June 12, 2013

This is what democracy looks like...

... from up inside your vagina.

105 comments:

Lyssa said...

The objection to this is that they have to stick an instrument up your you-know-what to do the ultrasound, right? And that that would be traumatic?

I don't know much about how abortions are normally performed, so I could be completely wrong, but aren't they performed by sticking something up the same place? Assuming drugs aren't enough, I can't imagine how else they'd do it.

Sorun said...

It's too dark to see, but it has a slight fishy smell.

Moose said...

So how do women get abortions - thru their ears?

Mitchell the Bat said...

I'm guessing there's not much demand for commemorative abortion videos.

AReasonableMan said...

Another surveillance state post.

Achilles said...

First You don't have to stick anything up anywhere to have an ultrasound. I was just with my wife at hers and their was no penetration at all. This is a lie.

Second why is the government forcing anyone to do anything like this. It costs money to have an ultrasound. Who is paying for that? This is absurd. This is why the republican party is worthless. The people that put this sort of legislation forward must need reminders to breath.

sonicfrog said...

Hooray for "small-government conservatives"!!!!!

Oh... Wait...

Never mind.

MattL said...

"Mr. President,, this is a democracy!"

Reminds me of Duck Soup...

"Gentlemen, this is a legislature, you can't vote in here!"

Mark said...

I love the hypocrisy in this bill's exception for victims of rape and incest. They do not have to get an ultrasound before an abortion ... they are free to kill their babies without a government mandated ultrasound.

Everyone else has to get them, as their fetuses are a different classification of fetus apparently - whose termination is treated differently by the law.

Lyssa said...

Achilles First You don't have to stick anything up anywhere to have an ultrasound. I was just with my wife at hers and their was no penetration at all. This is a lie.

Congratulations on your impending child. But, actually, they do have to penetrate if it's early in the pregnancy - the outside of the stomach ultrasound is not strong enough for the first several weeks (ultrasounds are not routinely given then unless there is a question.)

Risking TMI, my little guy was conceived under less than entirely normal circumstances, and we weren't quite sure how old he was when I found out I was pregnant. The first two ultrasounds had to be done transvagionally, to measure his size and find out how long he'd been there. They tried the stomach and couldn't see anything.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LuAnn Zieman said...

Someone tell the Democrats this ISN'T a democracy--it's a representative republic. We still occasionally pledge allegiance to the flag and the REPUBLIC for which it stands. Democracies border on chaos, which the Democrats thrive on, but which don't work so well in the real world.

Renee said...

I'm pro-life, but I don't see how this helps prevent abortion.

Why can't we share images of ultrasound of live fetuses (not dead aborted ones) when they are tweens and learning about their bodies.


-----

I've had vaginal ultrasounds, intrusive? More like awkward. But I really wanted a good picture of my baby at 12 weeks.

edutcher said...

I've known what democracy looks like from up inside somebody's vagina since my sister started subscribing to Ms when she came home from college.

AReasonableMan said...

If Scott Walker signs this bill he can kiss his national ambitions good bye.

I Callahan said...

If Scott Walker signs this bill he can kiss his national ambitions good bye.

Right, like you would have voted for him if he didn't.

TomHynes said...

Here is the bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb206
No vaginal penetration is required, the bill states "an ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses"

I am willing to bet that if the bill passes no woman in Wisconsin will be forced to get an invasive ultrasound.

Bob_R said...

My objection to this is that the government is mandating an expensive and medically unnecessary procedure. Conservatives who object to Obamacare on this same principle should steer clear.

Robert Zaleski said...

Our pro-life clinic does ultra-sounds for free. So it doesn't have to cost a ton. And it tends to be effective at getting women to realize they have a child within them and the repercussions. I've heard women often have second thoughts afterwards with regrets and psychological issues. I don't have any hard links to provide though.

It's funny to me that adding a 3rd vaginal penetration has to be such an issue.

Renee said...

@Bob_R

They are medically necessary and not that expensive, but does the woman herself have to view them?

