So the very first argument in the OP is the one about rape and incest victims. But I shouldn’t give a flying donut about that.
Bullshit. If the argument is this is a stupid and damaging law, then why the emphasis on rape and incest victims? I’ll tell you why: because that is intended to garner opposition from people who might otherwise have no problem with the law.
But no – I’m supposed to ignore that, ignore the high-school debate club tactics myself, because I’m a smart guy. I must fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the other side uses a wrench, a folding chair, and a 2x4 on my head while the referee is looking away.
Nope.
The introduction of rape and incest victims is a ploy; they are a vanishingly tiny percentage of abortion-seeking women, and, as my question demonstrates, irrelevant to the objection, since not one of you that is inveighing against this law would change your opposition if the rape and incest exception were added. It is, in short, a dishonest attack.
So, what else you got? The law is “stupid” and “potentially damaging?”
I know. It’s direct assault on a woman’s bodily integrity and her ability to be informed about her medical condition, but don’t be hyperbolic about it! We have to discuss this using the anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-family, anti-science, anti-compassion terms THEY created or you’re ‘poisoning the well’ or something. I mean, why get emotional. It’s just [boderline] sexual assault being legislated. :rolleyes::mad:
I agree with this point. Abortion should be outlawed. But this is not the way to do it. It’s currently a legal medical procedure, and any measure that requires a physician to perform against his convictions shouldn’t be permitted to stand.
I think the rape and incest objection is a bogus one, as I explained above. But I don’t favor this law for precisely the reason you articulate above: it’s not appropriate to mandate this action.
Question, because apparently in law school all they taught you was rhetorical questions: If the law hinders ANYONE from receiving legal process, or if it causes EVEN ONE PERSON from receiving proper medical care, is it a good law?
And we know damn well that you’re going to weasel out of that with an “abortion is bad!” non-sequitur. You can’t answer a question without it, FORMER counselor.
Bad law, IMO, but where are you guys getting the idea that the doctor is required to probe inside the woman’s body? The quote in the OP just says an ultrasound, which is a non-invasive procedure.
Abortions of various kinds are legal and safe medical procedures. It is not standard of care to require a transvaginal ultrasound - or any ultrasound - prior to performing one. Forcing a woman to undergo one prior to an abortion is burdening the woman (and, disproportionately so on poor and/or uninsured women) with an extra cost.
Also, allowing physicians to withhold news of a potential birth defect from their patients is an unconscionable act. I can understand and approve of this when it is unmistakeably the patient’s wish that she not hear about anything potentially wrong with her developing child/not want to know about anything minor, but this should be a special case and a consent form should be signed to confirm this decision. Parents should otherwise know about anything potentially wrong so they can make an informed choice about whether they should allow the pregnancy to continue or so they can actually prepare themselves emotionally for what could happen with a child with birth defects, save more money, gather information/support, arrange for home care, and so on. It is a cruel act to hide that information from parents and then watch them helplessly realize only after the birth that their child needs far more care than they could have imagined.
John Mace: Post 5 has a link saying that it specifies transvaginal ultrasonography.
ETA that it IS the standard of care to do an ultrasound prior to an abortion, to determine gestational age. It’s not that the law requires an ultrasound, it’s that it requires the pregnant woman to view it (something that she’s not required to do before receiving treatment of, say, her ovarian cysts) and be berated before she gets the medical treatment she’s entitled to.
It depends. If a law that produces undesirable results for a tiny fraction of the population nonetheless produces excellent results for the vast majority, then it’s a good law. We accept statutory rape laws, even though we acknowledge that there may well be a few highly mature, highly capable fifteen year olds whose sexual choices are limited for no good reason. Nonetheless, statutory rape laws are not bad.
In this case, the state has a valid goal. But to implement that goal, they intrude on the medical ethics and decision-making of doctors potentially forcing them to make decisions that run counter to their understanding of the best interests of their patients. This, on balance, renders the law a poor public policy choice.
It doesn’t make it universally bad, or “stupid.” It means that the law has both good and bed effects, and the bad outweigh the good.
I wonder if the good people of OK really understand what their legislators are voting for here. That’s absolutely deplorable. And, I should add, I can’t see how that could pass the “undo burden” test.
I find that difficult to believe. Any competent lawyer would seize on such clear evidence against the possibility that the first kick was a mere accident or otherwise excusable.
This is an analogy so terrible, I can’t even begin to pick the points you believe match up to what I said.
I said that the argument about rape and incest exceptions was a red herring – that is, no one offering that objection believes it’s the decision point on whether or not to support the bill.
How does that map to the Titantic and lifeboats? No one against the wreck of the Titantic believes that lacking lifeboats were the only bad thing about it?
So, what you’re saying is, yes, this is a bad law. We’re right to weigh in against it. But apparently because someone mentioned “rape and incest”, your legal detector flashed into overdrive and you had to throw in a smug rhetorical question about “vanishingly small” numbers of rape and incest victims (you don’t have much of an idea how many women are raped each year, do you?). Because, hey, the thought of forcing a doctor stick an ultrasound up a raped woman is just another chance for you to flex your legal brains, eh?
I didn’t take the question to be, “Are two kicks more culpable than one?” In other words, the question didn’t seem to revolve around determining whether or not the kicker was at fault at all, but rather simply how unpleasant being kicked was.
It is quite obvious. Your position forces you to the following “logic”:
A: Failure to provide sufficient lifeboats on the Titanic was unconscionable. B: So, if there had been enough lifeboats, crashing into an iceberg would have been OK with you? A: Of course not! B: So, you admit that your comment about lifeboats is a red herring.