Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[pgwenthold]

See my comment above. If doing a pregnancy test is important to do before prescribing birth control, then the doctor will do it. If it isn't then a law requiring it is a waste.

As a result, the law serves no purpose medically. It's purpose is solely to create obstacles.

 

[RandFan]

Why, so the woman doesn't have to actually "look in the eye" of the life she's conspiring to murder? So she can maintain the delusion that "it's just a blob" or whatever lie she's been talked into believing?

This is not a logically valid argument. This is just a denial of science and argument by assertion. If sperm isn't a life that we murder in the trillions every second then neither is sperm and ovum, zygote, blastocyst and/or fetus.

Claiming that a fetus is more than a mass of tissue without even stating how or why is disingenuous and simply an emotional response. It's not skeptical. It's not critical thinking. It's most certainly not scientific.

 

[RandFan]

Pedant non-argument, I made it clear that I was using the phrase in it's metaphorical sense.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, given the known scientific facts about the development of pre-born babies.

Your non-argument is as intellectually bankrupt as it is morally reprehensible.

You've not provided a single scientific fact to support your position. You've not even argued philosophically. You are simply arguing by assertion and engaging in fallacy. You are not in a position to moralize.

 

[marplots]

See my comment above. If doing a pregnancy test is important to do before prescribing birth control, then the doctor will do it. If it isn't then a law requiring it is a waste.

As a result, the law serves no purpose medically. It's purpose is solely to create obstacles.

Granted. Create obstacles or score political points.

 

[RandFan]

See my comment above. If doing a pregnancy test is important to do before prescribing birth control, then the doctor will do it. If it isn't then a law requiring it is a waste.

As a result, the law serves no purpose medically. It's purpose is solely to create obstacles.

In most instances the state relies on and trusts doctors to be the professionals they are and not second guess them. There is nothing medically or ethically compelling about birth control to take the decision away from the doctor and dictate behavior based on political or moral sentiment and give it to the state.

I want to make medical and health decisions with the aid of my doctor and not some bureaucrats who are religious bigots. Until someone can show a compelling states interest with supporting scientific data I suggest we leave medical decisions up to individuals and their physicians.

End of story.

 

[marplots]

In most instances the state relies on and trusts doctors to be the professionals they are and not second guess them. There is nothing medically or ethically compelling about birth control to take the decision away from the doctor and dictate behavior based on political or moral sentiment and give it to the state.

I want to make medical and health decisions with the aid of my doctor and not some bureaucrats who are religious bigots. Until someone can show a compelling states interest with supporting scientific data I suggest we leave medical decisions up to individuals and their physicians.

End of story.

While I like your idealism, there's at least one compelling interest: who pays the bills?

The rise of third-party payers (including the government) puts a financial middleman in the mix. Even when you don't see them, they are right in the room with the doctor and the patient, carefully tallying costs and measuring each penny spent.

 

[RandFan]

While I like your idealism, there's at least one compelling interest: who pays the bills?

The rise of third-party payers (including the government) puts a financial middleman in the mix. Even when you don't see them, they are right in the room with the doctor and the patient, carefully tallying costs and measuring each penny spent.

I'll grant your point. I'm not sure how significant it is. If you have cash then the middleman is removed. And of course there are compelling interests to regulate medicine (I mean in the broad sense of the word). It's not my opinion that there should not be a third party. It's my opinion that the third party should only be involved when there is a compelling interest. I'm very much in favor regulating abortions after viability. In that case I think there is a compelling moral issue. Once the fetus can think and feel and can live outside of the womb then the dynamics change.

 

[Minoosh]

And what about young women that want contraceptives but don't plan on having sex?

If she has had sex in the past several months, IMO a pregnancy test would be prudent. STD test as well. Her plans from then on out are irrelevant - she abstains or not, she's protected either way. Does that make sense? I ask because I fear I haven't been clear. I don't know what I said that raised the above question.

Being able to feel pain does not make something a person.

Thanks - far more succinct than I was.

 

[Minoosh]

See my comment above. If doing a pregnancy test is important to do before prescribing birth control, then the doctor will do it. If it isn't then a law requiring it is a waste.

As a result, the law serves no purpose medically. It's purpose is solely to create obstacles.

If it's already being done it doesn't create obstacles. I certainly understand the anger at the motives. Still haven't found anything on the Internet regarding forced pregnancy tests. It's a nonissue as far as I can tell and no one has presented evidence to the contrary.

