Kentucky lawmaker’s bill forces men to get note from wives before purchasing Viagra

[Jeff7]

Sure, exclude the 0.0197% that are ectopic from the requirement if that really matters to you. And I didn't' call them baby murderers, I said they were taking life of a fetus and shouldn't be allowed to whitewash that fact. If it hurts their poor feelings I really don't give a damn. Having an abortion shouldn't be like buying a package of shrink-wrapped meat from the supermarket where we can pretend an animal wasn't slaughtered to provide it. If you're going to take life (yes, even a fetal life) then you need to fully own that action, forcing the ultrasound removes that self-created rationalization that it is "just a ball of cells" and puts the reality right in front of them. If that's upsetting or even "humiliating" then good, that's exactly how it should be.

Some people also fully understand this, that it's not something to be taken lightly.
All this idiotic and primitive Puritanical bullshit does is rub their face in something they already don't entirely like to be involved with, but are doing anyway because they feel it's ultimately in everyone's best interest.

But hey, go ahead and have the baby you know you can't support. Hard-right Republicans and such will do everything they can at that point to ensure that no help whatsoever is offered because it might cause a tiny amount of short-term economic damage.
In the uterus? Give that fetus or even zygote all the protections and compassion in the world. Out of the uterus? Screw off and die if you can't afford to take care of yourself. Just don't make me have to pay a dime for your birth or pathetic life afterward.

Having an abortion shouldn't be like buying a package of shrink-wrapped meat from the supermarket where we can pretend an animal wasn't slaughtered to provide it.

???
Kind of tough to pretend what it came from when it's obviously a bloody piece of muscle. No illusions on my end.

 

[Exophase]

As far as raising awareness on an issue goes, it's a pretty cheap way to raise as much awareness as she has.

It's not going to do anything except reinforce how people already feel.

What, you think someone who opposes abortion is going to suddenly realize that they've been wrong because it's being compared to something like this? I seriously doubt that.

So much energy is put into arguing that people should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, but it's completely missing the point because those who oppose abortion do so because they think that the fetus is a living thing that needs to be kept alive regardless of the mother's bodily autonomy. No argument for personal rights is going to trump what they consider to be murder, and if I agreed with them on that point I wouldn't be convinced by that either. I'm imagining a scenario where there are conjoined twins and one is a cognitively normal adult while the other is basically a highly deficient child, and the cognitively normal one is given the option to have separation surgery that is certain to kill the other. Think people would or should go for that?

The only way to convince most of them would be to get them to stop believing that a barely developed embryo (what most people abort) is morally equivalent to a full blown baby. But given that this is a highly subjective, arbitrary, and very often religiously motivated idea well, good luck with that.

And frankly, even if this tactic held any potential, I still wouldn't support it because there IS something to say about setting a bad precedent for political action that goes beyond whatever direct costs this one bill entails, what it does to tarnish the already highly compromised view people have of politicians, and the risk it carries that people won't get the point or that it even passes.

 

[bozack]

Unless that doctor has the legal ability to ask if that person owns a gun, amirite?!?

what does this have to do with anything?

 

[glenn1]

Abortion is already highly regulated on the state and federal level...just as is buying that package of meat that is state and federally regulated to make sure it's safe.

So.

Just pretend the fetuses are corporatoons and wealthy people and you'll be fine with more regulations.

 

[PokerGuy]

She's taking a life, I don't feel the need to save her from "humiliation" by allowing her to conveniently and self-servingly describe the fetus as just a "clump of cells" or trying to think of abortion as anything other than what it is.

That is completely messed up. You're essentially seeking to punish (or humiliate, or both) her for something she's doing that is perfectly legal and within her rights to do. She can "self servingly" describe it as whatever she wants, it's not up to you to decide how she needs to describe something.

It's one thing to say someone has to deal with the actual consequences of their actions, but completely another to create negative 'consequences' when they don't otherwise exist. Trying to use the force of government to punish perfectly legal behavior you happen to disagree with is wrong and a terrible injustice.

 

[glenn1]

That is completely messed up. You're essentially seeking to punish (or humiliate, or both) her for something she's doing that is perfectly legal and within her rights to do. She can "self servingly" describe it as whatever she wants, it's not up to you to decide how she needs to describe something.

