The Conservative War On Women

realityhack wrote:
Yonder wrote:

What if I left some skin cells in my mother's womb? Can she still murder me? We should definitely make sure that that's not allowed in our Federal legal code.

argument ad absurdum

You say that like it's a logical fallacy, but it's not. It's a logical tool used to demonstrate that a premise is false because it can be taken to absurd scenarios. In this case Mudbunny's suggestion that anyone would ever try to abort a baby crawling out of the birth canal and try to pass it off as legal.

The closest logical fallacy is that I am beating up a scare crow. It is true that the line between a valid "argument ad absurdum" and an invalid "attacking a scare crow" can be blurry, but in this case I think mine is the former.

That makes far too much sense. I propose we sticky it!

Yonder wrote:

You say that like it's a logical fallacy, but it's not. It's a logical tool used to demonstrate that a premise is false because it can be taken to absurd scenarios. In this case Mudbunny's suggestion that anyone would ever try to abort a baby crawling out of the birth canal and try to pass it off as legal.

The closest logical fallacy is that I am beating up a scare crow. It is true that the line between a valid "argument ad absurdum" and an invalid "attacking a scare crow" can be blurry, but in this case I think mine is the former.

I may have misrepresented your meaning, and used the wrong term.
My thinking was how absurdly outside the discussion that was. You are not your skin cells. Once the baby is born doesn't mean all genetic material is removed, which of course you know.

In other words I don't think your statement fit the rule set being discussed so it doesn't show any absurdity on the part of the rule, only within your statement.

I probably shouldn't post while trying to do a hundred other things.

Did any of the above make sense? Probably shouldn't post half asleep either.

Yonder wrote:

What if I left some skin cells in my mother's womb? Can she still murder me? We should definitely make sure that that's not allowed in our Federal legal code.

And how much would I have to pay her?

Walker said he finds nothing offensive about ultrasounds, despite criticism from many women and abortion rights groups that the procedure is invasive.

"I don't have any problem with ultrasound," Walker told reporters, as quoted by the AP. "I think most people think ultrasounds are just fine."

The only way Walker could come across as more tone deaf is if he was slightly more specific in his quote, as in "I don't have any problem with ultrasound because I'll never go through the procedure, 'cause, you know, I'm a dude. And, as a dude who's talked with his other dude friends, we all are just fine with this new law because it will never affect any of us."

"My Doctor ultra-sounded my kidney stones before I had them removed and it didn't bother me a bit."

Yonder wrote:

"My Doctor ultra-sounded my kidney stones before I had them removed and it didn't bother me a bit."

I wonder how that opinion would change if they had to ultrasound via the colon.

Yellek wrote:
Yonder wrote:

"My Doctor ultra-sounded my kidney stones before I had them removed and it didn't bother me a bit."

I wonder how that opinion would change if they had to ultrasound via the urethra.

Even better.

Yellek wrote:
Yonder wrote:

"My Doctor ultra-sounded my kidney stones before I had them removed and it didn't bother me a bit."

I wonder how that opinion would change if they had to ultrasound via the colon.

State Senator Lena Taylor did ask during the debate whether the WI Legislature shouldn't protect men by requiring "penal probes" before getting Viagra.

SB 206 is a really noxious piece of legislation.

Among the provisions:

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]Pregnant women must have an ultrasound done using the method of their choice before having an abortion. Under current law they only have to be informed about the option of having an ultrasound.

The abortion doctor, who must be able to admit patients into a local hospital, must provide a list of clinics that provide free ultrasounds. Under an amendment passed Tuesday, those clinics would have to offer both transabdominal and more intrusive transvaginal ultrasounds.

A “qualified person” must provide an oral explanation during the ultrasound that includes the size, location and number of fetuses, as well as a description of any visible internal organs or external body parts. The Senate Tuesday removed the provision that would have required a doctor to interpret the ultrasound.

The ultrasound must include a demonstration of the fetal heartbeat if it is detectable by the method the woman chooses.

Among the amendments blocked by the Wisconsin GOP:

* Requiring a doctor to interpret the mandatory ultrasound
* Requiring the technician administering and interpreting the mandatory ultrasound to be certified by the state

Particularly disgusting is Governor Walker's signing off on this as emergency legislation, in order for it to be considered before the state budget is passed.

Not to gloss over the ultrasound mandate which is heinous on it's own... but the admitting privileges requirement could make the ultrasound issue moot. If doctors performing abortions don't already have admitting privileges or can't get them then they won't be able to do abortions at all.

Mississippi passed a similar law as an attempt to close their last abortion clinic in the state. The only reason it hasn't been successful in doing so is because legislators were so frank that the requirement was an attempt to end abortion in the state that the federal courts stepped in and said you can't do that.

If I had Godlike powers every lawmaker* who favored these abortion bills and had ever had unprotected sex would spontaneously become pregnant.

Just in case anyone up there is taking suggestions and/or resumes.

*The lack of gender qualification was not an oversight.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) pulled a Todd Akins last week by claiming that there shouldn't be any exceptions for rape and incest for a GOP bill banning abortions past 20 weeks "because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."

Not to be outdone Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), shockingly a former OB/GYN, claimed that the bill should really ban all abortions as early as 15 weeks because he's personally seen male fetuses masturbating in sonograms, so if they feel pleasure then, they can also feel pain, ergo you have to ban the abortion.

There is no question in my mind that a baby at 20-weeks after conception can feel pain. The fact of the matter is, I argue with the chairman because I thought the date was far too late. We should be setting this at 15-weeks, 16-weeks.

Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?

If it's a female fetus with her hands between her legs you abort the slut though.

Yonder wrote:

If it's a female fetus with her hands between her legs you abort the slut though.

*facepalm*

Did those f*ckers pass a budget yet?

Yonder wrote:

If it's a female fetus with her hands between her legs you abort the slut though.

No, that would clash with the "culture of life" stance.

Raping her in uthero would probably be OK, though

KingGorilla wrote:

Did those f*ckers pass a budget yet?

Excellent question, can we stop worrying about fetuses until after government workers who are not you guys can get paid regularly? I'm sick and tired of worrying about my mom's well-beings with all the unpaid days off.

Demosthenes wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Did those f*ckers pass a budget yet?

Excellent question, can we stop worrying about fetuses until after government workers who are not you guys can get paid regularly? I'm sick and tired of worrying about my mom's well-beings with all the unpaid days off.

I told my friends with furlough days that they should just spend the whole day camped in their Representative's office until they pass a stupid budget.

Mixolyde wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Did those f*ckers pass a budget yet?

Excellent question, can we stop worrying about fetuses until after government workers who are not you guys can get paid regularly? I'm sick and tired of worrying about my mom's well-beings with all the unpaid days off.

I told my friends with furlough days that they should just spend the whole day camped in their Representative's office until they pass a stupid budget.

...hmmm... good call!

Epic Shoe reviews

I know the Wendy Davis Filibuster awesomeness was in the Feminism FAQ thread, but figured it's a better fit here.

I love how, when there are only so many places a fetus can put it's hands, anything between the legs is sexual for these dinosaurs, even for a fetus at an early stage of development. You might even think they were projecting...

Makes me cringe to think what they would do with a six-month-old male touching himself while someone is changing his diaper. Sin! It must be stopped!

I don't even know where to begin, but my jaw dropped at this comment from Jim DeMint, the former South Carolina senator and now head of the Heritage Foundation, in response to laws that would require women to undergo ultrasounds - including transvaginal ones - in order to get an abortion:

RACHEL MADDOW: Women don't get the opportunity with ultrasound. The ultrasound bills are mandated by the state. So if a woman does not want an ultrasound, or if her doctor does not want her to have an ultrasound, if that ultrasound is not medically indicated the state government is stepping in and saying, "You must have this ultrasound by order of the state government."

And because of the timing on a lot of these, in a lot of these what is being mandated is a vaginal ultrasound. So it's an invasive vaginal forced procedure that a woman cannot say no to, by order of the state government. And that is all right with you. I understand that you feel that you've got an interest strong enough to override a woman's desire to not have the happen to her that you can insist that it does, as a legislator.

But most American women, I think, are gonna balk at that. And if you want to make it a federal issue, I say that the Democrats are going to be delighted to have that fight. But as Republicans push this further and further and further, it's the Wendy Davises of the world that are going to force you to make your argument--

FMR. SEN. JIM DEMINT:

She's forgetting about the thousands of women who want an informed choice, who want the opportunity to get a free ultrasound, which they can get, not from Planned Parenthood but from a lot of these pregnancy centers.

Because, as we know, women are just clamoring up and down the streets of America demanding to get the free trans-vaginal ultrasound mandated by their state government.

I've had a vaginal ultrasound due to non-pregnancy related health issues. You have to have a full bladder (for all ultrasounds, vaginal or otherwise), and they stick the probe-thing in you and move it around for a good 10-15 minutes. Due to the full bladder it's incredibly uncomfortable and unpleasant. If you're someone with even an ounce of modesty or squeamishness regarding sex or your own vagina (NOT ME), it's even moreso. It would go into humiliating and violating territory. And that's for procedures that are required for personal genital/reproductive health (as in looking for abstructions, tumors, abnormalities...that kind of thing).

As a mandatory thing for rape/trauma victims seeking abortions...I can't even fathom.

Thousands of women do not want the "opportunity" to get a "free" ultrasound. That's beyond insulting. It implies that the motivation is financial, somehow. "Informed" has nothing to do with it. They're not even trying to pretend they know or even care.

I'm seriously getting "old rich white dude mansplaining women's vaginas to them" fatigue.

FMR. SEN. JIM DEMINT:

She's forgetting about the thousands of women who want an informed choice, who want the opportunity to get a free ultrasound, which they can get, not from Planned Parenthood but from a lot of these pregnancy centers.

You mean the same pregnancy centers whose sole purpose for existence is to scare/guilt women into carrying the fetus to term, often by giving them purposeful misleading or flat-out inaccurate information?

I guess in his mind the only acceptable informed choice a woman can make is the one he wants.

Out of curiousity... who is paying for these mandatory ultrasounds?

Demosthenes wrote:

Out of curiousity... who is paying for these mandatory ultrasounds?

The harlots, obviously. They need to learn some responsibility anyway.

clover wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Out of curiousity... who is paying for these mandatory ultrasounds?

The harlots, obviously. They need to learn some responsibility anyway.

No, see, they're getting them for free. If anything, they should be grateful.

Demosthenes wrote:

Out of curiousity... who is paying for these mandatory ultrasounds?

It's a combination of tax payer dollars and donations to the three largest conservative Christian charities that run most of the pregnancy centers.

Those charities have accessed tens of millions of federal dollars, primarily from funds allocated to abstinence-only education programs (oh, the irony!). I believe some states also sell vanity pro-life license plates and those funds are directed towards those same charities.