Wait a tic, are you basing your position on the idea that we don’t know a fetus is a human being? That this is why mandatory ultrasounds are a good idea because there’s a general ignorance of the nature of a fetus, that there are millions of people in Canada and the U.S. that have no idea what a fetus actually is? Because if we actually did know, we wouldn’t be pro-choice since that’d be showing an “all-around low regard for human life” ?
For some value of “know” – yes.
In other words, while I suspect most pregnant women intellectually understand what a fetus is, I believe that many will be unable to actually kill their own when they see how human he or she is.
I don’t have to prove a 19th-century society that’s okay will executing children and cruelty to animals is bad - you’re the one claiming a modern society with liberal abortion laws is bad, and using the 19th-century society as a scary analogy.
Well, maybe not “claiming”…implying, maybe. Once you embrace the idea that your audience is stupid and can be lied to and won over with fact-free commentary, then evidence doesn’t matter one bit, I guess.
Sure, maybe there are people on this board (and in North America, certainly) who find your position and your arguments more persuasive than mine. And because of that, I have to maintain the so-called “eternal vigilance” against the erosion of freedom enabled by well-meaning but huckster-swayed citizens.
Some might. The rest, I suspect, will recognize your paternalistic condescension as just an intrusive nuisance and waste of time. I prefer to treat women like adults who are capable of making these important decisions. If they want to see an ultrasound while debating whether or not to abort, fine. Why not offer it to them for free, paid for out of your own pocket, and see how well that works?
So for the lover of evidence – why don’t you agree to accept whatever the numbers show?
If 25% of the women seeking an abortion are no longer interested in one after seeing the ultrasound, aren’t they still adults, and still capable of making this important decision?
What do you think “pro-choice” means? Whatever choice the woman makes, I’m okay with - I have reasons to disagree with laws meant to block or inhibit her. If the ultrasound procedure was something that could be done in two or three minutes and just before the woman has her abortion (assuming she still wants one, of course), I might accept it as a requirement with a shrug, but an ultrasound is not a casually brief procedure, and in addition you and Wisconsin Republicans are advocating a 24-hour wait afterward, which in practice could be a lot longer if the woman has to wait for an appointment and adjust her work and child-caring schedule.
So, would you be okay with the briefest, most minimal form of ultrasound done just before an abortion? Is the delay a critical element for you? Why? Are women stupid, in your view? Are there important decisions in your life that you’d be okay with a government-mandated 24-hour delay?
By the way, I’m offended by the suggestion that it takes me ten seconds to type “Cite?”
Seven or eight, tops.
[quote=“magellan01, post:1264, topic:662746”]
Perhaps you should take the time to read your own link, you clown. The debate is whether 20 weeks is the point at which a fetus can feel pain. Your own link and others that discuss this very issue admit that the pain receptors are there at about 24 weeks. From your own link:
**So, how’s that cite on your sentient dandelions coming?[/**QUOTE]
Just fine.
I’m not wild about the delay. To me, the key element is the requirement that the ultrasound be performed and the would-be mother can see (and hear explained) the salient features displayed thereby.
I don’t think the 24 hour delay is fatal to the legislation, but I wouldn’t shed tears if it were dropped.
Compulsory one-sided counseling is biased. At the same time you have the ultrasound, to emphasize the “humanity” (whatever you mean by that) of the fetus, can we also offer countering information that might minimize that so-called humanity? Should the woman in question also – by law, as a mandate – be told about the lack of neural connectivity in the fetus, the lack of brain function, etc.?
By law?
You may find the ends admirable, but most of us here find the means questionable. You are using the vast power of the law to put forward one point of view, but meanwhile deny (by law) the right of doctors to put forward other points of view. This is biased. This is one law for the ox.
Since we can’t agree on the facts, why not go to a benign governmental neutrality, and allow people to make up their own minds without compulsory counseling.
And, no, I do not agree to go by the numbers. Voters have been shown to vote in accord with the last political advertisement they have seen. Mandatory government “advertising” for a pro-life position is a form of persuasion that, in itself, will sway many minds.
Well, you’re going to be unhappy living in a representative democracy such as the United States, then. Sorry you don’t agree with the process, but it exists and I will not join you in any efforts to dislodge it.
If the US became suddenly majority Hindu, and laws mandated that before eating a steak, you needed to watch a five minute video about cattle slaughter, then return to the restaurant a day later to get your steak, Bricker would be against that.
But because it’s his religion, and his delusional take on the issue that is getting a pat on the head, he supports it.
Or am I wrong about that?
He wouldn’t like but would respect the democratic process and would look for legal avenues to overturn such a decisión.
This represents a nuance lacking in your views of post 781:
So it was fair and reasonable then, but not necessary now.
I can, and do, because you’d only “probably” agree that 72 hours is excessive, even though you now claim the delay is not the key element. Women in Wisconsin are still going to get abortions. This barrier will stop some of them, probably, by either playing on their emotions or introducing delays they can’t afford, but what happens if Wisconsin Republicans decide the barrier isn’t barring enough and go for 72 hours? This is why I don’t your morality and the morality of Wisconsin Republicans as a basis for law - it lacks check points based on reason.
I’m sure he’d be happy to seek judicial review. Even…activism.
Of course I’m sometimes unhappy living under democracy. So are you. Sometimes, we (both you and I) are not in the majority.
I will certainly not stop in my efforts to change the laws I don’t agree with, and neither will you.
I’ve given some reasons: you are attempting to defend the use of compulsory law in mandating an advertisement of one particular viewpoint to recipients who are not voluntarily willing to receive this advertising. I, having more respect for freedom, oppose this.
I’m not sure if there is any relatively brief form of ultrasound, like a quickie scan of some kind. Transvaginals, like pelvic ultrasounds, require the consumption of 32 to 40 ounces of water an hour before the procedure, no peeing allowed till it’s over (30 to 60 minutes later—gah!), and I can only say from personal experience with the pelvic one (twice) that it is stressful and painful just to hold it in one’s bladder that long.
Just had to add the details.
Look, you’re just a woman, you don’t need to worry your pretty little head about this. The men of the GOP have already decided what’s best for you.
Maybe I missed it but are people here advocating illegal avenues to overturn such a decision? Aren’t they, instead, debating the matter in an attempt to sway opinion in order to affect the democratic process in what they would feel is a positive way while people in the state follow legal avenues to block portions of the legislation?
Can you perhaps explain how that is different from what you envision Bricker doing?
I’m sorry, I fell asleep while you were talking about your trivial female troubles.
–is the attitude I would have if I were Bricker or a Wisconsin Republican.