You don’t need to choose to post on an internet message board. Maybe we should pass a law that requires you to get a poke in the eye every time. Would that be fine in principle?
acsenray well, it depends, am I posting things that society has a legitimate interest in trying to suppress? Poking me in the eye, of course, is going to damage my eye. I don’t think the ultrasounds are typically medically harmful.
I’d like all elective abortions to be banned, but given that that’s unachievable right now, I’d like them to be more difficult to get, and have more regulatory roadblocks.
Isn’t he supposed to be the Smart One?
In his defense, he’s very smart …
… up until that moment when his POLITICS warning alarm* goes off and short-circuits his REASON motherboard.
I call it the Dennis Miller effect, but it applies to many others… we could find them on both sides if we tried.
*(It’s actually a loud hailer that shouts “YEAH, WELL, LIBRULS ARE TEH SUXXORS TOO, SO I DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN!”)
Oh, he listens. Knows we got a darned good case to make, too. Wouldn’t be so irritable otherwise.
Regulatory roadblocks which have no meaningful purpose other than to introduce obstacles to others’ participating in their rights are indistinguishable from tyranny.
If you had a valid reason to regulate an activity – anti-pollution laws, for instance, have such a basis – then the rest of us might be sympathetic. But, “I don’t like what you are doing, so I’m going to pass laws making it hard for you” are unjustified.
In fact, they are very widely interpreted to be unconstitutional. A “Golden Rule” caveat might be in order. (As was the purpose of Acenray’s “poke in the eye” example.) “I don’t like you, so I’m poking you in the eye” is really shitty legislation, and yet that’s exactly what you just espoused.
They’re not effective (see earlier posts). Virtually no women change their minds due to TVU, and it’s just a pointless and physically instrusive imposition on women. Do you still support them?
As others have said, hindering the exercise of a constitutional right—whether it’s abortion or posting on the internet (i.e., free speech)—requires a reason that’s a lot, lot better than merely wanting to hinder the exercise of that right.
acsenray The supreme court has yet to rule on whether the ultrasound laws are unconstitutional or not. If they don’t think they’re unconstitutional, then they aren’t.
Of course, the question of whether these laws stand up in court is different from the moral question. Slavery and segregation were legal and constitutional once upon a time, after all.
The comparison to slavery is trite and hackneyed. It’s elegantly self-serving, but fails the “sniff” test. Every single one of us here acknowledges the personhood of black people. The personhood of the fetus is not agreed upon, at a very basic and fundamental philosophical level.
You might as well try to invoke Trinitarianism here. You have religious beliefs, but you do not have any convincing argument that does not depend upon a faith-based definition.
That’s not the point. The point is that your stated justification for supporting such a law—merely making it more burdensome to exercise a constitutional right—is an illegitimate one, and, I daresay, an immoral one.
iiiandiii yes I’d still support them. I think the state has the right and obligation to make sure mothers seeking abortions understand what they’re doing (I.e. killing an innocent human person). Even if only a tiny handful of mothers change their mind, it’s still worth it.
Trinopus the personhood of Black Americans wasn’t agreed on at the time, any more than the personhood of the embryo / fetus is today. I think slavery is a decent analogy (though abortion is in some senses worse since it destroys life rather than degrading it).
What if they do not agree that they are “killing an innocent person?” How far are you willing to go to propagandize them? If they choose to close their eyes while the ultrasound is being displayed, will you pry their eyes open with toothpicks?
Nope; it’s a shitty analogy. You’re fallaciously claiming to equate a matter that is settled and agreed upon with an issue that isn’t settled and agreed upon. I could just as easily pretend that it’s like the euthanizing of cats and dogs, which is settled and agreed upon. You would, obviously, disagree. The creation of false equivalencies is a very low, coarse, and (checking, yes, this is the Pit) fucking stupid rhetorical technique.
Got it – you are willing to mandate the shoving of objects into women just so a tiny percentage of those women might change their minds about a medical procedure. I am hopeful that you will never have any power over women.
Someone once said that if God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him. What’s particularly sad is how vigorous they are in their same efforts to invent evil to do in God’s name.
It’s stuff like this that makes me more and more sympathetic with Der Trihs and his strongly-stated rejectionism.
Do you have a cite for the claim about Virginia women being more likely than men to support such laws?
IbnWarraq yea, it’s the Quinnipiac University poll, results released March 21, 2012. The results are pretty unsurprising: men and women have about the same opinions about abortion, and when you correct for party ID women are more pro life.
Trinopus trust me, I think abortion rights are every bit as evil as you think my views are.
Your ideas about what is evil is irrelevant.
Is this the poll you’re talking about?
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1722
Virginia, March 2012
It doesn’t say what you think it says. You probably hear that a lot.
Here are the raw numbers from that poll -
22. Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
Legal all cases 21% 9% 36% 20% 18% 24% 19% 28%
Legal most cases 36 28 36 42 40 33 37 34
Illegal most cases 23 36 16 20 23 23 23 19
Illegal all cases 12 19 6 10 11 14 13 12
DK/NA 7 8 5 8 8 6 8 7
COLLEGE DEG AGE IN YRS.......
