I'd really love to hear how the Conservatives that control the state can support state sanctioned rape against
their citizens? And the forced procedure does qualify as a felony based on Virginia law. How is this not Government
overreach we always hear claimed by the right? Oh, that's right, it's abortion....
Scrabb wrote:This is stupider than calling someone who administers or gets an abortion a murderer.
I don't think its stupider, equal maybe, but not stupider.
I do like how requiring a church affiliated employer to provide birth control is violating the freedom of religion and equals the government overreaching their mandate by requiring medical coverage, and that the GOP continues to decry any sort of mandate because "Government has no business telling people what medical procedures they need to have and have no business telling them what to do".
But while continuing to complain about how the government has no business regulating what occurs between a patient and his/her physician, they continue to mandate medical procedures that serve no medical purpose other than to be an artificial barrier and discomfort and/or shame women into not getting abortions.
Apparently Slate is OK with the French government "raping" new mothers (using Ms. Lithwick's standard), but is not OK with the State of Virginia doing so.
Apparently Slate is OK with the French government "raping" new mothers (using Ms. Lithwick's standard), but is not OK with the State of Virginia doing so.
The distinction remains unclear.
Well, looks like the French scenario is a medical procedure, decided upon between the patient and the provider. They decide what they need, what they want to do, and how to go about it.
The Virginia case is the legislature deciding what medical procedures are required, irregardless of what a trained and licensed physician thinks is needed and what a patient consents to.
But of course you don't want to see the difference there.
d-usa, actually read the second link. There are two ultrasounds that are mandatory during abortion procedures here in Virginia, one before the procedure and one afterward. The one before hand is used to determine location and age of fetus, if the fetus is more developed than is legally allowed to be aborted then there is nothing they can do legally. If the fetus is less developed then it can be legally aborted. Then there is another ultrasound done to make sure the procedure was a success, don't want to leave any excess fetus inside which could cause health problems. Virginia also has a >90% rate of giving antibiotics to patients before surgery which ensures safer and healthier outcomes of surgical procedures unlike North Carolina which hovers in the ~70% area for giving antibiotics before surgical procedures. Again, here in Virginia we have a lot of precautions that are mandatory before performing a medical procedure to ensure the health of the patient and the safety of the procedure.
About the comment about ending life... are the people at your local slaughterhouse murderers because they are end the life of living beings, murderers? About this procedure... the definition of "rape" is the unwarranted insertion of an object into or stimulation of bodily orifices. Because it is common knowledge that heterosexual males do not enjoy objects being place in the anus, is colonoscopy considered rape?
My personal views
Where I live is an open abortion state meaning getting an abortion is as easy as going to a walk in clinic. I think abortion is wrong, but am I going to take away your liberty to do it, no; can I take way your ability to do it, no. I believe people should have the right and ability to do anything, but I don't believe something like that shouldn't be done in between hair and nails. I believe that (and I'm kicking myself for this) regulation that says that you must have a general practice gynecologist referral to go see a gynecology surgeon (abortionist). The thing with politics that you must ask yourself is if your against something, what are you for?
alarmingrick wrote:A colonoscopy and this procedure are apples and oranges.
I'm for freedom of choice.
Actually they are vary similar if you want an abortion you're going to have to have (oh how do I say this nicely) a game of tickle me elmo. If you want you want a cancer screening... well you get the idea.
Oh lookie, some sheepfethers have yet again tried to put as many barriers between women and abortions as possible. It's almost as if they don't like abortion or something.
What is the current Standard of Care according to the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and whatever other organizations are in charge of regularing medicine and setting standards?
Determining what procedures are "medically necesarry" should never be left up to a political body without medical training who are ruling based on an agenda, and not based on evidence based care.
Melissia wrote:Oh lookie, some sheepfethers have yet again tried to put as many barriers between women and abortions as possible. It's almost as if they don't like abortion or something.
You are still throwing up this argument despite people(myself mainly) attempting to explain to you why it is a good idea to get an ultrasound before an abortion in a previous thread?
What is the current Standard of Care according to the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and whatever other organizations are in charge of regularing medicine and setting standards?
Determining what procedures are "medically necesarry" should never be left up to a political body without medical training who are ruling based on an agenda, and not based on evidence based care.
Melissia wrote:Oh lookie, some sheepfethers have yet again tried to put as many barriers between women and abortions as possible. It's almost as if they don't like abortion or something.
