Chuck Gatschenberger wants to have a mandatory 72 hour waiting period before a woman is allowed to have an abortion…and his argument by analogy is that when he visits a car dealership, he doesn’t impulsively buy a car or recarpet his old one.
House Bill 1613 would require an ultrasound and also triple Missouri’s mandatory waiting period for a woman seeking abortion to 72 hours. Gatschenberger suggested that his legislation would make a woman "research" her decision before having an abortion — a move he said would
increase the odds that she will choose life for her unborn baby.
That’s so sweet. So is House Bill 1614 going to require a 72 hour waiting period for all car purchasing decisions? Just think how poor Chuck would feel if he went into the car dealership and discovered he’d have to wait three days on anything.
But don’t worry, he has “apologized”.
Gatschenberger apologized for offending the women in the room and said his intention was simply to ensure that women considered their reproductive decisions more carefully.
“I’m just saying this is a life-ending decision,” he said. “You should think about it.”
Because women just never ever think before they rush off to get a surgical procedure. Flighty, stupid women — they all need a man to help them with these decisions.
I forgot abortions were commodities and women had to dither over swatches beforehand.
Louis
Would Gatschenburger also be one of those people dedicated to closing down all but one abortion clinic in his state so that most women have to travel hundreds of miles to reach it — and then repeat the journey three days later?
– Conflates baby and foetus
– Openly admits that the bill is biased and aims to coerce women into not getting abortions
– Insinuates that women don’t think these things through already
We’re done. Fuck him, and the horse he rode in on.
Rich – oh, you mean like here in Texas?
Bastard legislators……
What War on Women? Such a liberal hoax!
In fairness, Gatschenberger also proposed a 72 hour waiting period on all vasectomies, because he wants men to finally stop and research their decision before having one, in order to increase the odds that they will choose life for their unborn children. No, wait, that didn’t happen.
It’s such a good thing we have people like Chuck Gatschenberger around to remind us women to think about things. *hurk*
So shouldn´t there be a 72 hour waiting period before deciding to consume food? It is almost always a life-ending decission…
The implication that women as a whole are so stupid or irrational that they would make rushed decissions about their bodies and pregnancies is astonishing…If a woman is trying to get an abortion she couldn´t possibly have thought about it beforehand or made a thorough, researched, ethical decission…so we need to force them to wait 72 hours to give them a chance to contemplate the consequences of their actions and reach the right decission, i.e. not abort.
So women go to the clinic for an abortion without considering the decision beforehand? How about a three day waiting period before deciding on a heart valve replacement.
I say, let’s just take the analogy at face value. Yep, for most people most off the time, buying a car is a decision that should not be taken lightly. On the other hand, sometimes you know exactly which car you want and there is no need to deliberate. Other times, you might need a car urgently and don’t have time for any excess deliberation. And since (unlike guns) there isn’t a big problem with people impulse-buying cars and then using them to harm others, we leave the decision up to the individual as to whether they need to spend time deliberating or not.
The analogy to abortion works fine here: Most women probably do spend some time deliberating on it. For those women for whom it really is a difficult decision, they almost certainly do. But sometimes it is an easy decision and there is no need to deliberate. Or other times, there may be circumstances which make it urgent (such as a medical necessity — and no, I don’t trust theocrats do define “medical necessity” in this case, so the definition of that has to be left up to the individual) and there is no time for deliberation even if it is desired. And since nobody else is at risk of harm, we leave the decision up to the individual as to whether they have both the need and the time to deliberate.
Nice analogy, Chuck! It makes a very strong case for leaving the government out of reproductive decision-making.
He’s being a ‘compromiser’: “All you womenz can have your abortions, just compromise, and wait 3 days to placate the opposition, with an empty gesture. What’s wrong with waiting anyway, it’s only 72 hours. Not like you need your abortion immediately, it’s an optional procedure, so prove it _is_ optional by waiting a few days.”
aarrrgghhhh.