It's one thing to say someone has to deal with the actual consequences of their actions, but completely another to create negative 'consequences' when they don't otherwise exist. Trying to use the force of government to punish perfectly legal behavior you happen to disagree with is wrong and a terrible injustice.

I don't 'disagree ' with it, but I also don't think women (or the fathers for that matter) should get to have the experience sanitized for them. If you're going to eat meat you should watch or better yet slit the throat of the animal yourself. If you're going to kill a fetus you should have a good look if not watch the procedure. If the woman considers that punishment then she hasn't got the empathy or awareness to see she's getting off easy compared to the fetus.

 

[brycejones]

I don't 'disagree ' with it, but I also don't think women (or the fathers for that matter) should get to have the experience sanitized for them. If you're going to eat meat you should watch or better yet slit the throat of the animal yourself. If you're going to kill a fetus you should have a good look if not watch the procedure. If the woman considers that punishment then she hasn't got the empathy or awareness to see she's getting off easy compared to the fetus.

Ok troll boy.

 

[glenn1]

Ok troll boy.

If it's just a clump of cells then it certainly should not be any big deal for the woman to look at them. Or man for that matter.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't 'disagree ' with it, but I also don't think women (or the fathers for that matter) should get to have the experience sanitized for them. If you're going to eat meat you should watch or better yet slit the throat of the animal yourself.

That's fine that you think so, but using the government (the law) to force them to do so is wrong. If you want to eat meat but don't want to see where it came from, that's completely up to you, there isn't a law (nor should there be) that says you have to watch the butchering process in order to eat meat.

If you're going to kill a fetus you should have a good look if not watch the procedure.

Why? According to whom exactly, and for what purpose? What does it accomplish?

If the woman considers that punishment then she hasn't got the empathy or awareness to see she's getting off easy compared to the fetus.

Ah, so we're back to the core issue. You apparently disagree with her being able to freely make that choice, so the next best option is to punish her and make her see the error of her ways that way?

Should someone who wants to purchase a firearm be forced to sit through an 8 hour video session showing graphic pictures of kids who've been shot with firearms?

That's just complete logic fail.

If it's just a clump of cells then it certainly should not be any big deal for the woman to look at them. Or man for that matter.

Whether it's a big deal or not is irrelevant. It's not up to anyone but her to decide what she does or doesn't want/need to see.

 

[glenn1]

That's fine that you think so, but using the government (the law) to force them to do so is wrong. If you want to eat meat but don't want to see where it came from, that's completely up to you, there isn't a law (nor should there be) that says you have to watch the butchering process in order to eat meat.



Why? According to whom exactly, and for what purpose? What does it accomplish?



Ah, so we're back to the core issue. You apparently disagree with her being able to freely make that choice, so the next best option is to punish her and make her see the error of her ways that way?

Should someone who wants to purchase a firearm be forced to sit through an 8 hour video session showing graphic pictures of kids who've been shot with firearms?

That's just complete logic fail.



Whether it's a big deal or not is irrelevant. It's not up to anyone but her to decide what she does or doesn't want/need to see.

If the state passes a law saying otherwise then no its not up to her to decide. And I'd be fine with gun buyers being shown photos of shooting victims, but for equal protection reasons if you are going to make it 8 hours for them then 8 hours needs to be the requirement for abortions as well.

 

[HomerJS]

Not as bad as state sponsored rape Republicans advocate before woman can get an abortion

 

[glenn1]

I need feminism because otherwise how will we emulate China and its tens of millions of sexual selection abortions of female fetuses. A 1.17 male/female ratio is when women will truly be equal.

 

[Bitek]

Bundle it with a bill containing the usual abortion restrictions and you have a deal. None of those requirements are humiliating at all, in fact that she thinks they are just shows you that most feminists are stupid.

Authoritarianism FTW!

Now tell us how much you love freedum and small govt...

 

[IBMer]

That is completely messed up. You're essentially seeking to punish (or humiliate, or both) her for something she's doing that is perfectly legal and within her rights to do. She can "self servingly" describe it as whatever she wants, it's not up to you to decide how she needs to describe something.

It's one thing to say someone has to deal with the actual consequences of their actions, but completely another to create negative 'consequences' when they don't otherwise exist. Trying to use the force of government to punish perfectly legal behavior you happen to disagree with is wrong and a terrible injustice.