When you think of abortion, they have to open up the cervix and clean out the uterus. That's more invasive then a vaginal ultrasound.

If I was having one? I would want them to be able to see clearly inside, I wouldn't want any remains of conception left behind.

AReasonableMan said...

Robert Zaleski said...

It's funny to me that adding a 3rd vaginal penetration has to be such an issue.



It is hard to express how much contempt I have for you.

Rusty said...

This is what democracy looks like...
... from up inside your vagina.


I just got a mental image of a bunch of little half formed tykes huddled in the love tunnel debating whether or not to leave.


It's been a weired day.

Achilles said...

The fact that any of you want to force people to do anything like this is repulsive. And as far as winning electoral majorities goes it is breathtakingly stupid.

Make a law setting an age and enforce the law evenly. You want to protect babies lives I got that. But setting the standard at conception is an absurd position for the state to take. My wife and I live by that standard, but I wont force that view on a Buddhist. If the baby/fetus is too small to see with an external ultrasound you have to apply religious beliefs to call it a separate entity from the woman's body. This kind of law is the dumbest thing I have seen the republican party do and there is a good long list of stupid there.

David-2 said...

I thought some Senator recently said "If you don't want an ultrasound taken, don't get an abortion."

Or am I confusing my scandals?

Lyssa said...

If the baby/fetus is too small to see with an external ultrasound you have to apply religious beliefs to call it a separate entity from the woman's body.

That's an incredibly stupid conclusion. Where would you even get an idea that would suggest that size has anything to do with value of life?

I'm not saying it's a good law or not; you've got to weigh all of the costs and benefits,and I haven't done that. But religion doesn't even begin to enter the picture.

Scott M said...

Women's reproductive rights aren't important enough for the Democrats to flee the state. #waronwomen

gerry said...

Well, a federal medical-legal expert judge ordered dangerous drugs to be available for ingestion by any female child to terminate possibly developing humans, so what the heck?

People who want to destroy developing humans usually don't object to snuffing them when their care gets too inconvenient at the other end of life.

It's what you believe, science be damned, right?

Gabriel Hanna said...

This sort of ultrasound is already done routinely at Planned Parenthood clinics when women seek abortions.

garage mahal said...

Inspect Her Gadget!

AReasonableMan said...

Lyssa said...
But religion doesn't even begin to enter the picture.


No. It is all about religion and the state enforcement of one particular brand of religion.

AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
This sort of ultrasound is already done routinely at Planned Parenthood clinics when women seek abortions.


Given that you understand the meaning of the word routinely, what is the requirement for any legislation?

Scott M said...

No. It is all about religion and the state enforcement of one particular brand of religion.

My objections to abortion on demand have zero to do with religion. It is possible to be pro-life and be a complete atheist.

Titus said...

Gross.

AReasonableMan said...

Scott M said...
It is possible to be pro-life and be a complete atheist.


Yes, but the reality is that this legislation is driven by theocratic dogma not the miniscule percentage of people that you represent.

MattL said...

Obviously, they're selling this thing incorrectly.

INCORRECT: Prevents regret, horrific anecdotes, etc.

CORRECT: "If you like your abortion, you can have your abortion."

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AReasonableMan:Yes, but the reality is that this legislation is driven by theocratic dogma not the miniscule percentage of people that you represent.

An argument stands or falls on its merits, not on the ickiness of the people who make it.

Laws against murder are also driven by theocratic dogma in the vast majority of people.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AReasonableMan:Given that you understand the meaning of the word routinely, what is the requirement for any legislation?

Why do you need a prescription for medication? The medical profession is regulated in innumerable ways, you can't just ask your doctor for something and he gives it to you. He has to demonstrate that he did the appropriate tests and whatnot, or he is liable and can lose his license.

Titus said...

The whole thought of a vagina makes me a little sick to my stomach.

The juice it excreets it so nasty.

Titus said...

And then there is the Varts.

AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
An argument stands or falls on its merits,


You made the argument that this kind of thing is routine and as a consequence this legislation shouldn't bother anyone. Could you defend your argument on its merits?

Titus said...

Are there actually vagina pubes inside the cooch?

AReasonableMan said...

Titus said...
Are there actually vagina pubes inside the cooch?


I think this question would be more appropriately addressed to your local republican state senator.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AReasonableMan:You made the argument that this kind of thing is routine and as a consequence this legislation shouldn't bother anyone. Could you defend your argument on its merits?

I made no such argument. Learn to read. I merely stated a fact. I drew no conclusions from it and I did not argue anything.

Renee said...

"If the baby/fetus is too small to see with an external ultrasound you have to apply religious beliefs to call it a separate entity from the woman's body."

Some ladies are fat, and you never see a baby bump. Ultra sounds are harder, to view.

So if there is no baby bump, there is no baby?

AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel Hanna said...

I made no such argument.


Bullshit. Go back and read your post - 'no big deal'.

garage mahal said...

This is how these lunatics in control of our legislature "debate" controversial public policy in Wisconsin. Ellis literally breaks the gavel.

Heckuva job, Wisconsin.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AReasonableMan:

My post is up for all to see. I repeat it here because you are a little slow.

This sort of ultrasound is already done routinely at Planned Parenthood clinics when women seek abortions.

I did not say it was "no big deal"--that's not what "routine" means. Lots of things that are "routine" are objectionable to me, such as TSA security at airports. NSA monitoring of phone calls is, apparently, routine, and I also think it is objectionable.

I provided you with a fact that you evidently were not aware of.

For the record, I am not pro-life, since I support the legality of first trimester abortion in nearly all cases. I am not pro-choice, since I oppose the legality of third trimester abortion in nearly all cases. The second trimester is the hard one.

AReasonableMan said...

garage mahal said...
This is how these lunatics in control of our legislature "debate" controversial public policy in Wisconsin. Ellis literally breaks the gavel.


Tinpot fascist.

Baron Zemo said...

What's the big deal?

An ultrasound will not deter a dedicated baby killer.

In fact the baby being born alive during a botched abortion will not deter a baby killer.

AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
My post is up for all to see. I repeat it here because you are a little slow.


The very best you can claim at this point, given your torturous reasoning to date, is that you introduced an irrelevancy. Whatever a women decides to do voluntarily has no relevance to what the state can mandate. I may decide to remove part or all of an organ due to the presence of a tumor, this is in fact a routine procedure. Self-evidentlly, it is a very different issue if the state mandates that I have to remove that same organ.

Baron Zemo said...

You are correct that many people are watching to see what Scott Walker does with this legislation.

To see if he has the courage of his convictions.

Gahrie said...

Yes, but the reality is that this legislation is driven by theocratic dogma

The same theoractic dogma that produced the Western World and Western Civilization.

The vast majority of our criminal laws are based on the same theocratic dogma.

Gahrie said...

I may decide to remove part or all of an organ due to the presence of a tumor, this is in fact a routine procedure. Self-evidentlly, it is a very different issue if the state mandates that I have to remove that same organ.

No matter how much, or how long you try, you can never change the fact that pregnancy isn't a disease, and a fetus is neither a tumor, or an organ belonging to the woman's body.

As far as nature is concerned, the only function of a woman is to get pregnant and give birth.

rhhardin said...

It's a Republican party suicide wish.

AReasonableMan said...

Gahrie said...
Yes, but the reality is that this legislation is driven by theocratic dogma

The same theoractic dogma that produced the Western World and Western Civilization.


No. It produced the dark ages. The Enlightenment produced Western Civilization.

The Western World primarily owes its existence to the pagan Romans. The christians were Johnny-come-latelies.

Gahrie said...

It's a Republican party suicide wish.

And everyone knows that politics is way more important than protecting the lives of innocents.......

Gahrie said...

No. It produced the dark ages. The Enlightenment produced Western Civilization.