Has this guy ever made a medical appointment? Does he think that women don’t already have to wait at least three days before they call the doctor and when they get to come in for the appointment?
When one is pregnant and does not wish to be, imposing a mandatory 72 hour wait is a form of torture. Haul his ass off to the International Criminal Court.
BTW, for those interested Stop Patriarchy is hosting an Abortion Rights Emergency WEBCAST tonight 7-9:30pm EDT; New Yorkers are welcome to attend attend live. (details here.)
Tomorrow they’re staging a multi-city silent protest featuring bloody coathangers. Details here.
But they won’t have all the forced-birth propaganda until they actually visit the clinic so we need them to wait another 3 days once they have that to keep them company. And of course, if you don’t specifically tell a woman to think about something, she’s likely to forget she has a brain at all, doncha know.
some “apology”:
“I’m just saying this is a life-ending decision,” he said. “You should think about it.”
“I’m sorry you were offended by what I said” vs “I’m sorry I said offensive things”.
notpology vs apology.
I’ve been pregnant once that I know of for sure (I have a daughter), and once when I wasn’t sure (it ended on its own very early, within a few weeks – good thing, as I was a teenager).
.
In both cases, over a period of weeks (actual pregnancy) or several days (suspected pregnancy), I wondered– am I pregnant? what will I do? what are my choices? A woman’s body undergoes a series of changes, some subtle, some profound, in the hours, days, and weeks after conception. I expect that nearly all women who engage in hetero sex wonder at some point if they’ve become pregnant, and that’s when the planning kicks in. Right away. If the period arrives, then the questions can be shelved, but they’re always there. While there are some cases where women don’t realize right away that they are pregnant (everyone experiences it differently), I’m imagine that most pregnant women, once they suspect they are pregnant or might be, spend days or weeks thinking about what to do and how to do it. Any decision is important and requires preparation – whether to abort or to continue the pregnancy. The suggestion that one rushes to the abortion clinic immediately upon confirming a pregnancy is just ludicrous, and hugely insulting.
.
Even at my age – 54, and settling into my post-menopausal infertility – I have had to think about this and to be prepared to make a decision. And I am grateful that I do have choices.
.
They act as if abortion is undertaken on impulse. Insulting.
carlie 12:
Of course not. That there’s wimmenz work, amirite?
jamessweet @10:
Agreed, especially about not having time to deliberate in a medical emergency, such as ectopic pregnancy. Your post adds important info to what I wrote @16, which I was composing when you posted.
It’s a good metaphor for the utter contempt your garden variety republican has for women, dealin’ with dem pesky women, iz like shoppin’ for cars. It’s a wonder that any women vote republican.
Quodlibet 16:
I’d be done in less than a nanosecond.
So what if it is? Having a safe, relatively minor medical procedure that results in one less human being existing in the world is hardly a tragedy, IMHO, compared to most of the alternative outcomes.
So, I think I finally understand the logic (of a sort) that drives waiting periods for abortions. I used to think that they were intended as a way to try to additionally shame women and erect another barrier by drawing out the process (which can, as we know, make it nearly impossible for women who have to travel dozens or even hundreds of miles to the nearest provider to end a pregnancy), but I now think I was being both unfair and too kind. I should have been taking waiting-period advocates at their word – not doing so was unfair. I was being too kind in thinking that their worldviews were tethered to reality fairly strongly and that they weren’t woefully ignorant about the subject.
Imagine this: you view abortion as murder, and you know that most people (and perhaps especially most women, if you have essentialized certain gender norms) aren’t murderers. How, then, can you reconcile the fact that 1 in 3 women commits murder (in your worldview)? Given such a view of reality, I can see how one may simply be unable to accept that so many women would intentionally ‘kill their babies’, and thus how a waiting period might actually be a good thing.
I think we should certainly continue to point out the counterfactual claims in order to convince the people for whom it will work, but for a lot of abortion opponents, we really need to disrupt the underlying worldview (religion, sexism, whatever) in order to get them to change their minds on policy.
