I owe you a drink!
You don’t believe human beings are special. You believe fetuses are special. You’re perfectly willing to force half the human beings of the world to make enormous sacrifices for that belief.
The fact that you want to decide what can happen in my uterus and the uteruses of my little girls in the name of that belief is pretty damned horrifying. I certainly don’t believe that you and the celibate old men you admire so much should have any say in crafting public policies about female body parts.
I am reminded of a disgusting anti-abortion ad from years ago that I remember. The tag line mocked a teen who wanted an abortion because she wouldn’t fit into her prom dress. All I could think was . . . and you morons want this poor soul to be the mother of a newborn?
Yes. This is why we “disagree.”
I would personally go further, I don’t think men have any business interfering in such decisions, period. A man requires the cooperation of a woman to make an infant, it is not his by right, lhe cannot demand that cooperation, and it can be rescinded. That isn’t equal, that isn’t fair, and that is tough shit.
We don’t permit that a prospective father can force the mother of his prospective baby to bear the child against her will because it is “his”. How much less justified is interference by men with no actual connection?
Perhaps you could ask Bricker for a list.
You love returning to that line.
This, despite the fact that I have previously cited many women who are pro-life.
So for the remainder of this conversation, why don’t you imagine that you’re reacting to the work of Representative Jackie Walorski of Indiana, US Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska, US Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, or Representative Candice Miller of Michigan. or hundreds of other women in legislative positions around the country.
Women are also pro-life. You cannot validly dismiss the bill in question as the efforts of men, be they celibate or sexually active, old or young.
I’m reminded of a terrible debater in my high school debate class.
Gosh, that’s sure interesting. How are you doing on getting that enacted into law?
Gotta go. Gotta see how all my pet projects are doing – the ones enacted into law. Let me know how everything goes!
Gloat while you can.
And I’m reminded once again of just what a smug, obnoxious fuck you are, you little weasel, and how much I despise you as you calmly talk about what my daughters and I may do with our bodies in the name of your utterly revolting extremist religion and absurdly warped moral view of the world.
Many does not mean all or even most. I don’t even have to find a cite as you and I both know that there’s a gender gap between American political parties and the reproductive rights issue is a large part of that gap.
For many women pro-life can also mean they would never personally have an abortion. It does not necessary mean they want abortions illegal for other women. I know quite a few women who feel that way.
I’ll tell you this. I get a woman being pro-life. I get feeling a fetus kick and loving the joys of pregnancy. I’ve been there weeping with joy myself and putting bunny pictures on the wall to welcome her. I don’t get a man standing there knowing all the not so joys of it and telling her she’d damned well better go through with it anyway. My husband’s pro-choice stance was certainly reaffirmed by watching me go through two difficult pregnancies.
For five fucking seconds try imagining you’re a pregnant woman. You’ve been raped. Or you used birth control but forgot to take the pill at the right time or the condom broke. Or you, like me personally spent three weeks in the hospital the last time you were pregnant throwing up and pleading with a nurse for pain relief. Or your husband lost his job and you already have three kids and TCOYF told you you couldn’t ovulate twice in one month and your temps looked pretty good so you went for it and now you don’t want to risk another VBAC and gestational diabetes again.
Go on, Bricker. Try it. Or are you so busy being in love with the innocent fetus you can’t even picture the woman surrounding it?
Why, yes, the fetal support apparatus. Very important.
What a coincidence. You remind us of a clever high school debater. And nothing else.
I certainly know that every single poster in this thread is now firmly anti-abortion because of Bricker’s oh so wonderfully convincing arguments.
Oh yeah.
So what if the woman has to get an ultrasound, doesn’t have to look at the results, and doesn’t have a mandatory wait time, so the ultrasound can be as little as a few minutes before she is prepped for an abortion, if she still wants one?
Depends. Is she a Republican or Democrat?
Only if there is a “life coach” present for the entire time chanting, “It’s a baby, it’s a baby” in her ear.
Well, Bricker thinks the 24 hours is necessary, but also that the woman shouldn’t be forced to look at the sonogram results, so I sense an inconsistency. If she doesn’t look, why make her wait? And if the 24-hour wait is no big deal, why have it at all?
