I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Not all kills are murder, true – but are you denying that murder has existed since before recorded history?

No. I assume you don’t seriously believe I was denying or planning to deny such.

How does your comment that not all kills are murder remotely deflect this?

In the sense that if we’re going to invoke murder in a discussion about abortion, I feel inclined to point out where the implied analogy fails.

And I disagree – “humans are special” is reflected in nearly every facet of our society. If you’re denying it, it’s you who are crafting the position unassailable by any logic.

Such a vague statement cannot be confirmed or denied. It all rests on the definition of “special”, and one person’s definition might be such that specialness implicity prohibits abortion while another’s might not. Specialness, as when magellan invokes it to “prove” same-sex marriage is undesirable, is a conveniently amorphous duvet that can cover any position.

But it’s true that I have a position that does not lend itself to analysis or logical challenge: that a fetus should be considered a human for the purposes of applying the general rule that “humans are special.”

So can someone say “humans are special” and conclude that human women must not be controlled in this manner? Can you give me an acid-test for specialness that proves one while disproving the other?

Of course, the contrary position is also bereft of logic or analysis. Both positions are merely definitional.

Oh, not really. I can logically and analytically look for statistics on poverty and crime and such and draw comparisons between venues where abortion access is restricted versus those where it is available. I can picture a plausible method for gathering evidence for the pro-choice stance (with the admission that maybe after gathering such evidence, I can imagine the results showing conditions in pro-life venues being as good or better than pro-choice venues, and with the admission that in any event “better” depends on arbitrarily chosen metrics like life expentancy and productivity and crime rates, to an arbitrarily-chosen degree of statistical significance). In contrast, I’m not sure what evidence you might bring to bear on the concept of specialness, even to the stage of proving that it exists.

But there I go again, trying to use reason after I’ve admitted that it’s wasted in this circumstance.

[Lamia]

@Bricker

This is a facile comment. It’s true that mandating ultrasounds is not a practice rich with history, but neither is permitting abortion in the first place. If you’re truly happy with applying that standard, let’s do so.

I’m not the one who wants to apply the “history and tradition” standard, you are. And yes, I realize that what this really means is that you want abortion to be illegal. It would be nice if anti-abortion folks would just be honest about this rather than pretending to be concerned about the poor ignorant women trying to have abortions:

@Bricker

They appeal to the emotion of the pregnant mother. They may have the effect of making her realize that she’s got a baby in there, instead of the “mass of tissue” term that pro-choice folks are fond of using.

[redtail23]

@Bricker

This is a facile comment. It’s true that mandating ultrasounds is not a practice rich with history, but neither is permitting abortion in the first place. If you’re truly happy with applying that standard, let’s do so.

False.

For one thing, abortion wasn’t criminalized in the U.S. until the mid-nineteenth century, as physicians forced midwives out of business and government increased regulation over medical practices. Even after that, abortion was still fairly common if you had the money to make it happen. That was one of the reasons that Roe v Wade happened when and how it did - because public consensus had reached the tipping point on keeping such a common practice illegal for many but available to the wealthy. In fact, until the last half of the twentieth century, there was far more public concern over birth control than abortions.

Secondly, there is a very long history of allowing early, medical abortions. Historically, in the first few months of pregnancy it wasn’t even considered an abortion, it was “bringing on the [late] menses” and various abortifacients were used. Often it wasn’t considered an abortion until after quickening, at about 20 weeks.

In fact, your own Church has gone back-and-forth on whether or not early terminations count as “abortions” or not, depending on the formation of the fetus and when ensoulment happens, with a final ruling only about 150 years ago. Earlier rulings most definitely valued the mother’s life and health over that of the fetus, contrary to today’s misogynistic setup.

All of this had a great deal to do with the original R v W ruling that allowed any abortions in the first trimester and limited abortions in the second based solely on health concerns for the mother.

In fact, it wasn’t until the RvW backlash and the 80s rise of the Moral Majority in this country that you started hearing that ‘life begins at conception’.

So unless you’re only going to count the last 150 years as “rich history” and ignore everything before that - in the vast majority of history, men kept their noses out of women’s business, and early terminations for various reasons were common.