Yes No 18-34 35-54 55+
Legal all cases 25% 18% 14% 26% 20%
Legal most cases 40 34 48 34 32
Illegal most cases 23 24 24 24 24
Illegal all cases 8 15 11 10 16
DK/NA 5 9 3 6 9
WhtBrnAgnEv
Prot Cath Yes No
Legal all cases 17% 8% 9% 21%
Legal most cases 32 42 22 44
Illegal most cases 27 28 32 21
Illegal all cases 16 17 28 8
DK/NA 8 5 8 5
TREND: Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?
Mar 21 Dec 22 Sep 14
2012 2011 2011
Legal all cases 21 24 19
Legal most cases 36 30 31
Illegal most cases 23 25 25
Illegal all cases 12 14 16
DK/NA 7 8 8
23. There is a new law in Virginia that legally requires women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the procedure. Do you approve or disapprove of this new law?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
Approve 41% 61% 27% 39% 38% 44% 42% 35%
Disapprove 52 31 67 56 56 49 51 57
DK/NA 7 9 6 5 7 7 7 8
COLLEGE DEG AGE IN YRS.......
Yes No 18-34 35-54 55+
Approve 33% 46% 56% 33% 38%
Disapprove 61 47 40 59 55
DK/NA 6 7 4 7 7
STAND ON ABORTION Q22
WhtBrnAgnEv IN ALL or MOST CASES
Prot Cath Yes No Legal Illegal
Approve 48% 50% 62% 38% 25% 69%
Disapprove 46 44 31 56 71 25
DK/NA 6 7 6 6 4 6
24. Supporters of the new law requiring an ultrasound said it was needed so women can view their fetus in hopes they will change their minds about having an abortion. Do you think having to view an ultrasound will make many women change their minds, some women change their minds or hardly any women change their minds?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
Many women 12% 19% 10% 8% 11% 13% 11% 13%
Some women 45 54 36 47 44 46 46 47
Hardly any women 31 18 40 34 31 30 31 28
NONE/NO WOMEN(VOL) 5 2 4 7 4 5 5 4
DK/NA 7 7 9 5 10 5 7 8
COLLEGE DEG AGE IN YRS.......
Yes No 18-34 35-54 55+
Many women 9% 15% 19% 12% 9%
Some women 41 48 52 42 43
Hardly any women 39 26 22 37 31
NONE/NO WOMEN(VOL) 5 5 2 5 6
DK/NA 7 7 6 4 11
STAND ON ABORTION Q22
WhtBrnAgnEv IN ALL or MOST CASES
Prot Cath Yes No Legal Illegal
Many women 12% 12% 21% 6% 3% 28%
Some women 49 47 53 45 41 51
Hardly any women 28 32 19 37 43 15
NONE/NO WOMEN(VOL) 5 1 3 4 7 1
DK/NA 6 8 5 7 6 5
25. Do you think government should make laws aimed at convincing pregnant women who plan to have an abortion to change their minds, or don't you think so?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk
Yes 21% 31% 17% 17% 21% 21% 20% 20%
No 72 57 78 78 72 72 72 76
DK/NA 7 12 5 5 7 7 8 4
COLLEGE DEG AGE IN YRS.......
Yes No 18-34 35-54 55+
Yes 21% 21% 29% 18% 18%
No 75 71 67 76 74
DK/NA 5 9 4 6 9
STAND ON ABORTION Q22
WhtBrnAgnEv IN ALL or MOST CASES
Prot Cath Yes No Legal Illegal
Yes 22% 26% 32% 16% 8% 45%
No 69 68 57 77 89 48
DK/NA 9 6 11 6 3 7
This poll from 2012 predates the first post in this thread by at least 15 months. I’m not sure it was clear at the time that this poll was conducted that the ultrasounds in question involved rape with a foreign object. Nonetheless, Virginia’s voters didn’t like the idea of forced ultrasounds or of the government trying to change women’s minds about abortion.
Note especially the numbers for item #23, asking Virginians if they approve or disapprove of the ultrasound law. It’s true that more women approve of ultrasound law as it was then understood than men approved of it (44% Female and 38% male respondents approved) but both of those numbers are smaller than the numbers of people who disapproved (49% female and 56% male respondents disapproved).
The numbers for abortion are about what they usually show - 80-ish percent of the public thinks abortion should be legal in some circumstances, with 20% saying it should never be legal for any circumstances. The argument is over which circumstances, not over abortion as a whole.
Merneith no, the study shows exactly what I claimed. Women are more supportive of the ultrasound law than men . I didn’t say that the bill was wildly popular in general.
Nitpicking, but importantly: Virginia women were more supportive of the ultrasound bill when the poll was conducted ~2 years ago. It’s quite possible that poll results would be different in other states and if redone today. I’m not saying the results WOULD be, but that we don’t know. Your phrasing (women instead of Virginia women and present tense ‘are supportive’) isn’t accurate.