# Ladies, you are just too stupid **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260 "2017-01-26T21:15:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/261 "2017-01-31T22:03:45Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > No abortions happen at 9 months. When come back bring facts. Expecting facts? How ridiculous! ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/262 "2017-01-31T23:16:33Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > An overturn of Roe vs Wade? > > First a disclaimer : This is only opinion and supposition… > > We would see a sharp rise in illegal abortions. Some would be performed by doctors and some would be done in back rooms by inept criminals (like in the old days). We would also probably see a rise in infants being abandoned - on road sides, in dumpsters, where-ever they used to dump them. I have to echo this answer, with the addition that existing laws would be used to prosecute women who obtained or procured “miscarriages,” and new laws such as the proposed one in Texas would be passed. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/263 "2017-01-31T23:41:23Z")
OK, Bricker…so now explain to me why there should be a law that a man is required to provide a kidney to a person who needs it - because that person was conceived using sperm that the man donated to a sperm bank 25 years before, and why there should not be a law that you need to provide a kidney to a stranger. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/264 "2017-01-31T23:53:01Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > OK, Bricker…so now explain to me why there should be a law that a man is required to provide a kidney to a person who needs it - because that person was conceived using sperm that the man donated to a sperm bank 25 years before, and why there should not be a law that you need to provide a kidney to a stranger. I’ve noticed that the quid pro quo in terms of asking and and answering questions here seems a bit tilted towards you. I am happy to respond to this question, but as I compose my reply, perhaps you can answer the questions I have asked you, without again asserting a “woman’s prerogative?” ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/265 "2017-01-31T23:54:58Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, the original question was “Should a sperm donor or birthparent be required to give up an organ to save their child’s life”? > > Notice no organ was specified. > > And really, I can’t believe I would have to talk you out of “Yes, people should be forced by threat of imprisonment to give up a kidney or part of their liver” > > I’m afraid I don’t have the debating skills necessary to counter that viewpoint other than “People shouldn’t be forced to give up parts of their body, because, you know, it’s THEIR body” No, it should be ANY organ. If a woman has to go through a pregnancy that would result in certain death, men should take the same risks. > [@SteveG1](#): > > Expecting facts? How ridiculous! I aborted my daughter at 8 months to save my life. She’s still around. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/266 "2017-02-01T00:28:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And if you don’t want to raise a baby, keep it in your pants. Simple. Captain Obvious says, “Obvious answer is obvious” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/267 "2017-02-01T00:39:07Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > No, it should be ANY organ. If a woman has to go through a pregnancy that would result in certain death, men should take the same risks. But I’m not advocating a framework in which a woman has to go through a pregnancy that would result in certain death. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/268 "2017-02-01T00:47:12Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > OK, Bricker…so now explain to me why there should be a law that a man is required to provide a kidney to a person who needs it - because that person was conceived using sperm that the man donated to a sperm bank 25 years before, and why there should not be a law that you need to provide a kidney to a stranger. When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage. But in thinking about your question, I think perhaps a better framework would be the societal expectation associated with parental obligations. After all, it’s this expectation that gives rise to my belief that a pregnant mother owes a greater duty of care to her unborn child than she owes to an unrelated stranger. So if that’s the right model, then the sperm donor father is off the hook; the very concept of sperm donation is that the father does not wish to undertake parental responsibilities, _and that society is prepared to recognize that wish as a reasonable one._ So that’s my notional answer: society rightly considers parents to have an obligation to their children which is not lightly cast aside. But a stranger has no such claim on a kidney, and a child conceived from a sperm bank donation likewise has a weak claim to paternal support. But I’m designing this as we talk, so perhaps there are other flaws I don’t see. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/269 "2017-02-01T00:49:43Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > An overturn of Roe vs Wade? > > First a disclaimer : This is only opinion and supposition… > > We would see a sharp rise in illegal abortions. Some would be performed by doctors and some would be done in back rooms by inept criminals (like in the old days). We would also probably see a rise in infants being abandoned - on road sides, in dumpsters, where-ever they used to dump them. Thanks for this answer, but as you may recall, I asked about the likelihood of the following prediction, which you endorsed: > [@](#): > > If a women goes to the hospital claiming to have a miscarriage, the doctor will have to find fetal tissue or turn her over to the police for a “suspected illegal abortion.” And if a women is suspected to have caused her miscarriage (maybe she took an aspirin, had some coffee or thought bad thoughts about the baby) she could be put in jail for murder. