I think you mean ‘an invalid hijack of the state’s legislative power’ by religious morons who simply cannot accept the separation of Church and State. In some cases, candidates have bald-faced lied about their intentions wrt these laws in order to get elected. Regardless, the abortion question has been settled. It is not appropriate for the state to insert itself into medical practice in this way.
Plus, an involuntary transvaginal ultrasound amounts to sexual assault via rape by a foreign object, according to rape treatment centers.
I sometimes sprinkle vitriol into my arguments not out of terror but exasperation with these half-witted and relentless religious dumb shits who want to tear down our most fundamental rights in order to impose a theocracy on everyone. The rampant, transparent stupidity imposed on our system at all levels is simply annoying, it is annoying that the citizens have to waste their energy undoing this, and it’s annoying that we’re re-fighting these battles when we should be taking anti-trust actions against the big banks.
But you go ahead and tell me how I feel and what I think, o seer, o prophet!
What part of the word “choice” can’t you comprehend? Not forcing a woman to view an ultrasound that was forced on her? That’s a valid “choice” in BrickerWorld? Ugh. You are so not worth it.
Actually, according to the study cited: “None of the women changed her mind about having the abortion after having seen the US [ultrasound].” Which pretty much guts his whole “intended effects of the law” argument.
Ah, so you don’t know – or don’t care – what the word “choice” means. Explains a lot, really.
What’s more interesting to me is that you have nothing to say about this study’s findings with regard to the effect of viewing an ultrasound on a woman seeking abortion. You made an awfully big deal about how you thought this mandatory ultrasound law would cause women to change their minds about having abortions and that this was the reason why you supported the law, but when presented with evidence to the contrary it suddenly becomes a topic not worth mentioning anymore. Instead you’d rather try to distract us with lies about what the law actually does. That’s what you did when EverwonderWhy originally posted about this study (you ignored EW’s post and kept insisting that the law provides free ultrasounds), and that’s what you’re doing now:
Women already had the right to choose whether or not to view an ultrasound. What this law does is strip them of their right to choose whether or not to have an ultrasound. That women will not actually be strapped into a Clockwork Orange style chair and have their eyes held open during the procedure doesn’t change the fact that this law makes the ultrasound mandatory. It gives women fewer choices, not more choices. It’s a terrible law, and your inability to defend it without lying about it certainly doesn’t make it seem any better.
You’re trying to retreat to safe legalistic ground again. Regardless of the syllogistic validity of the process, you are claiming the result is wise, which I take as a clear sign that YOU are not.
:rolleyes: It’s grossly insulting to women, and a major burden on poor women. Which is the point, after all. Having to drive halfway across a state multiple times is a huge burden for someone who has little money, a job they can’t take much time off from and quite likely children to take care of.
It may shock and awe you to hear this, but not every woman has a maternal instinct or a sudden gushy feeling that comes over her during the aforementioned procedure.
I am sure the guardians of accurate statements will descend on you now to point out the error of your claim that anyone is being forced to drive halfway across the state of Wisconsin.
A. Some of the babies will be loved by the mothers whose hearts were changed by viewing the ultrasound.
B. Some will be smothered with a pillow or “accidentally” drown while bathing by immature, overstressed, post-partum depressed young women driven out of their skulls with their crying.
C. Some will be physically abused by resentful parents. That same emotional component that the ultrasound appeals to also sends kids to the ER for digging in mommy’s purse.
D. Some will be emotionally crippled by parents who can’t love someone they didn’t want.
I suspect that A. will be the small minority; but 100% of A, B, C and D will have been spared abortion, and that’s what counts.
And a significant portion of A, B, and D will grow up in poverty because their mothers were emotionally manipulated into keeping a child they couldn’t afford to raise.
I guess I missed where Wisconsin also criminalized adoption. Could you remind me when that law passed?
If it didn’t, can you explain why you failed to include “E. Some will be born and given up for adoption, to be raised by people that will love them and care for them?”
Since we’re all about accurate and complete statements here, the omission of that one is sure a head-scratcher.
I am speculating that you left it off the list because the thought of a positive outcome in any case where abortion is desired but doesn’t happen is repugnant. Was that it?
How many women will bond with their child in-utero, as you expect and hope to happen, and then be inclined to give them up for adoption once they’re born?
Why would anyone think its a good idea to compel someone who does not want to be a parent to be one? Has anyone here never met someone who didn’t want children and agreed wholeheartedly with their decision, on the ground that they would thoroughly suck at it?
If a woman can but barely support the two children she has, why should she be compelled to subject those extant children to the brutal limitations of poverty? In many cases, the cold equations of economics are the deciding factor, how much more rational can a woman’s decision be? How does maternal love alter that, when it based on the maternal love of the children she already has?
Love is a wondrous thing, it may be as close to the divine as we ever approach. But it is not magic, it does not make money appear. What sort of blasphemy insists that such a holy gift be turned into a burden and a tribulation? What sort of cramped, mean, and cruel religion is this?