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

[Bricker]

@Bryan Ekers

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.

Well, then I guess we’ll discuss that if it ever happens. I’m comfortable with 24 hours; I’d probably agree that 72 is overkill (no pun intended). 24 hours is fair and reasonable, and that’s the law as it stands. You can hardly argue against a limit of 24 hours simply because you believe the NEXT law might be unacceptable.

@Bryan_Ekers

… 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.

Naturally, I disagree that I have failed to analyze my true and/or unconscious motives.

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.

These rules seem unfair. You regard yourself as free to toss in blatant logical fallacies to earn a rhetorical flourish, but object to my “semantic evasion?”

It wasn’t semantic evasion. Knowing your newly-discovered love for great accuracy, my question was intended to highlight both the fact that “rationalize” has multiple meanings and that I reject your opinion that my support of this measure is grounded in true but undisclosed motives, or in unconscious motives.

[Bricker]

@legalsnugs

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.

Thankfully, that’s not the law.

As the Supreme Court observed in Casey:

And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

I’m not sure how slowly Justice O’Connor typed that, so it may be difficult for you to read, given your apparent belief that the speed of the typist composing the words bears some relation to the ability of the reader to comprehend them.

But perhaps a summary, in which I type my words slowly, will eliminate that daunting obstacle to your understanding:

The State (and not just the pregnant woman!!!) has a logical and valid INTEREST in the LIFE of the fetus.

So, to rephrase in your charming vernacular: NO!!! 100% of the focus is NOT on the mother!

Do you need any help with the bigger words?

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

Snugs,

I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you failed to answer this:

I’ll answer it- I think the fetus might deserve moral consideration- and perhaps different consideration in both cases. But no legal consideration in either case (early or late). Any person (adult of sound mind etc) has the right to expel anyone or anything from their body for any reason at any time. I understand that my position is at one end of the “pro-choice” spectrum, and I’m ok with that.

[legalsnugs]

Shall I type even slower for you two? Nothing I said goes against the law as it currently stands. What I believe does not matter to a pregnant woman. She can get a legal abortion under the law no matter what I believe, or what these neanderthals believe, is growing in her womb. Maggie, if you’re pro-choice, then you also believe it’s none of your business. How is that so difficult for you to grasp?

[Bricker]

@legalsnugs

Shall I type even slower for you two? Nothing I said goes against the law as it currently stands. What I believe does not matter to a pregnant woman. She can get a legal abortion under the law no matter what I believe, or what these neanderthals believe, is growing in her womb. If you’re pro-choice, then you believe it’s none of your business. How is that so difficult for you to grasp?

It’s not an accurate statement of the law, that’s all. You can believe that Elvis will be performing D&Cs with The Big Bopper scrubbing in to assist if you like. But no unlimited right to abortion exists during the entirety of pregnancy.

[LavenderBlue]

@Bricker

It’s not an accurate statement of the law, that’s all. You can believe that Elvis will be performing D&Cs with The Big Bopper scrubbing in to assist if you like. But no unlimited right to abortion exists during the entirety of pregnancy.

But it does during the first trimester and that’s when the vast majority of abortions are done. You and your fellow anti-abortionists should stop trying to put petty, humiliating hurdles in front of women doing so. You won’t stop most of those abortions. Instead you’ll either drive them underground where some women will be maimed and even killed or you’ll push women to wait longer which is both stupid and more dangerous for her.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

I’ll answer it- I think the fetus might deserve moral consideration- and perhaps different consideration in both cases. But no legal consideration in either case (early or late). Any person (adult of sound mind etc) has the right to expel anyone or anything from their body for any reason at any time. I understand that my position is at one end of the “pro-choice” spectrum, and I’m ok with that.

I almost agree with this. But, if I’m understanding you, it seems that you’d be just as fine with aborting during Month 1 as Month 9.

[magellan01]

@legalsnugs

Shall I type even slower for you two? Nothing I said goes against the law as it currently stands. What I believe does not matter to a pregnant woman. She can get a legal abortion under the law no matter what I believe, or what these neanderthals believe, is growing in her womb. Maggie, if you’re pro-choice, then you also believe it’s none of your business. How is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Why can’t it be both legal and something fro us to appropriately consider? That’s pretty much where most pro-choice people are. We don’t generally view abortions in Month 1 the same way we do them in Month 9. We, as a society, even among most (I think) pro-choice people already make that distinction, don’t we?