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/270 "2017-02-01T01:27:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Once again, let me highlight that my main point was: animus against women, or belief in the stupidity of women, is not my motive. > > Does anyone dispute that claim? I do, but I’d be referencing an earlier thread in which you participated which is further complicated by me using a smartphone in a place with very shaky Internet access, limiting my ability to search/copy/paste. As a result, I cannot immediately cite this so I’ve no problem with it being dismissed out of hand. The gist stems from your comments on mandatory ultrasounds, after I suggested the patient need not be subjected to the procedure herself but simply have available to her ultrasound images of someone else’s pregnancy at a roughly similar stage of development. As I recall, you felt that insufficient. The woman had to be able to see her OWN fetus, in order to imcrease the chances of emotionally manipulating her into bonding with it and deciding not to abort. I think I can reasonably draw from this that you believe SOME women are stupid in the sense that no matter what circumstances prompted her to consider abortion initially, her lady-feelings will prevail. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/271 "2017-02-01T02:01:38Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > An overturn of Roe vs Wade? > > First a disclaimer : This is only opinion and supposition… > > We would see a sharp rise in illegal abortions. Some would be performed by doctors and some would be done in back rooms by inept criminals (like in the old days). We would also probably see a rise in infants being abandoned - on road sides, in dumpsters, where-ever they used to dump them. Compared to now? Yes, you’d see a “sharp rise in illegal abortions”. But that doesn’t mean much. And, yes, you’d also see an increase in births but, no, you wouldn’t see a “massive” increase in births, as some women will use birth control when they don’t now, some will use more effective forms of birth control, and others will forgo risky sex all together. The rest of what you typed is just leftist talking points. Even prior to Roe v Wade, the majority of “illegal abortions” were done by licensed medical practitioners. And, furthermore, why would someone abandon a child-- risking jail time-- when they can simply give it up for adoption? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/272 "2017-02-01T02:40:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I suppose because there’s a distinction between assigning responsibility for saving a life to a random person, and assigning it to a parent. > [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s a bit disingenuous, though, in appropriating the connotations of the term “parent” as a loving protector to apply to an unwanted pregnancy. […] > > To an unwillingly pregnant woman, her fetus might well be just a “random person” (or more logically, not even a person), not a beloved and treasured child. You’re deliberately using the term “parent” instead of “pregnant woman” to imply the existence of a parental duty even in cases where no parental role or relationship is wanted. > [@Bricker](#): > > The word is absolutely appropriate: > > > [@](#): > > > > 1: one that begets or brings forth offspring > [@Kimstu](#): > > But your attempt to use its connotations to imply what we usually think of as parental duty towards an unwanted fetus is disingenuous. > > You drew a distinction between obligations to a random person and obligations as a parent, using as an example the situation of parents donating kidneys to children, an act which is overwhelmingly voluntary and prompted by a concept of parental duty based on love and concern. > > You are trying to insinuate that unwillingly pregnant women should accept a similar expectation of parental duty, based on the technicality that they too are “parents” according to a biologically literal definition of the term. > > Just letting you know that ISWYDT. > [@Bricker](#): > > Tell you what. If I make an explicit argument, refute it. If you believe you have uncovered an insinuation, feel free to argue against it, but don’t expect me to defend it. > [@Bricker](#): > > When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage. But in thinking about your question, I think perhaps a better framework would be the societal expectation associated with parental obligations. After all, it’s this expectation that gives rise to my belief that a pregnant mother owes a greater duty of care to her unborn child than she owes to an unrelated stranger. :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/273 "2017-02-01T03:43:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: You quoted me as saying: _When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage. But in thinking about your question, I think perhaps a better framework would be the societal expectation associated with parental obligations._ Can you explain, without emoticons, what makes you dubious? When I replied to you, I was using the term exactly as I said. (“When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage.”) But in considering the question she asked, I realized that a better framework might be the societal expectation we assign to parents. Now, you leapt to the conclusion I was insinuating the societal expectation issue when I wasn’t. But after considering the matter, it seemed to make more sense to adopt it. So I did. What bothers you about that? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/274 "2017-02-01T03:45:38Z")
That’s okay, not bothered at all. Looks like I initially understood your thought processes better than you did. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/275 "2017-02-01T03:45:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thanks for this answer, but as you may recall, I asked about the likelihood of the following prediction, which you endorsed: I think something like that is within the realm of possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/276 "2017-02-01T04:14:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage. But in thinking about your question, I think perhaps a better framework would be the societal expectation associated with parental obligations. After all, it’s this expectation that gives rise to my belief that a pregnant mother owes a greater duty of care to her unborn child than she owes to an unrelated stranger. > > So if that’s the right model, then the sperm donor father is off the hook; the very concept of sperm donation is that the father does not wish to undertake parental responsibilities, _and that society is prepared to recognize that wish as a reasonable one._ > > So that’s my notional answer: society rightly considers parents to have an obligation to their children which is not lightly cast aside. But a stranger has no such claim on a kidney, and a child conceived from a sperm bank donation likewise has a weak claim to paternal support. > > But I’m designing this as we talk, so perhaps there are other flaws I don’t see. So to be clear, in your opinion, society recognizes that something happens at birth that relieves a mere genetic parent of all responsibilities to save a child’s life by providing biological support, but