mothers due to botched black market abortions when abortion is outlawed, would you reconsider your opinion on abortion?
Why is the burden on me? It’s a law, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Why should I have to justify it to you?