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

I almost agree with this. But, if I’m understanding you, it seems that you’d be just as fine with aborting during Month 1 as Month 9.

As far as the law, yes- if a woman and her doctor decide that an abortion is the best course of action, then they should be allowed to perform the procedure, at any time. Morally I might have a problem with the decision (depending on the circumstances), but this is irrelevant to how I think the law should treat it.

[Bricker]

@LavenderBlue

But it does during the first trimester and that’s when the vast majority of abortions are done.

True, and true.

You and your fellow anti-abortionists should stop trying to put petty, humiliating hurdles in front of women doing so. You won’t stop most of those abortions. Instead you’ll either drive them underground where some women will be maimed and even killed or you’ll push women to wait longer which is both stupid and more dangerous for her.

I agree that petty hurdles are inappropriate. I no longer support this “surgical center certification and hospital admitting privileges” business for precisely that reason – even though, were I “rationalizing” I could probably come up with something to hang support on.

I just don’t agree that ultrasound fits that description.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

As far as the law, yes- if a woman and her doctor decide that an abortion is the best course of action, then they should be allowed to perform the procedure, at any time. Morally I might have a problem with the decision (depending on the circumstances), but this is irrelevant to how I think the law should treat it.

I think most everyone makes allowance for the life of the mother. Still, the distinction I mentioned is made. Now backing that phrase up to “the health of the mother” becomes more problematic, as it can be defined so broadly as to be almost meaningless.

[legalsnugs]

@Bricker

It’s not an accurate statement of the law, that’s all. You can believe that Elvis will be performing D&Cs with The Big Bopper scrubbing in to assist if you like. But no unlimited right to abortion exists during the entirety of pregnancy.

And who said it did? Not me.

@magellan01

Why can’t it be both legal and something fro us to appropriately consider? That’s pretty much where most pro-choice people are. We don’t generally view abortions in Month 1 the same way we do them in Month 9. We, as a society, even among most (I think) pro-choice people already make that distinction, don’t we?

And I’m sure each and every pregnant woman considers that in her own way according to her own beliefs. Unless you’re the one who’s pregnant, it is not for you to consider.

The ONLY thing I’ve objected to in this thread is both of your belief that women are too stupid and incompetent to make their own decisions without unnecessary ultrasounds and waiting periods and your own input. They are not brainless cows or second class citizens. They know what they’re doing and what they want with their own bodies and their own lives.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Well, then I guess we’ll discuss that if it ever happens. I’m comfortable with 24 hours; I’d probably agree that 72 is overkill (no pun intended). 24 hours is fair and reasonable, and that’s the law as it stands. You can hardly argue against a limit of 24 hours simply because you believe the NEXT law might be unacceptable.

Fortunately, I can argue against this law on its own demerits. That the people who passed this law could pass similarly bad legislation is a valid secondary concern.

As an incidental note, in practice “24 hours” could be considerably longer. I’m sure it’s possible for a Wisconsin woman, especially if wealthy, to get her pro-forma ultrasound on Tuesday at 1 p.m. and her abortion on Wednesday at 1 p.m. but I don’t know how common this will be.

Naturally, I disagree that I have failed to analyze my true and/or unconscious motives.

I had no expectations of an admission otherwise.

Regarding my rhetorical flourishes, can I get a post number? I’d like to think I never used dictionary tactics i.e. disingenuously asking “when you said , did you mean [alternate definition of X that contradicts the obvious context in which X was used]?”

Or at least I hope I never used such a tactic. It seems so obvious and immature.

As for the unfairness of the “rules”, they apply only to me (and I can change my mind at any time). You, obviously, are free to continue behaving as you wish.

I reject your opinion that my support of this measure is grounded in true but undisclosed motives, or in unconscious motives.

Dishonest and ill-considered motives fits the bill nicely, even if the Merriem-Webster quote I chose doesn’t specifically mention it.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

..I said the 24 hour waiting period was important to allow the reality of a human quality of the fetus to sink in. …

So, this “human quality of the fetus” is news to her? She is unaware that she is pregnant with a human fetus?

No, that can’t be it, you would never be so insulting.