I think you need to go back and read your history again. The Enlightenment began as a movement of clerics.

James Pawlak said...

It appears that Buddhists do are not scientific. Unborn babies have a genetic identity and destiny very different from their biological hosts.

If they find an ultra-sound probe too intrusive, their "men" must be grossly under-gifted.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I do not approve of government forcing medical procedures. Either ultrasounds or arbitrary age cut off for lung transplants. Let the patient and their doctor decide what is best. I'm pro-choice but I think I would oppose the law if I were pro-life.

If the Republicans want to oppose abortion let them do it in a way the Dems can support. Taxman regulate the industry to near exhaustion.

Old Dad said...

AReasonableMan wrote:

"No. It [Christinity] produced the dark ages. The Enlightenment produced Western Civilization.

The Western World primarily owes its existence to the pagan Romans. The christians were Johnny-come-latelies."

Rubbish. Western Civ and Christianity sprang from a rich mixture of Greek, Roman and Jewish culture dating to the second millenium BCE. The Dark Ages is a specious term used by the historically illiterate. It is beyond question that the Roman Catholic Church was the single most important civilizing force in western Europe from the fifth century CE through the Renaissance, although it might be argued that the Muslims (fellow children of Abraham) in Andalusia might have held sway for a century or so.

Don't let your bigotry blind you to the history of the west--you know, Christendom.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Tax and regulate.

Geez will I ever get used to this android keyboard? Any suggestions for a good keyboard for Android phones?

AReasonableMan said...

Gahrie said...
The Enlightenment began as a movement of clerics.


This reminds me of an argument that I once got into with a member of Opus Dei during which he was willing to swear blind that the Roman Catholic church were, in reality, big supporters of Galileo Galilei.

AReasonableMan said...

Old Dad said...
It is beyond question that the Roman Catholic Church was the single most important civilizing force in western Europe from the fifth century CE through the Renaissance.


It is genuinely unclear to me if you intended this to be ironic.

Titus said...

"I think this question would be more appropriately addressed to your local republican state senator."

The local state republican senators, which numbers about two are pro choice. I live in Mass.

Renee said...

You are more likely to have a pro-life Democrat, then a pro-life Republican in Massachusetts. They exist, quietly. Which is why I vote in the Democratic primaries time to time.

Renee said...

The Roman Catholic Church is the only civilized thing left in Europe.

Old Dad said...

AReasonableMan wrote:

"It is genuinely unclear to me if you intended this to be ironic."

That doesn't surprise me.

AReasonableMan said...

Renee said...
The Roman Catholic Church is the only civilized thing left in Europe.


In reality I have no beef with the Church, with its current level of control over public discourse. I respect the Church's traditions and inherent conservatism and find that elements within the Church reflect the truest expression of christianity that you can find in the modern world.

Achilles said...

Lyssa said...

If the baby/fetus is too small to see with an external ultrasound you have to apply religious beliefs to call it a separate entity from the woman's body.

That's an incredibly stupid conclusion. Where would you even get an idea that would suggest that size has anything to do with value of life?

I'm not saying it's a good law or not; you've got to weigh all of the costs and benefits,and I haven't done that. But religion doesn't even begin to enter the picture.

6/12/13, 2:53 PM

Seriously? Religion doesn't enter into the picture? The humanity of it all...

Our country is doomed because half the people think the government should control everything and the other half just want it to control early pregnancy.

Dante said...

If the government can teach kids to put condoms on cucumbers, it seems reasonable to teach people about to abort to know what they are aborting.

Achilles said...

Titus said...

Are there actually vagina pubes inside the cooch?

6/12/13, 3:22 PM

I appreciate your attempts to derail this subject.

Funny how when the right and left are on a subject that will unify them against the looming police state we get to talk about republican attempts to stick probes in women before an abortion or some other absolutely retarded idea they have.

It is almost as if big government republicans and democrats have a big government goal in common.

gutless said...

The dead babies could not be reached for comment.

garage mahal said...