Holyshit I agree with you

 

[dank69]

Bundle it with a bill containing the usual abortion restrictions and you have a deal. None of those requirements are humiliating at all, in fact that she thinks they are just shows you that most feminists are stupid.

You realize, of course, that this bill would make it so single men could not obtain boner pills. In the interest of family values and all: no premarital sex.

 

[glenn1]

You realize, of course, that this bill would make it so single men could not obtain boner pills. In the interest of family values and all: no premarital sex.

I really don't give a damn about boner pills. Kentucky and every other state have the right to live under their choice of laws even if I think it's stupid. The key fact here is that neither boner pill restrictions nor requiring an ultrasound prior to abortion are unconstitutional. Don't want to have to see an ultrasound before an abortion then don't have one; that's the formulation your side always uses.

 

[dank69]

I really don't give a damn about boner pills. Kentucky and every other state have the right to live under their choice of laws even if I think it's stupid. The key fact here is that neither boner pill restrictions nor requiring an ultrasound prior to abortion are unconstitutional. Don't want to have to see an ultrasound before an abortion then don't have one; that's the formulation your side always uses.

Don't want to have an anal ultrasound before making more than $100k/year then don't make more than $100k/year. Requiring the ultrasound before you make that much wouldn't be unconstitutional apparently.

 

[glenn1]

Don't want to have an anal ultrasound before making more than $100k/year then don't make more than $100k/year. Requiring the ultrasound before you make that much wouldn't be unconstitutional apparently.

Is that the Bernie Sanders platform? No wonder you support him.

 

[dank69]

Is that the Bernie Sanders platform? No wonder you support him.

No, it's the Glenn1 platform. Restrict anything that isn't expressly guaranteed by the constitution for any reason or no reason at all.

 

[glenn1]

No, it's the Glenn1 platform. Restrict anything that isn't expressly guaranteed by the constitution for any reason or no reason at all.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of a constitution and the tenth amendment, to set the upper and lower bounds over what government can do or not do then allow the citizens to live under the laws they see fit.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, that's kind of the point of a constitution and the tenth amendment, to set the upper and lower bounds over what government can do or not do then allow the citizens to live under the laws they see fit.

So you'd be fine with a legislature composed mostly of females implementing laws that only negatively impact males?

 

[Exophase]

So you'd be fine with a legislature composed mostly of females implementing laws that only negatively impact males?

I frankly don't care about the gender of the people who decide legislature. I don't believe that men or women are inherently biased towards favoring others of the same gender. And there are laws and government actions that for various reasons predominantly or even nearly exclusively affect men.

There are lots of women who oppose abortion and probably generally not because they've been brainwashed to hate women. Putting them in charge instead won't solve anything.

Framing the entire abortion issue as a matter of misogyny/women's rights/feminism is a red herring and has done much to stall discourse. So long as these people think abortion is murder none of this is going to matter.

 

[dank69]

I frankly don't care about the gender of the people who decide legislature. I don't believe that men or women are inherently biased towards favoring others of the same gender. And there are laws and government actions that for various reasons predominantly or even nearly exclusively affect men.

There are lots of women who oppose abortion and probably generally not because they've been brainwashed to hate women. Putting them in charge instead won't solve anything.

Framing the entire abortion issue as a matter of misogyny/women's rights/feminism is a red herring and has done much to stall discourse. So long as these people think abortion is murder none of this is going to matter.

It's not about favoring one's own gender. It's about making decisions for the other gender when one is unqualified to do so.

 

[glenn1]

It's not about favoring one's own gender. It's about making decisions for the other gender when one is unqualified to do so.

Thankfully you don't need a particular set of reproductive organs to reject the ludicrous idea that allowing self-described "humiliation" determine what is proper basis for law. What next, "Oh, having to tell the IRS how much I make is so humiliating, so I shouldn't have to pay taxes"?

Again, if you failed at a basic and simple adult responsibility like managing your own sex life and/or birth control, then hell yes you deserve a bit of humiliation when you seek to kill the fetus to "take responsibility" for your fuckup. Hopefully then you won't continue to be a fuckup who needs to kill more fetuses.

 

[Exophase]

It's not about favoring one's own gender. It's about making decisions for the other gender when one is unqualified to do so.

This is like saying that politicians are unqualified to make any decisions about healthcare if they don't personally need that care. This is why they should source studies, advisors etc, not have to rely entirely on personal experience.