Or people are giving the fetus the exact same status as any other human being and standing up to say, “You have no right to use my body to preserve your life.” I think that the handling of a person’s remains when looking at organ donation shows how viscerally people are against having the government force to you use your organs to support someone else’s life.
Post #657:
“What I think is that those people who supposedly favor choice are terrified that abortion-minded women will see their baby’s face in 3D ultrasound and become emotionally committed to keeping the child.”
Post #716:
“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?”
If a pro-lifer were to argue that even if we won’t concede in the existence of a soul, we must concede that a human being is an incredibly complex organism, and that complexity is not altered by the arbitrary set “moment of viability.” When was that moment? Twenty weeks? Twenty weeks minus ten minutes? Say what you want about social necessity or a woman’s rights, but don’t claim that you aren’t destroying a human being.
I personally got jack shit against that argument. But that doesn’t matter because we dont get that or really any argument. What we get are pages of stock lawyerly prick-shots, and stupid quotes like those above: in some womb out there is nestled a fetus that won’t be aborted, and we can’t stand the thought of that.
And here you are, doing the same thing **Bricker **was: assuming that all women who seek an abortion are apparently too stupid to know what’s going on in their own uterus. That all such women consider what’s in their uterus to be simply a cyst without a human component. That all said women cannot possibly be giving any consideration at all to what is growing in their uterus. That without an unwanted and unnecessary ultrasound and waiting period, women couldn’t possibly understand what’s really going on enough to make a valid decision. That women are incapable of making their own decision whether or not they want to bear a child.
If you believe what you just posted, shame on you.
When does this unique status begin? If you believe person potential exists from conception, how do you feel about birth control pills, which prevent implantation of fertilized ova? Do they not have the same potential to become a person as a fetus? If so, shouldn’t you oppose birth control pills by the same reasoning? Can we force women to view pictures of embryos every time they need to fill a prescription for birth control pills?
And why is it so difficult for you to understand that even if a woman agrees with you and knows and understands this, that she may still want an abortion? That she may still not want to bear a child?
Don’t think of it as a mandatory 24 hour waiting period. Think of it as the state giving the woman the choice to take a vacation that’s provided for by law! Doesn’t that sound nice?
Where in the world did you get the idea that it is difficult to understand? I understand it just fine. Did you miss the point where I said I was pro-choice?
I really not sure of the exact moment. And given that we’re talking here about the 20-week point, it’s not all that relevant. I think it’s safe to say that as the pregnancy goes on, personhood becomes more and more established. Other than those extremists who think that until the baby leaves the mother’s body it’s just a bunch of cells, everyone seems to agree with that position. Tel me, do you think that having an abortion in the first month is the same as having one in the last month? The last week? Day? Hour? Minute? If not, we agree.
And I have no idea why you would think that someone who is pro-choice might be opposed to birth control.
Well, he declined to support regulations to force abortion clinics up to hospital standards that did nothing to improve quality of care but were just transparent efforts to drive the clinics out of business. He’s not willing to accept any legislation, just that which he can rationalize.
The problem, of course, is that he’s lending support to people who would, indeed, accept* any* legislation (and would ban abortion outright if they could), though at that point the justification is less “restrict abortion by any means” and more “a legislature passed it, therefore it’s good.” I don’t recall offhand him ever expressing support for a legislature that passed a law he didn’t like, but I’m sure that’s an oversight on my part.
As for magellan, his comment boils down to “I accept your decision but I wish you weren’t so mean about it.”
I can see that you are unable to hold a nuanced view in your head, so this will probably be a waste of typing. 100% of your focus is on the mother. If you believe that she is the only entity with a vested interest in her pregnancy, then it’s easy to glom on to your position as the only reasonable one. However, if you take a realistic view of a pregnancy and grant the very obvious fact that there is another entity involved, your position immediately looks to be overly simplistic and cartoonish. Now, acknowledging that there are two entities involved, and that there interests may be competing, doesn’t mean that you outlaw abortion. Just that you give the fetus some deference. Do YOU think it deserves zero consideration? Do YOU think that having an abortion in the first month is the same as having one in the last month? The last week? Day? Hour? Minute?
I can’t understand what you’re saying here. Seems like there’s a problem in the first sentence. I think. Can you rephrase?
I already answered the question of why have it all.
Your question attempts to exploit the fallacy of equivocation, wonderfully illustrated by:
Moldy crumbs are better than nothing.
Nothing is better than a thick juicy steak!
Therefore, moldy bread crumbs are better than a thick juicy steak!
The flaw in that example is that the word “nothing” is used to mean two different things.
In your attempt to equivocate, the flaw revolves around the use of “major” as a antonym for “no big deal:”
In those quotes, “major,” refers to a large imposition, an onerous imposition, a major obstacle.
But you then use “no big deal,” to attempt to show some inconsistency. I said the 24 hour waiting period was important to allow the reality of a human quality of the fetus to sink in. That’s major in the sense that it’s a dramatic realization, but not major in the sense that it’s an onerous obstacle.
All of you? You took a survey?
Or is this that thing where you feel like you need allies to validate an opinion?
Demonstrably incorrect:
I’ll get you a paper and carbons, Cyros, for your written apology.
And Bryan: does “rationalize,” mean “analyze and conclude is rational?”
Oh, not really. I get the idea of putting in a barrier that might stop some abortions and can see why it would be desirable to someone who wants to stop abortions and will consider stopping even one to be a success.