You are still throwing up this argument despite people(myself mainly) attempting to explain to you why it is a good idea to get an ultrasound before an abortion in a previous thread?
Is it medically necesarry? Is it the standard of care according to evidenced based practive of medicine? It is a good idea to get an ultrasound before an abortion according to whom?
Which should be up to the doctors, not the extremist nutjobs in the various state congresses.
I think I should start pushing for psychiatric examinations before anyone can legally buy guns, exchange ownership of guns, or purchase a license to use guns (such as concealed carry). One can argue that it, also, is a good idea.
I'm sure that'd go over greatly with these "people" who care SOOOOO much about the health of the average person.
Dreadwinter wrote:Weird, I have this feeling that we have gone over this sort of thing before.....
No, I'm pretty sure a law like this hasn't been around before.
As an aside, we did indeed go over this more-or-less recently; Texas passed a similar law.
------
You know, I just typed out a really, really long post with quotes from various conservative politicians about how one of the worst things about Obamacare was how it had unelected bureaucrats making medical decisions for people instead of the government, but you know what, I just deleted it. It's a huge waste of time, as is nearly ever one of these debates. There is nothing I can say that the cartoon already posted does't say about the rampant, unswerving hypocriticality (is that a word) of the sorts of politicians who support these.
Apparently Slate is OK with the French government "raping" new mothers (using Ms. Lithwick's standard), but is not OK with the State of Virginia doing so.
The distinction remains unclear.
The distinction is between an elective procedure carried out for clinical reasons and a non-elective one carried out for political reasons.
Apparently Slate is OK with the French government "raping" new mothers (using Ms. Lithwick's standard), but is not OK with the State of Virginia doing so.
The distinction remains unclear.
Here is an intrusive, mandatory process with no medical relevance to abortion, that the state of Virginia is only making mandatory because it doesn't like abortions and hopes you might not have one because of this.
Against
Here is an elective procedure that intrusive, but that we offer for free, if you want it, as it believed that it might help reduce the negative effects of giving birth.
And biccat can't tell the difference between these two things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Actually they are vary similar if you want an abortion you're going to have to have (oh how do I say this nicely) a game of tickle me elmo. If you want you want a cancer screening... well you get the idea.
Except the colonoscopy is a medically necessary procedure, whereas abortions do not require this procedure. It is only being mandated because it is hoped it will discourage abortions.
Ouze wrote:I'd wonder how the people who defend this here would feel about a law that mandated a colonoscopy before a prescription could be written for Viagra.
I'd say I've never had Viagra before but with all the free perks you're throwing in I'm thinking about taking it up (so to speak).
Alternative headline: "Planned Parenthood rapes women seeking abortions"
Alternative alternative headline. "Frazzled wants the two minutes of his life back that this thread stole from him."
And now for no reason, a song I'd like to hear: "How can I start missing you, if you won't leave?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Surtur wrote:. EATING IS LIKE RAPING YOUR MOUTH WITH A SPOON! GOING TO THE BATHROOM IS RAPING A TOILET WITH POOP!
!
Surtur wins best post of the day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Dakka's OT is always a hoot during election season.
That reminds me of a Red Hot Chili Peppers lyric: "You hoot! I holla!" The Wife always loved that song. I liked Dana California better myself, and of course I still occasionally hum "The Tale of Don Gato"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:I'd wonder how the people who defend this here would feel about a law that mandated a colonoscopy before a prescription could be written for Viagra.
Ouze wrote:I'd wonder how the people who defend this here would feel about a law that mandated a colonoscopy before a prescription could be written for Viagra.
I'd say I've never had Viagra before but with all the free perks you're throwing in I'm thinking about taking it up (so to speak).
What is the current Standard of Care according to the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and whatever other organizations are in charge of regularing medicine and setting standards?
Determining what procedures are "medically necesarry" should never be left up to a political body without medical training who are ruling based on an agenda, and not based on evidence based care.
Seriously? The government makes tons of laws, either through the judiciary or legislature, that define the standard of care.
Obviously nobody cares that Planned Parenthood is currently raping women who want to procure an abortion.
I'd say this surprises me, but honestly it doesn't. The pro-abortion side will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize murder. Which makes sense: nobody wants to be a monster.
This thread is a stupid thread...
I don't even know what the problem is here?
It's not rape is it?
It's an ultrasound.
Admittedly an invasive one but that's not because of some twisted punishment idea or to put people off. It's to check the health of the fetus and see how old it is.
It's an important procedure if you want an abortion.