I have absolutely nothing (witty) to say about this, so I’ma just fall back on that old staple of fuck you, douchebag. Stop getting involved in things that don’t concern you. (That’s concern in the ‘about’ sense, not the caring sense. I have no doubt that Chuck is deeply concerned for the fate of the Poor Unborn Babbies With Their Ickle Feeties And Heartbeatz ™ for approximately the first 9 months of their physical existence.)
That’s pretty much true of me as well, but I’d guess you’ve spent a bit of time thinking about what you’d do if you became pregnant, and know whether there are any circumstances under which you’d keep it. Some women do their deliberating when they know they’re pregnant, but I suspect many women have *already done* their thinking, and so when they find out they’re pregnant, they can just pick out the plan they already decided on and set it in motion.
Also, I think some hardcore vegans who literally think meat is murder should petition for a rider to be attached mandating a counseling session about animal rights and factory farming when going in to look at various meat products at the store and a three day waiting period between that and actually being able to purchase and consume the meat. Same deal: some small segment of the population believes something is murder that most people agree isn’t, so obviously everyone should have to learn about their views and wait three days before doing the thing they dislike.
John Horstman @ 24
Cut that shit out.
“I’m just saying this is a life-ending decision,” he said. “You should think about it.”
Before giving the lethal injection or throwing the switch.
John Hortsman 21:
You’re still being too kind. These people routinely lie about their motivations (see, e.g., Crisis Pregnancy Centers, promoting the false idea that abortion causes breast cancer, etc.). It’s not that they think abortion is murder; it’s that they think women’s bodies are objects to be used and controlled as they see fit.
Good luck with that.
…and his argument by analogy is that when he visits a car dealership, he doesn’t impulsively buy a car or recarpet his old one.
By the time I actually walk into a car dealership, I’ve already spent more than 72 hours thinking of buying a car. That’s how it’s been with EVERY car I’ve ever bought, new or used, even the old VW my mom let me have. So even if I choose a car, get the credit check done, and sign on the dotted line on the same day, that’s not an “impulsive” action.
Even his own lame analogy doesn’t support his opinion.
Maybe there should be a mandatory 72 hour waiting period after an election day for anyone who is considering voting for a Republican before they can cast their vote.
How about viagra being handed out one pill at a time – only in a clinic with admitting privileges – and he has to wait three days to go back and get his one pill? They insist that sex is also a decision that no one should undertake without thinking about the consequences, amirite?
If I had a tumor that could be removed with little risk to me, I wouldn’t have to think about it. I don’t have to think about whether or not to get a flu shot. I wouldn’t have to think about getting a suspicious mole removed. I don’t have to think about getting a cavity filled. And if I had an unplanned pregnancy, I wouldn’t have to think about getting an abortion.
There are lots of medical decisions that wouldn’t require much thought. It’s low risk and puts my body in a state I desire and I can afford it? Fuck yeah.
There’s no shame in knowing what you want right off the bat. I’ve had this body since I was born. I’ve had a hell of a long fucking time to figure out some basic things about it.
“Because women just never ever think before they rush off to get a surgical procedure.”
Well, as an adviser to Greg Abbott (Republican candidate for Texas governor) said, there’s “no evidence women are significant thinkers”…
Why do people keep voting for these idiots????????
I get really tired of the “apology” dance sometimes. Apologies are worthless with people like this (and probably most people most of the time, frankly). They never mean them, and they never change their thinking or behavior in line with what they should be apologizing for. It’s just a pointless ritual, everybody ends up angry, and nothing changes.
I don’t want this guy to apologize for picking the wrong analogy. I want him to apologize for having a stupid idea. I want him to realize that his reasoning is completely wrong. I want him to apologize for trying to strongarm women into unwanted births. I want him to see the error of his ways and rescind this bill. But I suppose all that’s too much to ask for, so I should just want him to apologize for a “gaffe” and pay some piddling public penance.
