So here I am again, having heart palpitations and shrieking in dismay at the utterly and completely ridiculous display of (il)logic in my political debate group.
The debate of choice today is abortion. More specific, it is whether or not an ultrasound should be required prior to performing an abortion. It starts like this:
Copied from a friend of mine in Virginia, upset about a new law that permits forcible physical rape by the state for any woman seeking an abortion.
The law is still sexist in that an amendment that would require rectal probing for any man seeking viagra was turned down. I am unsure if anyone attempted an amendment to forcibly anally rape the father of any fertilized biologically material expelled from the body. Or if the rapings are required in instances where a fertilized egg is flushed from the body during menstruation.
“The Virginia Senate has passed a bill, and the Virginia House of Delegates is expected to pass a bill, and the governor Bob McDonald has promised to sign a bill, that requires a woman, even against her wishes, to accept a vaginal ultrasound to obtain an abortion.
“§ 18.2-67.5. Attempted rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual battery.
A. An attempt to commit rape, forcible sodomy, or inanimate or animate object sexual penetration shall be punishable as a Class 4 felony.”
Sticking a ultrasound device in a woman against her wishes is, by legal definition in the Commonwealth of Virginia, inanimate object sexual penetration and a Class 4 felony.
In short, Bob McDonald is about to make us a State of Rapists.”
And to back it up, because I was curious: http://dcist.com/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_measure_closer.php.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? REALLY?? A vaginal ultrasound (necessary because the fetus is too small to see with an external ultrasound) is now rape? Yes, according to this delusional individual. And further, because a rectal exam is not required for Viagra prescriptions, the law is also sexist?? What the hell??
I won’t inundate you with all the details of the ensuing exchange, but I will jump forward to the next hair-raising (for me) argument that he made.
J #1: Wait, if i act irresponsibly and run up a debt, and i pay the debt off that is dealing with the consequences.
If I collect a bunch of shit in my yard, getting rid of it is dealing with the co sequences of collecting it.
And if somone gets pregnant when they are not prepared, having an abortion is one of the ways of dealing with it.
Dealing with the consequences is simply making the choice to reverse the irresponsible actions. (emphasis mine)
All of the above do that.
Why does having a baby have to be the ONLY way of dealing with the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy?
M: Funny, there a proven 100 percent way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But then again that would require being responsible for your own actions. You J don’t want that responsibility you want it to be the problem of others. Maybe you should consider growing up.
J #2: M, if you really don’t want it to be the responsibility of others, then you should support a woman’s right to abort an unwanted child.
J #1: No, M, thats not taking responsibility for an action, that is avoiding the action altogether.
Taking responsibility means reversing the undesired situation that arises as a result of the action. That is what an abortion is. Reversing the undesired situation (pregnancy) of the action (unprotected sex).
Thus, having an abortion is taking responsibility for ones own actions.
Having the baby anyway COULD also count as taking responsibility, but you havent corrected the situation, on exacerbated it. (emphasis mine)
If I run up a big credit card bill, the more responsible action is to pay it off immediately before I am crushed by the consequences of further inaction, huge interest. Thus, not taking immediate action to correct the situation is less responsible than it opposite.
OK, let me get this straight. Behaving responsibly and practicing abstinence, therefore eliminating the possibility of an unexpected pregnancy altogether, is not taking responsibility, it is avoidance? Taking responsibility means means “reversing the undesired situation that arises as a result of the action?” It doesn’t mean avoiding the irresponsible action in the first place? It doesn’t mean taking precautions ahead of time to prevent the undesired situation? It means reversing the undesired situation?? Which (according to the above) eliminates having the baby and either parenting him/her or surrendering him/her for adoption as responsible options because it would not be reversing the undesired situation that arises as a result of the action??
So taking responsibility in this context means (and can only mean) getting an abortion? And further, if an ultrasound is required prior to the abortion, that is government sponsored rape??
WHAT THE HELL??
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
This, dear readers, is the impenetrable logic of several debaters in our illustrious little group.
Oh, and as an aside, not one single woman was in this particular thread. Curious, huh?
I love political debate, but this was beyond the pale for me. It’s not even worth the energy to debate when these are your talking points, because it is truly like banging your head on a brick wall. The only result is your own pain, so I abstain from inflicting that on myself, and instead expose it here.