Tinpot fascist

The state is over run with them, and they are driving the state right into the dirt. Three more abortions bills coming up tomorrow. Last place on job creation and this is how they choose to spend their time.

MattL said...

I love the liberal concern trolling. Whining about pro-life, small government types for putting more regulations on abortion is like complaining about a mandatory appeals process for criminals given the death penalty.

Worse, really, since at least the criminal is believed to do something to deserve death. What's so bad about a little due process in the baby killing business?

AReasonableMan said...

garage mahal said...
Last place on job creation


Yes, I was surprised to learn this the other day. Not consistent with the media image that we get on the right coast.

AReasonableMan said...

MattL said...
I love the liberal concern trolling. Whining about pro-life, small government types


I'm sorry, but insisting on sticking a probe up some poor woman's cunt is not 'small government'. Just because you want to label something as 'small government' doesn't make it so in the real world.

garage mahal said...

Not consistent with the media image that we get on the right coast.

The media isn't any better here in the state.

Carl said...

You wouldn't have this problem if you haven't stuck other things you found in public up your vagina first.

Or if you'd stuck two foreign objects up there, in the proper order.

Anyway, what is it about women's twats that makes them such sacred ground? You fail a field sobriety test, the judge has no problem sticking a needle in your arm whether you want it or not. You get arrested, the state can poke a Q-tip inside your mouth to take a sample of your DNA, quite without your permission. The TSA can make you bend over and spread your cheeks if you fly international and make jokes about rectal bombs or cocaine smuggling. If Obamacare required men over 50 to have a prostate fingering or colonoscopy to be covered for cancer, nobody would blink an eye.

But OH MY GOD do not even THINK about trespassing on the thrice-sacred ground Down There! This is not even a fit subject for discussion in the legislature -- you might as well be discussing legalizing rape!!!

Er...why? I mean, just out of curiousity, why the routine hysterical freakout for this particular piece of bodily real estate? Hard to believe it's just the connection to sexuality; in my experience men don't get too worked up about their dicks or balls being touched without permission, provided it's not painful or part of some viciously and generally humiliating experience, like rape.

And we're not talking rape here. You're not being raped by an ultrasound wand wielded (almost certainly) by a female tech. What we're talking about is much more like a required "invasive" test before your insurance company will cover a certain treatment, or like law enforcement forcing you to give blood or a cheek swab under certain cirx. So whence the crazy?

AReasonableMan said...

Carl said...
Anyway, what is it about women's twats that makes them such sacred ground?

The TSA can make you bend over and spread your cheeks if you fly international and make jokes about rectal bombs or cocaine smuggling.

But OH MY GOD do not even THINK about trespassing on the thrice-sacred ground Down There! This is not even a fit subject for discussion in the legislature --

in my experience men don't get too worked up about their dicks or balls being touched without permission



Yet another small government advocate, I presume?

TomHynes said...

Renee:
"They are medically necessary and not that expensive, but does the woman herself have to view them?"

According to the bill, nobody can force the woman to actually look at the ultrasound.

AReasonableMan said...

TomHynes said...

According to the bill, nobody can force the woman to actually look at the ultrasound.


Clearly what is needed here is a concurrent and obligatory fMRI scan confirming that the woman also consciously registers the image in her visual cortex. Otherwise its just another egregious example of government waste.

n.n said...

This should not be necessary. It is quite simple to understand that a human life evolves from conception to grave. There should be no need for further discovery. Abortion is premeditated murder. Anyone who is pro-abortion/choice must know that they are responsible for a general devaluation of human life.

Joe said...

Read, read, read, read.... damn, where again does the US Constitution grant them this power?

David said...

Sorry. The way to defeat state control is not to impose more state requirements.

bagoh20 said...

Can you buy an ultrasound machine through the Amazon portal?

I'm gonna start a business. Guaranteed sales, and job applicants lined up around the block. I'll franchise the shit out of this sucker with big screen video, comfy chairs, complimentary red wine in those huge oversized glasses that make you feel sophisticated, thrash metal piped in, and fresh tacos made to order while you wait. Who wants in on the ground floor?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

There are several lefty trolls on this thread whose whore of a mother should have had abortions.