I get really tired of the “apology” dance sometimes. Apologies are worthless with people like this (and probably most people most of the time, frankly). They never mean them, and they never change their thinking or behavior in line with what they should be apologizing for. It’s just a pointless ritual, everybody ends up angry, and nothing changes.
I don’t want this guy to apologize for picking the wrong analogy. I want him to apologize for having a stupid idea. I want him to realize that his reasoning is completely wrong. I want him to apologize for trying to strongarm women into unwanted births. I want him to see the error of his ways and rescind this bill. But I suppose all that’s too much to ask for, so I should just want him to apologize for a “gaffe” and pay some piddling public penance.
And as far as “You should think about it” is concerned, I’ll just quote this gem from A. Noyd a few abortion threads back (in fact, maybe I’ll just quote it every time we have an abortion thread here, because it is exactly what I think about the whole issue):
Oh shoot. I didn’t mean to double-post that, really.
He always waits at least 72 hours before committing to re-carpeting his uterus, or masturbating in a new car – because that ends the life of millions of adorable little spermatozoa.
I don’t want him to apologize for a bad analogy.
I want him to apologize for being a terrible human being who doesn’t think women are people. THAT’S what I want a SINCERE apology for.
FUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
adorable little spermatozoa
+1
A Democratic lobbyist in D.C. defended his controversial idea for a bill forcing lawmakers to have to pass a test on the subject of the law they are voting on, by comparing Republican voters to drunk drivers.
“In making a decision to drive a car, I need to make sure I know what the fuck I am doing,” Bill Ented told colleagues at a hearing on the bill Tuesday.
House Bill 666 would require a 50 question quiz created by university professors on the relevant subject matter, and will also reduce all bathroom breaks to a new maximum of 72 hours. Ented suggested that his legislation would make a legislator “research” their decision before attempting to pass a legislative abortion — a move he said would “increase the odds that only people who know what the fuck they are talking about will be able to wield the power of a lawmaker.”
The major problem with Ented’s analogy, of course, is that rich people are not prevented from drunk driving due to the lower-class regulating “law”.
Representative Bane Pennybags (R) told Ented that his drunkeness analogy was “extremely offensive to every single lawmaker sitting in here.”
“Do you believe that driving a car is in any way related to following Republican party voting guidelines?” she asked. “That kind of attitude is demeaning to drivers, since voting like the GOP doesn’t require nearly as much effort, attention, skill, experience, decision making ability, or knowledge about the world!”
D.C. lawmakers have patted many Republicans on the head with a reassuring “there, there” and let them know that they will never hurt their feelings by forcing them to prove they are competent. D.C. already requires lawmakers to be rich and older than 20, so isn’t that enough?
Several conservative advocates attended the hearing on Tuesday wearing their standard “Mad Men”-era outfits and carrying signs that read “Staying Back” and “1950 called — why don’t you call 1950s more often?.”
Ented apologized for offending the women in the room and said his intention was simply to ensure that lawmakers considered their legislative decisions more carefully.
“I’m just saying this is a life-ending decision,” he said. “You should think about it.”
And if you’re in an abusive relationship, that 72 hours increases the odds that your partner will find out about the pregnancy. Now she’s even more tied to the person who is abusing her. Now she has to worry about him trying to stop her from getting the abortion. And pregnancy doesn’t reform abusers, it makes them worse.
Fuck you, Chuck Gatschenberger. Fuck you from the very bottom of my heart.
A better analogy would be returning an unwanted gift rather than an impulse buy. Impulse is how you get pregnant, a lot of times.
Chuckie, Chuckie… let’s for a moment engage in a fiction where you are a thoughtful and rational person… let’s say you actually spent a good deal of time weighing the options for your new car, agonizing and hand-wringing and ultimately came to the decision that you wanted it. You still think the government should mandate you wait 3 days to buy it? I doubt it.
Oh, and bow let’s also stop pretending that women treat the decision to have an abortion as as fucking trivial as buying a car, you privileged, dishonest piece of ratshit.