It shouldn't be a law but frankly if you're not willing to go along with a procedure in order for a medical proffessional to figure out what kind of procedure they need to perform in order to have an abortion then you're not willing to have an abortion.
What is the current Standard of Care according to the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and whatever other organizations are in charge of regularing medicine and setting standards?
Determining what procedures are "medically necesarry" should never be left up to a political body without medical training who are ruling based on an agenda, and not based on evidence based care.
Seriously? The government makes tons of laws, either through the judiciary or legislature, that define the standard of care.
Obviously nobody cares that Planned Parenthood is currently raping women who want to procure an abortion.
I'd say this surprises me, but honestly it doesn't. The pro-abortion side will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize murder. Which makes sense: nobody wants to be a monster.
For the millionth time, the ultrasound at Planned Parenthood is elective, and the VA law is not.
Elective vs. Required
I know from previous threads that you are a smart guy. I'm 100% confident you can see the difference.
I'd like to say that the fact that the Republicans don't see the difference is a surprise to me, but honestly it isn't. The right will go to extra-ordinary lengths to rationalize government intrusion into a women's life. Which makes sense; nobody wants to be seen as a misogynistic, fascist monster.
What is the current Standard of Care according to the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and whatever other organizations are in charge of regularing medicine and setting standards?
Determining what procedures are "medically necesarry" should never be left up to a political body without medical training who are ruling based on an agenda, and not based on evidence based care.
Seriously? The government makes tons of laws, either through the judiciary or legislature, that define the standard of care.
Obviously nobody cares that Planned Parenthood is currently raping women who want to procure an abortion.
I'd say this surprises me, but honestly it doesn't. The pro-abortion side will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize murder. Which makes sense: nobody wants to be a monster.
For the millionth time, the ultrasound at Planned Parenthood is elective, and the VA law is not.
Elective vs. Required
I know from previous threads that you are a smart guy. I'm 100% confident you can see the difference.
I'd like to say that the fact that the Republicans don't see the difference is a surprise to me, but honestly it isn't. The right will go to extra-ordinary lengths to rationalize government intrusion into a women's life. Which makes sense; nobody wants to be seen as a misogynistic, fascist monster.
Wait they're both elective. The patient elects to utilize PP's pregnancy ending services and gets the big R, per E's definition.
Easy E wrote:For the millionth time, the ultrasound at Planned Parenthood is elective, and the VA law is not.
They're both elective if you want to have the abortion.
There's no way to tell the age of the fetus except via ultrasound. Virginia limits abortions after a certain time. Therefore, in order to comply with the law, an ultrasound is required before an abortion is performed.
edit: that's assuming Planned Parenthood is performing legal abortions. It's entirely possible that they're simply ignoring the law. Wouldn't be anything new.
Easy E wrote:The right will go to extra-ordinary lengths to rationalize government intrusion into a women's life.
Meh, I value the right of someone to live over someone else's right to kill them. I also support murder laws, go figure.
I think the issue here, for me, is that it's used as a deterant against abortion. Which sounds like someone is pushing an agenda.
If the medical procedure is medically unnecessary, the whole point of having the ultrasound is to show the individual female there is a living, breathing being growing inside. That in turn is to hope the ultrasound persuades the individual to change her mind.
I believe in a lot of the views held by christians, while not belonging to any religion. I think a lot of their values uphold decency, which is where the original idea, I think, came for this law. It gives certain women the means to be promiscuous and not having to become a responsible citizen of the United States of America and a decent human being.
But I also believe in freedom of choice, being a registered independent and a citizen of the United States of America. Every human being should have a right to make their own choices and accept their own consequences for their actions. Even if every medical doctor giving an opinion states that you should not do it, but you decided to do it (and find someone who is willing), then more power to you, just do not come whining if something bad happens after all the professional opinions saying you should not.
Looking at it like this, it turns into which belief do I hold more dear. It's the whole point of ethics, it's a product of the current times, at least in a democratic society. If the majority believes decency and moral, then these views should be upheld at the expense of others. It is the utilitarian thing, the democratic thing, to do. Of course, this also applies for the inverse, if the majority believes in freedom of choice, then it should be upheld.
Taking the above idea, though, you could argue that freedom of choice trumps the moral values of decency as forcing decency removes freedom of choice as that was the foundation of the United States of America, but that is not the argument I present above. If the majority believes something, then they have the right, by our democratic society, to impose the rule of law against the minority, as long as it does not violate other laws, obviously.