And you will never, ever again get away with your legalistic pedant schtick about using legal terminology “inaccurately” because the same word is used slightly differently in the vernacular.

Obviously, you think it’s perfectly OK when you do it.

Hypocrite.

[Kimballkid]

@Bricker

Yes, under the circumstances that exist here: namely, that the “making it harder” consists only of requiring that all voters identify themselves with a free, state-provided photo ID.

Just as a point of order, here in my state, ID cards are far from free.

[Bricker]

@Kimballkid

Just as a point of order, here in my state, ID cards are far from free.

But your state permits a person without a photo ID to vote by signing, under oath, a paper that affirms his identity, per §12-18-6.2. Yes?

And that’s free. Yes?

[Bricker]

@redtail23

False.

For one thing, abortion wasn’t criminalized in the U.S. until the mid-nineteenth century, as physicians forced midwives out of business and government increased regulation over medical practices. Even after that, abortion was still fairly common if you had the money to make it happen. That was one of the reasons that Roe v Wade happened when and how it did - because public consensus had reached the tipping point on keeping such a common practice illegal for many but available to the wealthy. In fact, until the last half of the twentieth century, there was far more public concern over birth control than abortions.

Secondly, there is a very long history of allowing early, medical abortions. Historically, in the first few months of pregnancy it wasn’t even considered an abortion, it was “bringing on the [late] menses” and various abortifacients were used. Often it wasn’t considered an abortion until after quickening, at about 20 weeks.

In fact, your own Church has gone back-and-forth on whether or not early terminations count as “abortions” or not, depending on the formation of the fetus and when ensoulment happens, with a final ruling only about 150 years ago. Earlier rulings most definitely valued the mother’s life and health over that of the fetus, contrary to today’s misogynistic setup.

All of this had a great deal to do with the original R v W ruling that allowed any abortions in the first trimester and limited abortions in the second based solely on health concerns for the mother.

In fact, it wasn’t until the RvW backlash and the 80s rise of the Moral Majority in this country that you started hearing that ‘life begins at conception’.

So unless you’re only going to count the last 150 years as “rich history” and ignore everything before that - in the vast majority of history, men kept their noses out of women’s business, and early terminations for various reasons were common.

And you will never, ever again get away with your legalistic pedant schtick about using legal terminology “inaccurately” because the same word is used slightly differently in the vernacular.

Obviously, you think it’s perfectly OK when you do it.

Hypocrite.

I used the phrase perfectly consistently with how it’s used in Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 US 494, 504 (1977).

[redtail23]

@Bricker

I used the phrase perfectly consistently with how it’s used in Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 US 494, 504 (1977).

Where in that case regarding housing ordinances is the word “murder” used?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

So your argument is that I labor tirelessly to advance white male privilege, when I myself am not white?..

Oh, they will admit you to the club, you are quite useful. Just be sure to wear one of your better suits, so that they don’t mistake you for the busboy. Awkward.

[Kimballkid]

@Bricker

But your state permits a person without a photo ID to vote by signing, under oath, a paper that affirms his identity, per §12-18-6.2. Yes?

And that’s free. Yes?

Sure they can, I was just pointing out that ‘all voters’ could certainly not identify themselves with a free, state-provided photo ID because state-provided photo ID’s are not free here.

[redtail23]

@Bricker

So your argument is that I labor tirelessly to advance white male privilege, when I myself am not white?

Can you identify any elements in this thread that advance white privilege?

I have to agree with your basic sentiment; since when is abortion a race issue? Gender, yes; socio-economic, yes; political, yes; religious, yes; but race?

However - you’re not white? I know you’re Hispanic, but that’s generally counted as white absent other factors.

Not that it matters, really, just threw me for a moment.

[Bricker]

@redtail23

I have to agree with your basic sentiment; since when is abortion a race issue? Gender, yes; socio-economic, yes; political, yes; religious, yes; but race?

However - you’re not white? I know you’re Hispanic, but that’s generally counted as white absent other factors.

Not that it matters, really, just threw me for a moment.

My father was Salvadoran, basically mestizo with Indian ancestry. Why does that count as white?