Maybe people thought I was defending ultrasound laws. Pregnancy test does not equal ultrasound. I assumed people knew that.

 

[RandFan]

Being able to feel pain does not make something a person.

This ^^^ Exactly.

Pigs and cows demonstrably can think and feel pain. I guess a thing must also have human DNA to be able to qualify on such a flimsy basis for pro-lifers.

 

[pgwenthold]

If it's already being done it doesn't create obstacles.
.

You do not need a law requiring it for when it is already done. Pretty much by definition, the law only affects those cases where the doctor deems it unnecessary. It is merely about interfering.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If members of the GOP had any conscience, the boner law might change some of their minds.

No minds will be changed.

 

[Minoosh]

I'd better have urine in my bladder and not be shy about it.

In my experience it's not that hard to make urine.

I've had a lot of UAs, I'm somewhat inured.

 

[casebro]

If turnabout is fair play, when will women support a man's right to a legal (not physical) abortion?

Just apiece of paper stating that he 'aborts' any child in any womb- they ain't his. The woman can keep it or not. His "abortion" should "protect his right to the privacy of his own body". It's nobody else's business whether he made a baby.

 

[RandFan]

If turnabout is fair play, when will women support a man's right to a legal (not physical) abortion?

Just apiece of paper stating that he 'aborts' any child in any womb- they ain't his. The woman can keep it or not. His "abortion" should "protect his right to the privacy of his own body". It's nobody else's business whether he made a baby.

It's not men vs women. The question is whether the state has a compelling interest. The state doesn't have a compelling interest to keep a woman from having an abortion. The state DOES have a compelling interest to force a man to be responsible for the results of his sexual conduct. There is just too much at stake to suppose that role of men and women are equivalent when it comes to responsibility. Once a woman has a baby it's very difficult to walk away from her responsibility (evidenced by the number of single mothers compared to single fathers).

I wish people understood the social contract better. We are not a solitary species. We are an evolved social species.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

A sperm or egg cannot of their own become a child. A fertilized egg, left unhampered (and barring accident or illness), will grow and develop into a fully grown human being.

Not exactly. Some eggs have genetic defects and would never be viable, even if fertilized. About 70% fail to implant or result in miscarriage, and most of the time the woman never knows she was pregnant.

It's been said before, but God is the biggest abortionist of them all.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If turnabout is fair play, when will women support a man's right to a legal (not physical) abortion?

When men get pregnant, I'm sure this will become a debatable point.

 

[Arcade22]

Protecting the lives of innocent human beings IS the proper business of government.

Which is exactly why governments have a reason to protect women (and society at large) from the terror that is more unwanted people. Unborn, born, nociception... what a bunch of retarded red herrings.

 

[Magyar]

I am talking about sexually active women who go to a clinic or doctor's office *for contraception*. This doesn't apply to virgins or people who have not had sex in months. I didn't state that because I thought it would be obvious.

Well granted there are stupid people who are sexually active, there are women who get talked into sex without contraception etc. but like you. I didn't state that because I thought it would be obvious. But

1). There is already free market avenues for addressing such people and I would think the party of capitalism would much rather want THAT solution rather then govt regulation.

2). Can't regulate stupid and the party of small govt who blathers on about personal responsibility would rather have people do things instead of having govt intrusive legislation.

But I gues that only applies when it affects men and corporations.

And I don't know what cheating husbands have to do with it.
Now that people can buy highly accurate OTC pregnancy tests, it's less of an issue.

What on Earth does this have to do with what I wrote? Or with a right wing man dumping his wife for a secretary? Please see the response to RandFan above and try to follow what I'm saying. Apologies if I wasn't clear, but it seems a couple of people have flown off the handle based on a misinterpretation of my post. What I said: It is logical to find out if a sexually active woman seeking contraception is pregnant and I've given my reasons.

The legislation and the whole attitude of the right mysogyny machine has the overt air of
"The poor emotional women folk don't have the brains or the emotional stability to do the right thing". We best tell them what to do. Otherwise why is legislation necessary when " highly accurate OTC pregnancy test". Re available. The one way it makes sense to me is that you come from a position where you believe that these women can't be trusted to do the right thing

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Muldur
Because conception (union of sperm and egg) is the earliest point at which the pre-born baby exists as a distinct, identifiable entity.

Not according to actual medical science.

I am wondering what you mean and what actual medical science says.

Is there any scientific consensus that the time a new human life begins is anytime other than conception or immediately afterward?