So it must be that she is not intellectually inferior, but morally bankrupt. She has not yet absorbed the lesson about “human quality”, but showing her electronic squiggles and giving her 24 hours for the lesson to “sink in”, moral advancement may result!

And of course her moral fiber must be lacking, there she is, isn’t she? But stick a plastic wand into her, show her some shapeless images that might be a human fetus, an octopus or a prenatal Cthulu…and 24 hours of meditation and soul-searching…why, who’s to say what miracles might result?

I’m thinking that extant “pregnancy crisis centers” will volunteer to fill a crucial need. Provide free ultrasounds to all women who ask for it, what a noble endeavor! And provide needed counseling on the additional risk of breast cancer and psychological problems due to abortion. Lies and bullshit, to put a fine point on it.

I’m a smart guy, Counselor, and so are you. So I got a hunch that you thought of this as well. That these ultrasound laws would have the effect of funneling pregnant women into “crisis centers”, where they can be lied to. So I’m further speculating that, being a smart guy, you know this stuff already and have decided to treat the question with benign neglect.

So, under the guise of medical necessity (which is unanimously denied by health professionals, you’ve already seen the list…), under that utterly false premise this law effectively promises such “crisis centers” something they cannot obtain otherwise save by stealth and false advertising. “Clients” or “victims”, take your pick.

The law insists on such procedures, assumes they will be provided for free but does not volunteer the state to provide them…I wonder who they had in mind? Actually, no, i don’t wonder about that. Pretty sure they already knew who would be providing these “free services”. And free counseling, as well, for those in desperate need of spiritual guidance.

Now, maybe, this is a wholly new idea to you, you are reading these words and thinking “Damn, ol’ '**luc **is smarter than I thought, why, I never even thought about this wrinkie, and nobody else did either!”

Yeah, sure. And I am the Queen of Romania.

[Cyros]

@magellan01

I can’t understand what you’re saying here. Seems like there’s a problem in the first sentence. I think. Can you rephrase?

How about, just like Bob doesn’t have a right to my kidney and my daughter doesn’t have a right to use a piece of my liver to maintain their lives, a fetus doesn’t have a right to use a uterus to maintain its life.

[Trion]

If we’re gonna put any kind of hurdles in front of people for doing something legal, I say we mix it up. So you’d need a valid voter registration card to have an abortion, and you’d need to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound to purchase a gun.

[John_Mace]

@Cyros

How about, just like Bob doesn’t have a right to my kidney and my daughter doesn’t have a right to use a piece of my liver to maintain their lives, a fetus doesn’t have a right to use a uterus to maintain its life.

That’s not a good analogy. For one, Bob is not currently attached to your kidney, but more importantly that implies a woman should be able to abort at any time, up to the time she goes into labor. Few people are going to support that.

[Cyros]

@Bricker

Demonstrably incorrect:

I’ll get you a paper and carbons, Cyros, for your written apology.

You certainly have my apologies. You are willing to accept legislation which adds multiple burdens on the woman seeking the abortion (time, money, etc), on the ultrasound providers (adding an additional 7000 users), possibly on people with medically necessary ultrasound needs, all with no evidence provided that your burdening of the rights of women will even make a difference (other than your gut).

Anyway, I’m on vacation now with really spotty internet so I will bow out of the discussion.

[Bricker]

@Trion

If we’re gonna put any kind of hurdles in front of people for doing something legal, I say we mix it up. So you’d need a valid voter registration card to have an abortion, and you’d need to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound to purchase a gun.

I say that any law should first be passed by a majority of the houses of the state legislature and then signed by the governor. How’s that for a plan?

[elucidator]

@Trion

If we’re gonna put any kind of hurdles in front of people for doing something legal, I say we mix it up. So you’d need a valid voter registration card to have an abortion, and you’d need to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound to purchase a gun.

But many prospective gun buyers are male and are not so equipped, so the probe would need to be shoved up their Nixon. Or deployed as a massively oversized catheter, like stuffing a watermelon into a tube sock.

Hmmm. Ponder, ponder.

Well, maybe medical necessity, or the opportunity for spiritual advancement…could make it work. We might need to hire an eloquent spokesman, one with advanced gifts in rationalization and creative reasoning. But where could we find such?