It's a difficult subject. I personally believe that the law is ethical for the right reasons but unethical in it's execution, thus I must believe the law is totally against for what I think is right.
biccat wrote:I'd say this surprises me, but honestly it doesn't. The pro-abortion side will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize murder. Which makes sense: nobody wants to be a monster.
Murder's a subjective term, and shouldn't be used in debates about something like this.
For example, it brings up the following issue; if abortion is murder, then why isn't a soldier shooting dead another soldier during wartime?
Both involve legal loss of life, and arguably the soldier loses more from their death - unlike a foetus, which may or may not be sentient, a soldier is unquestionably so, and definitely feels the full gamut of human emotion.
Frankly, I feel if you're going to debate about this sort of thing, it needs to be with a great deal less poop-flinging from both sides.
Just for the record, I am pro-choice; literally. Regardless of my beliefs, and what I would decide in such a situation, I believe that the people who end up in this situation should be allowed to decide for themselves what is the right course of action.
Zyllos wrote:I think the issue here, for me, is that it's used as a deterant against abortion. Which sounds like someone is pushing an agenda.
If the medical procedure is medically unnecessary, the whole point of having the ultrasound is to show the individual female there is a living, breathing being growing inside. That in turn is to hope the ultrasound persuades the individual to change her mind.
I believe in a lot of the views held by christians, while not belonging to any religion. I think a lot of their values uphold decency, which is where the original idea, I think, came for this law. It gives certain women the means to be promiscuous and not having to become a responsible citizen of the United States of America and a decent human being.
But I also believe in freedom of choice, being a registered independent and a citizen of the United States of America. Every human being should have a right to make their own choices and accept their own consequences for their actions. Even if every medical doctor giving an opinion states that you should not do it, but you decided to do it (and find someone who is willing), then more power to you, just do not come whining if something bad happens after all the professional opinions saying you should not.
Looking at it like this, it turns into which belief do I hold more dear. It's the whole point of ethics, it's a product of the current times, at least in a democratic society. If the majority believes decency and moral, then these views should be upheld at the expense of others. It is the utilitarian thing, the democratic thing, to do. Of course, this also applies for the inverse, if the majority believes in freedom of choice, then it should be upheld.
Taking the above idea, though, you could argue that freedom of choice trumps the moral values of decency as forcing decency removes freedom of choice as that was the foundation of the United States of America, but that is not the argument I present above. If the majority believes something, then they have the right, by our democratic society, to impose the rule of law against the minority, as long as it does not violate other laws, obviously.
It's a difficult subject. I personally believe that the law is ethical for the right reasons but unethical in it's execution, thus I must believe the law is totally against for what I think is right.
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
I know, but when people bring up the idea that abortion is murder, they open up the idea that other activities are murder too.
It's a can of worms that doesn't need opening.
The difference between State and Federal Law. Federalism is the key here.
Don't like the law? Then move. There's plenty of states in the US who have no restrictions whatsoever. That's the beauty of the system. Freedom of movement.
Of course the moving target of when life begins in the fetus is another fun topic.
I've always felt the abortion debate would be much more civil if everyone could agree to the following:
1) Killing innocent people is wrong.
2) Intentionally avoiding the creation of children is perfectly acceptable.
Now, we can loose the whole "Women's right to their body" and "Abortion is murder" aspects of the debate and just get down to the one question that we need to answer: "Where do you draw the line between a potential, yet unrealized, life and an actual separate human being?
biccat wrote:
Obviously nobody cares that Planned Parenthood is currently raping women who want to procure an abortion.
Its not rape if there's consent.
That said, this is whole "issue" is about the worst excuse for outrage that exists.
biccat wrote:
I'd say this surprises me, but honestly it doesn't. The pro-abortion side will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize murder. Which makes sense: nobody wants to be a monster.
I do, but that's beside the point.
Dropping murder into the conversation is heavy-handed, and lame. We kill quite a few people because their actions are inconvenient. And yes, if a fetus is a person then anything it does is it's action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
Don't like the law? Then move. There's plenty of states in the US who have no restrictions whatsoever. That's the beauty of the system. Freedom of movement.
"Love it or Leave it." is an awful argument for a number of reasons.
Not sure if this helps the subject or not, but if a fetus is considered a person, what happens to that fetus if it kills the mother due to complications caused by the fetus?
Is it the fetus' fault? Thus it must be tried by law?