[Bricker]

@redtail23

Where in that case regarding housing ordinances is the word “murder” used?

Oh, it’s “murder” you object to! I thought you were upset about “deeply rooted in our nation’s history.”

Conceded. “Murder” was not used in any kind of legally significant sense.

Not sure why you think that’s hypocrisy, though – when I see someone use a word incorrectly, I correct them. It’s the foaming-at-the-mouth refusal to agree that they were wrong that creates the issue. Here, I acknowledge the error.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Oh, it’s “murder” you object to! I thought you were upset about “deeply rooted in our nation’s history.”

Conceded. “Murder” was not used in any kind of legally significant sense.

Not sure why you think that’s hypocrisy, though – when I see someone use a word incorrectly, I correct them. It’s the foaming-at-the-mouth refusal to agree that they were wrong that creates the issue. Here, I acknowledge the error.

It wasn’t an error. You just believe stupid stuff.

Look, your cult says that bebes is ensouled when egg meets tadpole, cool.

Why the fuck should other people in a free country be limited by the stupid, child molesting cult you belong to? Do Hindus try to get meat outlawed? Do JWs try to get blood transfusions outlawed? Do the Amish snatch cell phones and throw them into the river? Do Jews fight tirelessly to mandate circumcision? Why, exactly should your backwards supernatural beliefs matter one bit when it comes to anyone else?

If you gave a shit about the first amendment, you’d support abortion rights while keeping to your beliefs for your actions.

But Christian first and American second, right?

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

If you gave a shit about the first amendment, you’d support abortion rights while keeping to your beliefs for your actions.

But Christian first and American second, right?

No, I regard the First Amendment as pivotal to this: it allows me to try to convince others of the merits of my position. And while the task with respect to abortion itself has not yet borne fruit, at least several states are mandating ultrasound so that at least the expectant mothers can see the life they are ending.

So, I’m happy with that.

You, in contrast, seem to want to me to stop exercising my First Amendment freedoms.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

No, I regard the First Amendment as pivotal to this: it allows me to try to convince others of the merits of my position. And while the task with respect to abortion itself has not yet borne fruit, at least several states are mandating ultrasound so that at least the expectant mothers can see the life they are ending.

So, I’m happy with that.

You, in contrast, seem to want to me to stop exercising my First Amendment freedoms.

Not at all. I want you to be a reasonable human being. But because you outsource your morality to a bunch of stinking bumpkins from the first century, I suspect this is a lost cause.

The only public good caused by banning abortion is by making Christians happy. A good Christian and a good American should realize, that enforcing their specific religious beliefs on others is wrong, because America shouldn’t favor one religion over others.

You are putting your religious dogma (which is just asinine, by the way) forward as something people who don’t agree with you must live with.

You are asking non Catholics to live by your religion’s tenets, and nothing could be further from the American ideals.

Simply put, you want your religion’s beliefs to be law, when you’d rebel horribly if another religion’s were. You’re a hypocrite.

Which most of us in this thread knew.

[elucidator]

And Sister Mary Mozarella teaches Sunday School about the Transfiguration of St. Bricker the Counselor.

“…and then, still remaining faithful to the end, he was hoist on his own petard, repeatedly!”

“But why is he wearing a ghastly dress?”

“The unbelievers forced him to hire a blind dress-maker. A bad martyr frocker, as it turns out…”

[Lobohan]

@elucidator

And Sister Mary Mozarella teaches Sunday School about the Transfiguration of St. Bricker the Counselor.

“…and then, still remaining faithful to the end, he was hoist on his own petard, repeatedly!”

“But why is he wearing a ghastly dress?”

“The unbelievers forced him to hire a blind dress-maker. A bad martyr frocker, as it turns out…”

The Romans are looking for you, and I could really use 30 pieces of silver about now.

[elucidator]

Yeah, but you would have to kiss me.

[vivalostwages]

@Bricker

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?

How about a fetus with no brain, as well as pregnancy complications that were killing the mother?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/130604/el-salvador-woman-denied-abortion-delivers-dead-baby-c-section

[Lobohan]

@elucidator

Yeah, but you would have to kiss me.

“It’s like kissing a peanut.” — Homer Simpson