I agree with Naked Bunny With a Whip @#29.
Before you can cast a vote for any Republican, you must go to your polling place and fully fill out the ballot. Then, 72 hours later, you must return and fill out another full ballot. If there is any difference between the two ballots, they will be thrown out. Also, you must write 500 word essays about each and every vote you cast, defending your decision. After all, you are choosing who will run your government and you must not make such a decision lightly.
Oh, I forgot one more item. There shall be only one Republican polling place per state, and it can only be open from 3am to 5am, and then only if a retired Supreme Court Justice is on the premises to rule on the legality of any questioned ballot.
Because sufficient people either want that, accept that, or are ignorant of that. Often a combination of 2 or 3.
Ok, so the obvious response has been issued, but what about the reverse? Abortions are like buying cars; can I then “pimp out” my (hypothetical) abortion?
quodlibet @ 18:
FWIW: In a rare concession to reality, Gatschenberger’s bill makes an exception for medical emergency, defined as “a condition which so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman that the death of the woman would result from the failure to immediately terminate the pregnancy.” Furthermore, the definition of “abortion” explicitly excludes the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.
I’m not defending the bill, mind you, but our criticism should be accurate. See:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/biltxt/intro/HB1613I.htm
Meanwhile Virginia Congressional candidate Bob Marshall (R-Epugnant) doesn’t want an incest exception for abortion because “What if incest is voluntary? Sometimes it is.”
Delaying the purchase of a car won’t make the purchase more dangerous and difficult, or increase the chance that you won’t be able to purchase the car at all.
I’m willing to bet somebody a beer that this arrogant ass is opposed to waiting periods for gun purchases.
anuran @#47 — That’s one sick bastard.
I’ll bet you any money you like this guy is against 3 day waiting periods for firearms purchases though.
Curses! Foiled again!
As a Male, I support Abortion on Demand and Without Apology, as I believe it is a woman’s decision. If I’m the “Dad” (sperm donor?) then I’ll give my input (if asked), and support whatever decision she makes.
To paraphrase from the greatest presidential speech ever given:
He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character.
robro @ 49 and kyoseki at 50: A gun purchase doesn’t need a waiting period because it’s not a life-ending decision.
That part comes later.
Ugh. I went to high school with his daughter. He was a bit off then, but has gotten ridiculous… as has his district. This is the district, mind you, that in in 2012 had to have their Republican caucus broken up by police.
Home sweet home.
This is his “apology”?!?
Seldom does one see the whole conservative viewpoint phrased so succinctly. Let us parse …
I = me, just take my word for it
just saying = notpology AND I don’t have to offer any evidence
life-ending = you may not think it is a life, there, but I do
decision = as if you haven’t decided already, and as if I ever gave this any thought
You = little woman
should = I’m telling you what to do
think = you haven’t already, and you should agree with me once you have
about this = I know it is new to you, and you haven’t yet realized you should agree with me
Now that’s an apology! /snark
mck9 @ 53
So pulling the trigger should require a three-day waiting period?
Shows plain and simple that he does not consider women to be people capable of making rational decisions.
Why no waiting period for buying a new car? Because we assume that people (i.e. men) actually think about it beforehand. Because hey, buying a car is not buying a pizza slice, right?
But with abortions, you can’t trust women to have thought about this before making an appointment, nooooooo.
I know a young woman in Missouri (not this guy’s district, yay) who has already made up her mind about which kind if car she is not going to get. She gave it some thought, and reached her decision, well before car-buying time. Will she need to wait three days when she decides to buy?
It is a life-ending decision, by the way, because she has mostly based her decision on the bad safety record of that brand among people she knows. If she is wrong, she may die ….
Waiting periods for pregnancy termination or buying a gun?
Neither makes any sense or serves any useful purpose
mck9
I assume that’s how he and his ilk would weasel around about it, but gun purchasing decisions are all too often part of a rash decision to kill someone (self, family member, friend). There is evidence that states with gun purchase waiting periods reduce suicide and family/friend shootings significantly.
