No. It is an undue burden, and, in my opinion, this was the intent of the legislators. They wanted it to be an additional burden on the exercise of the right. I can’t prove this, although some various chowderheads have said things that pretty much make it clear. They maintain a figleaf defense that the bill improves a woman’s access to information – intriguing, given their previous pattern of passing laws preventing women from having access to information. The bias behind these laws is what makes them unconstitutional.
The problem with using a single term to cover post-fertilization birth control, abortion and murder is that invites the inference that they are identical. While each involves a human death, they are not identical and should not be considered identically.
I suppose it’s arbitrary, in the sense that almost any standard is arbitrary from a certain point of view. Indeed, back to the sniper versus the hacker: we could imagine someone like you saying that any distinction is arbitrary; they are both murderers and what’s done to a corpse is simply irrelevant, as it’s just meat.
Not “OK,” but certainly more willing to accept it as a compromise.
Consider the death penalty, which I also oppose. But I recognize it’s the law, and there’s very little chance of ending it completely. But if one state brought back drawing and quartering, I’d certainly be a vocal opponent of that – even though in both cases we’re putting a convicted criminal to death. If we must do that, I’d argue, at least let us be humane as we do so. My preference would be to not do it at all, of course.
But I recognize that lethal injection is “bad,” but drawing and quartering is “worse.”
Because of practical concerns. It would be difficult or impossible to separate proper from improper usage of medications. I already said what I’d permit and what I’d prevent, therapy wise, and that strikes me as the best, most practical approach.
Indeed. I meant, of course, “unique with respect to the father and mother,” not “unique with respect to every other human.” I did think that was obvious from context, but your invitation to clarify is a fair one. So, yes, twins, triplets, and the like are unique genetic individuals when compared to the parents, even if not compared to each other.
Now cloning would, indeed, put a crimp on that definition: we’d then have a human being that was an exact genetic replica of its one single parent.
I don’t know the correct answer to that, because while I’m pretty hip to the process of cell division in ordinary human fertilization, I don’t know exactly what happens in cloning.
Thanks, but I’ll decline your kind invitation to adopt that premise and stick with the one I’ve been advancing here.
Guilty. It’s not without reason — the process strikes me as very… attacking.
But I admit I did not choose more neutral descriptive options.
Yes, I imagine Mark Twain is writhing in post-mortem envy.
Thanks. If you concede two more, I win a bicycle.
It’s also hard to believe that we’re having this discussion in America with sanctimonious, jackass, irrational, backwards religious fanatics who literally only give a shit about fetuses and not one damned fucking iota about people when out of the womb.
Especially when we have this problem:
This is utterly disgusting. One of eight (EIGHT!!!) fucking countries in the entire world without maternity leave. And all the Republicans and their ilk can think about are ways to force women into pregnancies. Not rational ways like paid maternity leave or day care that isn’t hugely expensive. Oh no. Petty bullshit like this where they get to say “It’s a person, you evil witch! Don’t you dare think of killing it, you selfish slut!”
:rolleyes:
It’s certainly fair to lay that quote at my feet. As you know, I am the author of “It’s A Person, You Evil Witch,” now in it’s eighth printing. I’ll be doing a book signing at Foxwoods next month – come by.
If the point is women have access to information, why not make it mandatory that a clinic offer them photocopies (which they are free to accept or not as they choose) of an ultrasound at approximately their level of gestation, i.e. if the woman is about eight weeks along, offer her images taken from an ultrasound from a woman who was also eight weeks along. Why does it have to be her own pregnancy? Is her pregnancy unique? Would she not get a comparable level of information by looking at someone else’s pregnancy? If a person wants information, does it only count if they do the experiment, or can they look at the research of others?
Is information the goal or emotional manipulation? Some combination? Bricker?
Real big clue as to the actual intent of the legislation. Excellent point.
Part of the information is the emotional impact of THIS IS YOUR BABY. Why is that information less palatable, merely because it stirs emotion?
Did you draw that inference? Certainly I see a difference between using birth control, having an abortion and committing murder - I don’t know how you could honestly infer otherwise just because I used a generic umbrella term. Dogs are mammals, cats are mammals, humans are mammals… so if I use “mammals” in a sentence, do you infer I mean dogs, cats and humans are identical? They certainly have elements in common, which is why a group descriptor is possible in the first place.
You’re free to imagine someone like me saying literally anything. I neither have nor desire any control over your imagination. Do you want to ask what I would actually say about, for example, a quick sniper kill versus a murder with chainsaws and whatnot?
Ummmmmm… no. This thread has enough tangents in it already.
Some of us prefer actual doctors make that call, and discuss various options with their patients. I don’t see where your input is needed or would even be valuable, unless the pregnant woman is a friend or relative of yours and asks your advice.
Oh, that’s what you meant. Okay. Glad we cleared that up, because it would be kind of silly to put an ambiguous phrase into law and just figure everyone will instinctively understand what you meant, and how the dictionary people should recognize your expansion on the word “unique”.
If you want to distill a concept using scientific terminology, it behooves you to avoid ambiguity. Twins have identical DNA, so did you want to expand your definition to epigenetics in pursuit of individual uniqueness?
It’s only a potential problem because of the DNA-based definition you are choosing.
If you like, but we’ll just continue to poke holes in it.
Can “emotional impact” be considered the same as “information” for the sake of education?
It sounds lke what is being intended is a guilt trip. I rarely find guilt trips to be of great educational value. “Emotional manipulation” seems more accurate.
Perhaps because it involves a medically unnecessary barrier/delay to exercising one’s right?
I didn’t ask if it was palatable, I asked if it was comparable. You were talking about her getting information, even (rather smugly) tried to imply we were opposed to her having access to information (“Why is that? You’d think that the paragons of choice would be happy that with additional information, different choices were being made.”) but now informing her clearly isn’t the goal; emotionally manipulating her is.
So, are you okay with government propaganda in general, or just on an issue-by-issue basis?
You don’t a right to an ultrasound-free abortion.
Well, that certainly settles that! Why didn’t you say so earlier, saved the stress on the hamsters?
I did not say that you did. You do however have a right to an abortion. I think there is value in fighting to ensure that a person is free to exercise a right with as few barriers as necessary.
Why not? Seriously, why not? One of the basic medical rights is the ability to refuse a procedure. Women can, and do, refuse an ultrasound before giving birth, so why is it suddenly not a right when it’s an abortion? The ultrasound isn’t medically required, so why does she suddenly give up her right to refusal?
Does a woman have the right to have an abortion, as currently established under Roe v Wade?
Whoa, talk about finding a penumbra.
Geez. He actually concedes that it’s emotional manipulation. The guy’s more honest than usual tonight.
I want to counter by allowing every pregnant woman to watch an Operation Rescue protest line in full howl. Just for abstract information, of course, not for any emotional reason. (Oh, yeah, and I said “allow” not “compel by state law.”)
Y’know, this could start a whole new field of constitutional law:
-You don’t have a right to free speech… if you’re not wearing clown shoes
-You don’t have a right to bear arms… if you can’t name all fifty state capitals
-You don’t have a right to a speedy trial… unless you know where your towel is
Just imagine, every right with an unnecessary requirement attached. It’ll be a Golden Age!
I know you were making a joke, but it really could. This is not just about abortion, but also about the right of refusal. Does a governing body have the right to mandate a procedure without it being medically necessary? Is it constitutional for a governing body to say “you can have this medical procedure, but only if you do this one first”?