I just note that your barrier support is inconsistent. The idea, I gather, was that:
- Pregnant woman must undergo ultrasound
- Pregnant woman sees face of fetus
- Pregnant woman feels swell of maternal love
- Pregnant woman, if not changing her mind about aborting on the spot, must take 24 hours to think about it in any case
The problem is that step 2 is optional and if not exercised renders steps 3 and 4 moot. The woman can always decide to change her mind, and of course even in the absence of this or similar laws, it may take her several days to arrange an abortion appointment anyway. There is already a “waiting period” built into the system, in the sense that abortion pills are not now available at 24-hour convenience stores (that I know of, anyway) so a woman who finds out she’s pregnant isn’t likely to terminate that pregnancy in the next two or three minutes.
A mandated ultrasound procedure at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure, though, and regardless of your opinion, can indeed represent a significant hassle to a woman who may already have children, who may have a job she can’t easily take time off of, who may not have easy transportation to facilities where these procedures are offered (and have no illusions about the attempts of Wisconsin lawmakers to reduce the number of these facilities).
In some sense, not forcing the woman to look at the ultrasound image is kind of like chickening out. You’re advocating that someone take on a burden but leaving out the element that, in your theory, makes the burden particularly burdensome. I guess that gives you the illusion of being civilized about it, avoiding the image of a woman restrained with her eyes forced open (as in the Clockwork Orange image invoked earlier), made to look at an ultrasound monitor.
So let’s say since the requirement to look at the ultrasound is dropped, we may as well drop the ultrasounding itself. After all, the machine and the technician’s time are better spend on prenatal care for wanted children, and the effect of having someone point out physical features on a fetus can be accomplished by a doctor pointing out elements on a model of a fetus or a picture of a fetus, sparing the woman the hassle of having to get the ultrasound at all. She still gets lectured on the nature of a fetus and she doesn’t have to take off her shirt or her pants.
Of course, the woman can always choose to get an ultrasound if she really wants one. More power to her.
Well, “dramatic realizations” and “onerous obstacles” are in the eyes of the beholder, aren’t they? This legislation is an attempt to manipulate emotions, and those are always unpredictable. You’re never going to able to guarantee that a “dramatic realization” will take place, but you can guarantee that some women will lose their jobs because having to take two days off on medical appointments is unacceptable, even if the first appointment is medically unnecessary and only required by law. She may not even be able to get the appointments or get to the appointments on subsequent days.
You may (probably will) scoff at the idea that a woman would lose her job in this manner. I suppose I could compile statistics on poverty and single-motherhood and the rates of marginal employment in Wisconsin (i.e. women who are just getting by at long-hour minimum-wage jobs). Would it be a waste of my time if no such evidence could budge you from your arbitrary “not a major obstacle” position?
For what it’s worth, I’ll gladly stipulate that some women will indeed change their minds about aborting, but for the others who go ahead and abort anyway, what if lawmakers decide 24 hours is clearly not enough for a “dramatic realization”? The next law says 48? 72? A week? One thing that’s not arbitrary is the growing fetus itself, and the longer the delay, the more risk is posed to the woman should she decide to go through with an abortion.
You should probably stop trying to use sarcasm. You’re not very good at it.
Well, Merriam-Webster Online (to pick an authority I assume will not be regarded as biased) arguably supports the definition you suggest, but I think it was obvious enough from context that I meant something akin to “attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives”, as appears in MW’s entry.
I don’t expect your question was a serious one. If you want to waste time on semantic evasions, be my guest. To save my own time, in future, I’ll just respond with “semantic evasion” if I see you attempting this again.
Wow. Condescend much? I’ll type real slow so you can comprehend this. Your disdain of women is obvious. What is equally obvious is that, although you claim to be pro-choice, “albeit reluctantly,” your words prove otherwise. YES! - 100% of the focus is on the mother! The pregnant woman is the only one with a vested interest in her pregnancy. It’s her body; her decision - based on what SHE believes and wants and she does NOT have to acknowledge that another entity is involved. The fetus doesn’t get a vote if she does not want to give it a vote. That’s why it’s called CHOICE. It doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. If SHE thinks it’s a mass of cyst-like cells and wants an abortion, she gets to make that call. If she thinks it’s a mass of cyst-like cells and doesn’t want an abortion, that, too, is her call to make. If she thinks it’s the next Einstein and wants an abortion, it’s still her call to make. You seem to think that no woman can grok what you take as “truth,” which is insulting and condescending in the extreme.
Yes, we know what you believe, but it’s none of your business. Pro-choice means you recognize that it’s none of your business. The whole point of being pro-choice is that it doesn’t matter what you believe or what I believe. It’s the pregnant woman’s personal and individual choice. If you believe a fetus is a person with self-interest and/or rights, then great - don’t have an abortion. That would be YOUR choice. But you don’t get to decide for some other pregnant woman and you don’t get to think less of her if she believes something different from you or makes a different choice.
Pro-choice, my ass.
I can see that you are so self unaware that you are unable to see that great irony in your statement. And that makes it all that much more entertaining.
HA! Are you truly that blinded by your desire to think your position correct that you utter this sheer stupidity? Stop—you’re embarrassing yourself. That you are unable to even acknowledge that there is another life going on is telling. Sad, but telling.
That all goes to the woman’s decision. We agree that it is hers to make.
Giving the fetus a tad more consideration in what is an extremely lopsided equation doesn’t seem to be a thing to get all in a huff about. And what is this “truth” you allude to? Because you don’t seem to grok much. And while we’re at it, who is this “we” you speak of in your next sentence below? Or is it just that you feel the need to be part of a crowd? Why?
You really have a hard time either reading or, as I said, holding a nuanced position in your head. Right now, all sign point to “both”.
I am fervently Pro-choice. Although I arrive at that position reluctantly. Guess that nuance thing is giving you trouble again, huh, Mr. Black & White?
Snugs,
I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you failed to answer this:
Say “yes”, snugs, that an abortion in the last minute is okey-dokey. Then he’ll get his chance to conclude that you’re evil, which is what he wants anyway, and it’ll save time.