Right, but how many medical professionals are going to go through the law with a fine-toothed comb to determine whether they can perform the abortion immediately without legal sanctions or not? If they are unsure, they will err on the side of caution to protect themselves from legal consequences. This is exactly what happened with Savita Halappanavar. Technically the law would have permitted doctors to treat her and give her an abortion immediately. But doctors weren’t sure whether this was the case or not, so they waited, and she died.
Oh, and mck9, abortion is not “a life-ending decision” either.
SallyStrange — I could also imagine some medical professionals who happen to be fundamentalists using this legal uncertainty as a further excuse to not fulfill their ethical obligation.
@60 robro,
The VPC and the rest have been pushing that old lie for decades. There is no decent evidence that waiting periods reduce the rate of suicide or homicide. Lots of claims. Lots of wishful thinking. No evidence.
anuran @59:
While I am glad you support a womans right to choose, you are flat out wrong about waiting periods for purchasing a gun. I wont comment here any further on that.
I had an abortion last year. I found out I was pregnant, about six weeks in. Exactly a week later, I had the abortion.
I had to have that stupid 24 hour waiting period which was pointless. I was not going to change my mind. My mind was made up the instant that test turned positive.
Four months after my abortion I had a bit of a kidney infection and they asked me about previous medical surgeries including abortion and I just completely spaced about it. I didn’t leave it off on purpose … I just forgot. My not being pregnant anymore was just the way it was supposed to be, and the abortion was just the way I got back to that place.
I’d be happy to share my abortion experience if anyone wants, but really, it was not that interesting. The story of my wisdom teeth removal is far bloodier (for me), hilariously dramatic and fun to tell. The abortion was pretty easy. I took a 3 hour nap, which was enough for me to sleep off the drugs that put me into twilight, smoked a fat bowl, and felt just fine.
No regrets. It was seriously … not a big deal. And for me it was 100% rational. The bigger deal was how I able to pay for the abortion — still makes me want to cry!
Buying a car is way more painful and traumatizing (I kid … sorta). In all seriousness, getting fired for “revenge porn” in 2007 (before it was really even a thing!) and being laid off in 2010 were both far, far more traumatic and awful than the abortion which really was just a medical procedure gone well. The medical professionals and the man who performed the abortion were all tops.
Well, hell, how about a 72 hour waiting period before surgery to remove a cancer? It’s a life ending decision for the cancer* and a cancer has as many working brain cells as most embryos** at time of abortion.
*Unless, of course, the cancer is cultured in vitro, but if we’re against culture of ESC then surely culture of cancer cells is equally evil, so maybe it’s time to toss those HeLa cells.
**The majority of abortions are performed on or before the 8th week of gestation, making the product of conception being aborted an embryo, not a fetus. Talking about aborted fetuses is already giving the thing too much developmental credit, muchless talking about aborting a baby, which is physically impossible.
In a rare concession to reality, Gatschenberger’s bill makes an exception for medical emergency, defined as “a condition which so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman that the death of the woman would result from the failure to immediately terminate the pregnancy.”
That’s not much of a concession to reality, especially if it is interpreted strictly. I’ve attested to the medical necessity of abortion in a handful of cases. None of which were going to kill the woman in question immediately, so they wouldn’t have been eligible for this exception, but every one of the women in question would have been dead before the end of the pregnancy. In some of those cases, the pregnancy was wanted, though not always as a realistic desire. What would be the point of torturing the women in question by making them wait longer to get the abortion? Oh, right, the “pro-life” movement: torturing women is an end of itself.
Choosing abortion comes after intercourse, not before. If Chuck Gainsayer’s analogy were valid, he would be talking about a three day waiting period after purchasing a new car.
The car dealer analogy is apt because they won’t let you change your mind after purchase either. Their attitude is the same as republicans: “You chose this, now live with your decision.”
Such attitudes blithely ignore the fact that women who choose abortion did not choose to get pregnant, and some did not choose to have intercourse. But why let facts get in the way of religious dogma?