I already used the phrase “not every woman,” which leaves some leeway, and no, I’m not bothered that some women might change their minds. What bothers me is that the procedure is being forced on them as if they were stupid children who need everything spelled out for them.
FWIW, I am actually an anti-abortion person. The best outcome, theoretically, is no abortions. If I got someone pregnant, I’d try to dissuade them from abortion.
However, I think this law is no good. I think Roe v. Wade needs to stay. I’d be far more approving of a measure requiring Walker and his legislative henchmen to undergo a transrectal ultrasound while an expert pointed out the countours of their heads up there.
Let’s take a (1) (other examples exist) worst case (the ones our GOP pals seem to assume for every case)- say we’re dealing with an irresponsible, rampant slut. She finds out she’s pregnant, she is almost certainly correct that she cannot raise a child, and she wants an abortion. Well that sucks, but at this point it is already too late to solve anything and terribly stupid to attempt to use the law to stop her.
The cartoonish, simpleton’s morality promoted by Bricker and his idols would blame the woman alone for her predicament, and consider any harm that comes to her as a result to be her, uh… karmic (?) (or 'wages of sin(?)) due. She’s a wrongdoer, a bad person, and we don’t need to care about what may happen to her.
But if you know anything about irresponsible sluts, you know they don’t just pop out of a mold fully-formed and rarin’ to do wrong. No, in this example and really, in pretty much every abortion case, something has gone wrong. If we wanted to create the kind of society where the kinds of social problems that cultivate demand for abortions were solved, the conservatives would scream bloody murder if the plan wasn’t predicated on the notion that a fertilized egg has a little[del] demon[/del] soul inhabiting it from the first instant. A view that is fairly novel in the history of religion; the early Christians, for example, tended to agree with Aristotle that a vegetative soul only was present first, which might grow or be replaced by an animal soul and only finally a rational soul. None of which will ever appear on an ultrasound btw.
Long story short, the GOP takes the judgmental legal approach because they have no interest in rationally addressing the problems that lead to many abortion cases in the first place. Mostly they’re interested in collecting all the wealth, and not much else. Which is why we need to wrap this up quick and focus on anti-trust action against the too-big-to-fail banks.
I really don’t think Bricker is blaming anyone. I think his though process really is just “abortion bad, stopabortion”. As it is a hot button issue for him he is willing to accept any legislation that purports to lower abortion as good and wise. He is unwilling to examine the cost benefit analysis (or I’m sure we would have seen studies on how many women would change their minds). He is willing to accept with no evidence other than his own supposition that the measures will act to lower the abortion rate. It really is very much like his argument against mandatory fresh fruit and veggies in a food desert but in reverse. This time he is happy to cause the additional expense and burden with no evidence that it will do anything.
I am fervently, albeit reluctantly, pro choice. But I think most of you are being quite unfair to Bricker. It seems to boil down to this: Bricker sees the fetus as being deserving of consideration for its own self. Those arguing with him seem to hold that any consideration that is given to the potential child strips away some degree of consideration from the concerns for, and wishes of, the mother. And doing so, well, its simply beyond the pale! Bricker looks at a pregnancy and sees a mother and a potential child—two entities that have valid vested interests in the pregnancy. Most of you arguing against him seem to believe that there is only one entity whose interest should be taken into account, as if the fetus was a mass every bit as deserving of consideration for its continuation as a cyst.
Although I am pro choice, I don’t think that position is fair, helpful, or right. The question is: how much of an obstacle, or pause" can and should be placed between a woman and her having an abortion? If the fetus is like a cyst, well, the question seems nonsensical and any answer other than “zero should be put between a woman and an abortion” is rightly viewed as absurd. But a fetus is not just a bunch of cells, it is unique in that it has the potential to become a person. It is life, at an earlier stage. A fairer look at the situation identifies two players, each with valid yet competing self interests. Personally, I think that in in a pregnancy, the person who is already a person in full has rights that outweigh those of the potential person. But giving that potential person more of a voice, more of a chance is not a bad thing. Quite the opposite.