Ultrasound or not.

garage mahal said...

Anybody that has sex must first be forced to read comments by President Moms Jeans to see what can happen with an unwanted pregnancy.

Achilles said...

MattL said...

I love the liberal concern trolling. Whining about pro-life, small government types for putting more regulations on abortion is like complaining about a mandatory appeals process for criminals given the death penalty."

This is the thread winner. You said small government conservative and supported forcing a woman with state power to have an invasive procedure without specifying who would pay for it or where on gods green earth you think the constitutional authority comes from.

This lack of critical thought sums up why social issues cost the Republican Party election after election.

Meade said...

bagoh20 said...
"Can you buy an ultrasound machine through the Amazon portal?"

Probably. But I can't find one right now.

We've got prenatal heart listener/detectors in stock though. We could get it out to you by Friday, June 14. In time for Father's Day. It's FDA approved. FDA would be, you know, the government.

Meade said...

n.n said...
"This should not be necessary. It is quite simple to understand that a human life evolves from conception to grave. There should be no need for further discovery. Abortion is premeditated murder. Anyone who is pro-abortion/choice must know that they are responsible for a general devaluation of human life."

This just about sums up my opinion. Call abortion what it is: premeditated assisted justifiable homicide. No one needs an ultrasound to know that. In a republican representative democracy, if we are going to have homicide be legal, it seems to me, in order to save the life and health of society, that society should have some interest in knowing how each homicide is justified.

garage mahal said...

in order to save the life and health of society, that society should have some interest in knowing how each homicide is justified.

Republicans didn't want to talk about any of that today, besides crazy Mary Lazich. Not one Republican offered a defense for their support of the state mandated forced ultrasound bill. Why? Because they don't want the public to know what they're doing and didn't want any soundbites coming out from the floor that could be used against them. Hardly a body that is proud of their work.

bagoh20 said...

"We've got prenatal heart listener/detectors in stock though."

That'll do, I'm sure. Really all I need is any machine that goes "Bing", and one video of an ultrasound. They all look the same anyway. We want lots of word of mouth referrals, so I say give 'em what they came for. If they want the baby, we photoshop in a little Fabio head, if they don't we paste in some horns and a tail, or maybe a tiny Dick Cheney. We'll ride this gravy train all the way to Shangri La.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"Hardly a body that is proud of their work."

Well, that is the very point of the legislation isn't it? To make people face what they are choosing. So both sides are trying to hide something politically touchy here, but only one is hiding something truly horrible.

Achilles said...

Meade said...

This just about sums up my opinion. Call abortion what it is: premeditated assisted justifiable homicide. No one needs an ultrasound to know that. In a republican representative democracy, if we are going to have homicide be legal, it seems to me, in order to save the life and health of society, that society should have some interest in knowing how each homicide is justified.

6/12/13, 11:02 PM


I saw my wife's 4 month ultrasound. That looked like a baby. I also saw her 1 or 2 month ultrasound because she was suffering from stabbing abdominal pains at the time.

I said "oh look there it is."(we didn't know the sex yet)

They said "No, that is a XXXXX XXXX sack for nutrients. The baby is right here."

That I am afraid did not look like a baby. There was no head, heart, brain, any of it. My wife and I were thrilled. But our belief and joy at that moment of seeing our daughter was just that. To call that a baby was rooted in our belief.

Having the government define life as starting at conception is tantamount to declaring a religious dogma as law. Not only that you are losing. Most people do not agree with us. It alienates people who might otherwise support you and gives the other side a rhetorical weapon. But mostly the insistence of the republican party on government involvement in this decision is leading to more abortions and government support thereof.

If you really want to reduce the number of abortions that occur get the government out of it completely. For the love of god stop trying to stick things up vaginas. Good gravy this is so f'ing stupid. Strengthen the church and faith based operations. If you want to have them listen to heart beats or see pictures awesome, start a charity and buy equipment to give women the opportunity for free, but mandating it by law is just going full retard at this point.