If a man gets a hard-on for a consenting woman at say a party or a bar, he must wait 72 hours before acting on it. Then if he still has the hard-on and the woman is still consenting, they can have sex.
Gatschenberger’s district is a couple of suburbs away from me. I just sent him and his cosponsors the following email, drawing in part on some of the comments here. The formatting may get a little mangled; in particular, I don’t think FTB supports bullet points in comments.
Representative Gatschenberger:
I am writing about your bill HB 1613, requiring a 72 hour waiting period before most abortions. I include my own representative, Andrew Koenig, in the the distribution list because he cosponsored a similar bill, HB 1307.
You’ve taken some heat for comparing an abortion to the purchase of a vehicle. In response, you brilliantly articulated a bright shining line to define when waiting periods are necessary. This policy principle I shall dub the Gatschenberger Guideline, an eponymous epiphany:
If it’s a life-ending decision, it needs a 72 hour waiting period.
If it isn’t, it doesn’t.
For example, we can apply the Gatschenberger Guideline to the removal of cancerous tumors. Like an embryo, a cancerous tumor is genetically distinct from its host. To excise it is to end its life. The patient should therefore be required to wait 72 hours before implementing such a momentous decision, and to view endearing ultrasound images of the tumor. Even if the patient ultimately decides to go ahead with the surgery, the waiting period will allow more time for grieving.
Here’s another example: eating meat unquestionably involves a life-ending decision. Unlike a human embryo, a steer, hog, or chicken:
Is capable of surviving outside the womb (or egg) without life support;
Has a mature, fully functional brain;
Is sentient;
Can experience pleasure or pain, contentment or fear;
Has a complete set of fully-formed and functional organs (with the possible exception of the gonads);
Engages in a complex social life amid a community of peers.
Surely these poor creatures are also entitled to protection. To be on the safe side, we should probably extend the same courtesy to fish. I’m not sure about lobster and calamari. We probably don’t need to worry about oysters.
So for your next Big Mac, you should have to make two trips to McDonalds, 72 hours apart. In between, you should have to watch a video of cattle grazing peacefully in a flowering meadow, followed by footage of slaughterhouse operations. Only then will you be able to make a fully informed decision to end an innocent life.
The same rule should apply to meat bought at the supermarket. Of course, the burden would fall mainly on women, since they’re the ones who do the grocery shopping. They wouldn’t necessarily have to watch the video every time, just at, say, six month intervals.
Careful planning can minimize any inconvenience. Your wife probably goes to Dierbergs at least twice a week anyway, right? She can just order the steaks in advance and pick them up three days later.
This exercise in planning will be good for them. They’re so flighty and impulsive. They never think things through. They’re all like, “Oh, look, there’s an abortion mill next to Famous Footwear. As long as I’m here, I’ll just pop in for an abortion. It’ll be fun!”
The Gatschenberger Guideline works in the other direction, too. Take gun sales. Buying a gun doesn’t require a life-ending decision. The life-ending part comes later. So there shouldn’t be any waiting period for gun sales.
On the other hand, any firearms sold in Missouri should be required to introduce a 72 hour delay between the pulling of the trigger and the issuance of the bullet. In between, the shooter will have the opportunity to change his mind and cancel the shot. If he nevertheless decides to go through with it, the delay will likely improve his aim, because the trigger-pulling won’t jiggle the barrel.
Of course, the best argument for waiting periods is the Biblical precedent. Even Jesus had a three day waiting period. It’s a good thing He didn’t change His mind.
GAAAAAAAAAH!!!! I am so fucking sick of hearing this obtuse notion that women don’t think about what it means to have an abortion before hand. For fuck’s sake, you can’t be a woman in this society without having thought about this shit ahead of time. I had thought it through for freaking years before I was ever in the situation where I might actually have needed an abortion. Just… Fuck.
What’s this douchenugget’s opinion on a wait time for viagra prescriptions?