A working-class woman has to take time off work to drive halfway across the state … and then she has to do it ***again ***the next day? And you don’t see that as major?
That kind of statement could only be made by someone who’s never lived paycheck-to-paycheck. As somebody who HAS, I can assure you: it’s major. It’s very fucking major.
Goodness, someone’s touchy. If you don’t like being called out on your lies, perhaps you could try being honest for a change. I note you still haven’t addressed the Wiebe and Adams study’s findings about the effect of viewing an ultrasound on women who were seeking abortion. Kind of funny, considering how you’ve gone on and on about how you support this law because you believe it will cause women to change their minds about abortion and that the reason others oppose it is because they’re “terrified” that this will prove to be the case.
This is the “law provides free ultrasounds” thing all over again. You claim that the Wisconsin law will do X, but X is only important to you as long as you have some hope of convincing others that it’s true. When presented with evidence that X is false, you don’t change your position about the law. Instead you ignore the evidence, lie, change the subject, lie, misunderstand the meaning of common English words, lie, and finally pretend like X never mattered to begin with. This is not the behavior of someone who supports the law for rational reasons. It is the behavior of someone whose position is so weak and irrational that he cannot defend it honestly. I don’t believe you are even really concerned about the precious lives of unborn babies, because if that were really your motivation you wouldn’t need to lie.
I say this not because I have any hope of changing your mind – as the saying goes, it’s impossible to reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves in to – but because I wish to make it clear to others what you’re doing here. It’s a waste of time for anyone to attempt a good faith debate with you, because you’re a disgusting weasel who doesn’t care about the truth.
He cares very much about the truth. Not the facts, the Truth. Which he has in abundance, and you are sadly bereft.
Since people keep mentioning the 24 hour waiting period, I wanted to point out that this is the minimum amount of time that must pass between the woman’s pre-abortion clinic visit and the actual abortion. There is nothing to ensure that an abortion appointment will actually be available the next day, and a quick Google indicates that this is rarely if ever the case.
Madison weekly newspaper The Isthmus (incidentally the same paper that runs The Straight Dope) ran an opinion piece by a woman who’d attempted to have an abortion in Wisconsin. She found that the clinic she went to for the mandatory pre-abortion “counseling session” wouldn’t be able to fit her in for an abortion until 12 days later. She called another Wisconsin clinic and learned that the wait there will be three weeks. She finally wound up making an overnight trip to a clinic in another state because they would be able to perform the abortion just two days later, although going out of state did mean she had to pay for the entire procedure (plus gas and a hotel room) herself as her insurance wouldn’t cover it.
Again with this halfway across the state business?
Where might an abortion-minded woman live that compelled her to drive halfway across the state of Wisconsin?
Are you contending that the bill at issue in this thread was in some way responsible for the difficulties the author relates?
From your article:
Date of your article: 2/6/2013
Date Gov. Walker signed the bill being complained of here: 7/5/2013
Is it the degree of difficulty that is the deciding factor, here? Is there some language in the bill that ensures that no burdensome disadvantages will be suffered?
For a woman of sufficient means, of course, no such disadvantage exists.
As the philosopher Will Rogers once remarked “It is not a crime to be poor in America, but it might as well be.”
So are you, but mine is better-reasoned.
Naturally, you would believe so. But in fact, mine is equally well-reasoned. The discrepancy arises, in my view, from our acceptance of different underlying postulates.
Is one of your postulates still “humans are special” ?
No, the babies being beaten to death is what’s repugnant to me. Preventing that is worth the incidence of abortion, and, now that you’ve corrected my non-deliberate oversight, the possibility of adoption.
I fully respect your convictions not to find that repugnant. Aborted at 16 weeks/died of organ failure after being kicked and stomped at age three - six of one/half dozen of another. And I will not dispute that even with the fullest access to safe and even no-cost abortion, human beings will continue to violently kill their children. But fewer children will be born into a brief, incomprehensible living hell if they are aborted as fetuses. Again, I don’t expect you to see that as a value gain, but that is what repells me.
Please don’t remind me that Wisconsin hasn’t decriminalized murder. Fuck lot of good that does for a murdered kid.
Yes.
And for what it’s worth: I believe that anyone who does not agree that humans are special should not be involved in crafting any sort of public policy.I’d be too worried that such a person might want to give horses the right to sue riders for emotional distress.
Saying this as gently as I can, Swiftian satire is not your strong suit. You have an anemic sense of humor due to irony-poor blood.
And those of us who support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester comprise that great, untapped demographic for Third-World Human Flesh Hamburgers
One man’s meat is another man’s person.
Actually, you miss the point of my question - I don’t have to argue that humans are not special, I can (and already have in either this or the other abortion Pit thread) simply point out that “humans are special” is such a vague concept that it can lead to any conclusion the postulator wants. I can easily start with “humans are special” and end with a pro-choice conclusion. I could start with “humans are special” and end with an anti-capital punishment conclusion, or a pro-capital punishment conclusion, or a pro-communist one, or a pro-capitalist one.
And I don’t have to be especially special to do so.
No. Are you asking as part of your continuing efforts to distract us from the weakness of your own position? That’s a rhetorical question, you don’t need to answer. I know that’s what you’re doing.
I believe that anyone who values fetuses over actual people who are already born should not be involved in crafting any sort of public policy.
I’m certainly willing to call him out on his use of hyperbole. BAD DER TRIHS!
Of course, now that he brings it up, what are the geographic locations of these free ultrasound clinics that “the law provides for”? I’ve done some Google searches and made a cursory examination of Wisconsin public health website but can’t find any information at all. In addition to the location I’d also be interested in seeing the number of clinics that provide free ultrasounds. It would be interesting to see how many of the additional 7000 clients each clinic could receive.
A friend of mine had her ultrasound, and it made her think of the alien in Alien. She had nightmares. She wanted the baby; it was a planned pregnancy. (She’d had a lot of trouble conceiving. The birth was also complicated.)
The ultrasound totally squicked her out.