The problem with that analysis is that it doesn’t fit my reactions. The new information that changed my mind did not operated to change the condescending index of the plan. I changed my mind because I had a model of what would happen and the data falsified my model. Your summary suggests that each of these is a pose on my part. But if it were so, I looked just as much like a bad guy at the beginning.
In fact, the objection to paying for abortion runs parallel to the objection to abortion overall. Even if I must concede it’s legal to obtain an abortion I don’t have to concede it’s legal to require the federal government subsidize it.
So my initial support for the ultrasound was grounded in the idea that it was a genuine way to provide new factual information to prospective abortion patients that might change their minds. When I learned that this did not happen, all that remained was a legal hurdle, something that made abortion more difficult for no reason apart from adding difficulty.
My initial and continued support for strict separation of federal funds from abortion did not arise from a desire appear a good guy. It’s grounded in a personal conviction that the federal government has no business funding abortions, even indirectly.
I make no claim that my expressed opinions are anything other than expressed opinions.
I figure you probably still harbour the belief that a woman seeking an abortion doesn’t fully understand the implications, but realized mandatory ultrasounds weren’t an effective way to address this.
Anyway, if you ran the zoo (i.e. could rule by fiat), you’d ban abortion based on your unfalsifiable beliefs. Fine. Since that’s not likely, you can speculate on administering the zoo (i.e. holding elected office) and inventing regulatory barriers to abortion, including…what… requiring PP provide exacting paperwork that you demand from no other non-subsidized activity?
By the way, appearing as a good guy is not the same as not appearing as a bad guy.
Sounds like the white-guy-who-says-the-n-word defense. Don’t apologize or anything for something you posted that offended several women. Just throw your wife under the bus. Clearly, you’re not a total asshole. :smack:
No, what we - and many other women for that matter - are trying to ‘explain’ is that what they want to do is to someone else’s body, not their own. This is why people get charged for murder when the assault or murder of a pregnant woman results in the baby’s death. (The baby’s death, get it? Seeing as how, you know, the baby is a separate entity from the woman.)
That word you use? I do not think it means what you think it means.
There are pro-life women. But I think you and your wife are discounting how much “inconvenience” is an acceptable level is the child is wanted, vs the level of inconvenience if the child is not wanted. Ask your wife if she would be willing to go through 9 months, complete with labor at the end of it, of that same acceptable level of inconvenience for a complete stranger. And would she still consider it inconvenient, or more a sacrifice? How many times would she agree to be hospitalized for the health of a stranger?
Mrs Bricker sounds like a lovely woman who had a relatively easy pregnancy. How many times would she risk an ectopic pregnancy for a stranger (not her child, someone she would never meet)?
For a woman forced to complete an unwanted pregnancy, only to give it up without that sense of familial bonding - this is much more akin to risking one’s life for a stranger, not a child.
Almost without exception most “pro life” women are religiously motivated. The dogma and theology are all invented my men and most Christian religions Catholicism included require women to be submissive to male authority including the workings of their own bodies. The comment that pregnancy is just an inconvenience shows their absolute contempt for the true value of women as human beings. To equate a mindless, undifferentiated glob of cells such as an embryo with a living, thinking, breathing human woman is beyond disgusting and shows what conservative religions really believe the value of women truly are in their theology.
There is a term that my old brain just won’t come up with, for what you all are trying to do with those pictures. It is extremely rare for an abortion to happen as late as pictured there, and then only if there is danger to the woman. Seriously, what woman is going to carry a pregnancy that long and then just abort on a whim? But yeah, you all keep pretending that abortions are all happening on almost to term fetuses. :rolleyes:
As for the law, that certainly isn’t the only place where it’s wrong and/or contradicts itself. For example, a pregnant woman cannot drive in the carpool lanes by herself, but as soon as she gives birth, she can. Those laws do not recognize a fetus as a person.
Bottom line is, you have decided that the fetus (it isn’t a baby yet) is “an entirely different person”, which is your right, so don’t have an abortion. Others have just as much right to believe that it isn’t an entirely different person until it’s born. As for “precious human being”, well, that’s just dumb. Especially since far too many anti choice folks have zero concern for what will happen to that unwanted child once it is actually a human being.
Focus on chromosome count is just digressive blather. After all, Downs’ sufferers often have 47 chromosomes — are they then inhuman?
Far more relevant is to focus on the hypocrisies of the right-wing anti-choice women-hating Ilk.
@ Bricker – the insensate fetus is a pwecious little snowflake for you. What’s your view on capital punishment? Are death-row inmates human?
And IIRC you detest the idea that the gummint can steal your money and use it to treat the diseases of poor people. Does keeping the fetus alive until birth serve some special moral purpose for you? When it dies after birth due to lack of money or insurance to treat a disease, does the the baby’s death teach it not to be so lazy, irresponsible or incompetent?
Listening to the pro-life arguments of someone with humanitarian values might have purpose. Listening to such arguments from an immoral society-hating right-winger is just disgusting.
And my view on capital punishment is that it’s a horrible perverse legalization of the basest instinct for revenge, and I argue that there is no justification for the government deliberately taking the life of a prisoner. In short: I oppose capital punishment.
Then you are back to why my body and why not yours. Why aren’t you obligated to give blood, bone marrow, a kidney to someone who would die without it if I’m obligated to donate a placenta, why shouldn’t you have a legal requirement for a minor inconvenience like a kidney donation - you have two.
Nor do they care about bodily autonomy, just the subjugation of women. Pass a law requiring organ donation when a body is declared brain dead, and I think 80% of pro-lifers would be up in arms.
I’m not suggesting you are obligated to donate a placenta to just anyone. I’m suggesting you’re obligated to donate a placenta to a son or daughter in order to save that son or daughter’s life.
And I’m in agreement that if a father is the only available donor of blood, marrow, or a kidney that will save his child’s life, he should be required to donate similarly.