MattL said...


AReasonableMan:

I'm sorry, but insisting on sticking a probe up some poor woman's cunt is not 'small government'. Just because you want to label something as 'small government' doesn't make it so in the real world.


Wow, it's like misunderstanding is your super power!

Mark said...

Meade - I understand your opinion on this, but am completely confused on how one can hold that opinion and yet exclude victims of rape and incest from this procedure.

Aren't all fetuses the same? Why are some women exempted from this if all life is the same?

Either we should be should be pro-life for everybody or we should keep out of it. This 'pick and choose' legislative medicine is a steaming pile of crap.

Moneyrunner said...

My goodness, yes Ann. Sticking an ultrasound probe up a vagina is gross. Nothing should go up vaginas except fingers, man-bits, woman-bits, carrots, bananas, adult entertainment devices, fists and anything else that may fit. But definitely no medical devices until the speculum dilates it and the suction devices begin their work.

Moneyrunner said...

And for all those concerned about small government hypocrisy, there is no law that says you have to have your personal vagina probed by an ultrasound unless you’re planning to kill the little person inside of you. Or am I to understand that probing your woman-bits is now going to be required for all Wisconsin women by an all-intrusive government – sort of like the NSA Hoovering your phone records and internet wanderings? Because Ann is fine with that.

AReasonableMan said...

Meade said...
Call abortion what it is: premeditated assisted justifiable homicide. No one needs an ultrasound to know that. In a republican representative democracy, if we are going to have homicide be legal, it seems to me, in order to save the life and health of society, that society should have some interest in knowing how each homicide is justified.


This encapsulates a particular strand of sanctimonious idiocy on this topic. In fact there is no general agreement that human life begins at conception.

It is not a central precept of christianity that life begins at conception. A variety of views over the timing of ensoulment have been held over the ages. The modern church backed itself into a intellectual corner and now wants everyone else to conform to their own intellectual failings.

Meade said...

"This encapsulates a particular strand of sanctimonious idiocy on this topic. In fact there is no general agreement that human life begins at conception."

If they weren't human, we'd be allowed to harvest them and sell them as food. And if they weren't alive (and growing), what would there be to "abort"?

AReasonableMan said...

Meade said...

If they weren't human, we'd be allowed to harvest them and sell them as food. And if they weren't alive (and growing), what would there be to "abort"?


You elide the key issue. There has never been a consensus that life begins at conception, even within the christian church. Everyone is entitled to their particular beliefs on the topic but they are not entitled to impose those beliefs on others. What seems self evident to you looks like nonsense to a biologist.

Meade said...

I'm not sure what you think the key issue is that I'm ignoring. I agree that abortion is not a biological issue. It is moral and legal. The law (Casey) says that it's the individual woman's right to define life and liberty for herself. I'm fine with that.

But that is all the law says. It doesn't say anything about restricting society's right to openly discuss and debate and legislate those questions.

AReasonableMan said...

I definitely did not say that it is not an issue of biology. It is deliberate misunderstandings of the biology that is one of the key issues here. Obviously our understanding of the science should inform our legal and moral understandings, and the science is very ambiguous.

What people like me find very off-putting is the moral hard-on that one group of people get on this particular issue. I disagree with virtually every premise that these people begin from, much less the conclusions that draw.

Quite obviously people are free to discus and debate but the constant attempts to impose one particular viewpoint on the population as a whole is theocratic in nature not democratic.

SeanF said...

Joe: Read, read, read, read.... damn, where again does the US Constitution grant them this power?

Tenth Amendment. You do realize this is a state law, right?

Achilles: ...without specifying...where on gods green earth you think the constitutional authority comes from.

Tenth Amendment. Unless you're talking about the Wisconsin State Constitution, in which case I'm not sure - does it have a similar limiting clause that says they don't have the authority?