prior to birth society believes the birth mother is responsible for provide a host because that saves a child’s life? Remember, more Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/277 "2017-02-01T04:51:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I do, but I’d be referencing an earlier thread in which you participated which is further complicated by me using a smartphone in a place with very shaky Internet access, limiting my ability to search/copy/paste. As a result, I cannot immediately cite this so I’ve no problem with it being dismissed out of hand. > > The gist stems from your comments on mandatory ultrasounds, after I suggested the patient need not be subjected to the procedure herself but simply have available to her ultrasound images of someone else’s pregnancy at a roughly similar stage of development. As I recall, you felt that insufficient. The woman had to be able to see her OWN fetus, in order to imcrease the chances of emotionally manipulating her into bonding with it and deciding not to abort. That’s not really correct. The Wisconsin law we were discussing in 2013 clearly mandated “No person may require a pregnant woman to view the ultrasound images that are required to be displayed for and reviewed with her or to visualize any fetal heartbeat. No person, including the pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to view the displayed ultrasound images or to visualize any fetal heartbeat.” And you knew that, and knew I didn’t favor making her look: > [@I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/756): > > Well, Bricker thinks the 24 hours is necessary, but also that the woman shouldn’t be forced to look at the sonogram results, so I sense an inconsistency. If she doesn’t look, why make her wait? And if the 24-hour wait is no big deal, why have it at all? > [@Bryan Ekers in 2017](#): > > I think I can reasonably draw from this that you believe SOME women are stupid in the sense that no matter what circumstances prompted her to consider abortion initially, her lady-feelings will prevail. You’re wrong, but only because you either did not see, or do not remember, Part II of that discussion. As it happens, I said that if I were to learn after some period of time that seeing such images did not significantly reduce the number of abortions, I would concede that the assumptions underlying the requirement were flawed and I would no longer support it. And in fact, that’s exactly what happened. > [@I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1596): > > The study says that a small number of women did change their minds: > > So there is a tiny difference – maybe not even significant statistically. > > What I said at the time was that I expected a significant number…I might have tossed out 25%. If it had been, say, ten percent, I might have made a case that the benefit still outweighed the imposition on liberty. > > But this, I concede, was not. I have only read the abstract, so I may reverse my opinion again if the study methodology is flawed in some way, but based on this evidence, I agree: the law is not justified. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/278 "2017-02-01T07:33:30Z")
> [@tombrownoutdoors](#): > > If you don’t want a baby, don’t get pregnant. Simple. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And if you don’t want to raise a baby, keep it in your pants. Simple. Unfortunately, society doesn’t have near the problem with men walking away from a woman they made pregnant as they do with that woman having an abortion. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Compared to now? Yes, you’d see a “sharp rise in illegal abortions”. But that doesn’t mean much. And, yes, you’d also see an increase in births but, no, you wouldn’t see a “massive” increase in births, as some women will use birth control when they don’t now, some will use more effective forms of birth control, and others will forgo risky sex all together. > > The rest of what you typed is just leftist talking points. Even prior to Roe v Wade, the majority of “illegal abortions” were done by licensed medical practitioners. And, furthermore, why would someone abandon a child-- risking jail time-- when they can simply give it up for adoption? Damn the dumb is strong in here. It doesn’t matter that there will be a sharp rise in illegal abortions? “some women will use birth control when they don’t now, some will use more effective forms of birth control, and others will forgo risky sex all together” Do you really believe that? Women just don’t bother being responsible because they know they can go have surgery to take care of any oops moments? Also, aside from the fact that giving a baby up for adoption isn’t simple, abandoning a baby tends to be done by those who didn’t want anyone to know they were pregnant in the first place. Like girls in high school. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/279 "2017-02-01T08:05:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And you knew that, and knew I didn’t favor making her look: I thought I made it obvious, though apparently not obvious enough, that the woman was not being forced to see the images, though she WAS being forced to undergo the procedure to produce the images, even though images from other pregnancies can be readily available to convey the same information. > [@](#): > > You’re wrong, but only because you either did not see, or do not remember, Part II of that discussion. As it happens, I said that if I were to learn after some period of time that seeing such images did not significantly reduce the number of abortions, I would concede that the assumptions underlying the requirement were flawed and I would no longer support it. > > And in fact, that’s exactly what happened. I retain some skepticism that you have fully abandoned the notion that women (some, at least) are too dumb to know what’s best for them just because of a trivial notion like there being no evidence for it. At best I might offer the mildest possible applause if you have indeed allowed evidence or lack thereof to inform your opinion, though tempered by your more recent stated approval of making the process “uncomfortable” for no apparent medical reason. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/280 "2017-02-01T13:59:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I thought I made it obvious, though apparently not obvious enough, that the woman was not being forced to see the images, though she WAS being forced to undergo the procedure to produce the images, even though images from other pregnancies can be readily available to convey the same information. You didn’t. Now you have. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260.md?page=15)