Zyllos wrote:Not sure if this helps the subject or not, but if a fetus is considered a person, what happens to that fetus if it kills the mother due to complications caused by the fetus?
Is it the fetus' fault? Thus it must be tried by law?
Murder requires intent. The fetus definitely didn't have intent.
Most manslaughter laws require a level of negligence. The fetus wasn't negligent in simply existing, so that's out.
Simply being at fault for the death of someone isn't enough to be criminal. You have to do something wrong in the first place to be criminal.
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
Its also defined by death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
And abortion aint' it.
be careful what you wish for. Give medical science 20 years and under the current SCOTUS definition of "viability" it will be.
One thing even the biggest pro-abortion folks need to accept is that the age of viability is earlier now than in the past. That is one factor that can't be ignored IMO.
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
Its also defined by death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
And abortion aint' it.
be careful what you wish for. Give medical science 20 years and under the current SCOTUS definition of "viability" it will be.
One thing even the biggest pro-abortion folks need to accept is that the age of viability is earlier now than in the past. That is one factor that can't be ignored IMO.
Indeed.
However, it's still the person's choice as to whether to go ahead with it or not, and if this affects their decision, then so be it. That is good, as it means they're making an informed one.
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
Its also defined by death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
And abortion aint' it.
be careful what you wish for. Give medical science 20 years and under the current SCOTUS definition of "viability" it will be.
One thing even the biggest pro-abortion folks need to accept is that the age of viability is earlier now than in the past. That is one factor that can't be ignored IMO.
Indeed.
However, it's still the person's choice as to whether to go ahead with it or not, and if this affects their decision, then so be it. That is good, as it means they're making an informed one.
NO.
In the US, viability is a hinging issue in the SCOTUS case. Once the baby/zygote/fetus/little blob of eggs whatever you want to call it becomes viable, then thats all she wrote for abortion.
What is the current Standard of Care according to the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and whatever other organizations are in charge of regularing medicine and setting standards?
Determining what procedures are "medically necesarry" should never be left up to a political body without medical training who are ruling based on an agenda, and not based on evidence based care.
Whoa.
Whoa whoa whoa.
American Medical Association? American College of Surgeons? What are you, some sort of communist? Those organizations are staffed by people who got medical degrees. That means they went to college. That means they've been indoctrinated by the liberal establishment and sworn secret oaths to the Supreme Soviet.
We don't need doctors telling us what is and isn't medically necessary, we need career conservative politicians. They're the only ones qualified.
Does Planned Parenthood require a transvaginal ultrasound or a transabdominal ultrasound currently? The article Biccat linked doesn't tell us which kind is currently required.
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
Its also defined by death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.
And abortion aint' it.
be careful what you wish for. Give medical science 20 years and under the current SCOTUS definition of "viability" it will be.
One thing even the biggest pro-abortion folks need to accept is that the age of viability is earlier now than in the past. That is one factor that can't be ignored IMO.
Very little. While 21 week foetuses have a higher chance of survival thanks to modern medicine, their prognosis is still very poor.
One thing even the biggest anti-abortion folks need to accept is that the great majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks anyway.
I know medicine and science even philosophy has a definition of life. I think that before the issue of abortion is settled a social definition of life will have to be made.
Does life begin with conception
Does life begin with the first heartbeat
Does life begin with the development of the brain
Does life begin when the mother is showing
Does life begin at birth
Society as a whole needs to define exactly when it recognizes a living being. Without that hard definition other law such as murder can really come into play.
There are animals that even scientist are debating weather it is alive; take the virus, it is just a protein shell filled we genetic information so it doesn't fit the scientific definition of life but it exists and reproduces.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing that has to be asked (and this question goes all the way back to the Greek empire) what is the role of government in this issue?
Of course, I'm not above stating that I am probably having a visceral reaction to this, because my wife and I almost had to make such a terrible choice between her life or our babies life. Thankfully, things worked out.
I think this has a lot of elements, more than just Abortion. Look at what conservative commentator Dana Loesch had to say:
“Progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth…They had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.”
Ah yes, "pro-abortion", because you don't have a real argument to stand on so you just demonize the opposition.
MIght as start calling all "pro-lifers" something then. How about "misogynistic bastards"?
Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't make them pro-abortion. Abortion is a traumatic thing, and it isn't the abortion that is supported but the choice to have one. You know, just like how having a "pro-life" stance doesn't meanthat you're a misogynistic gakker.
Stormrider wrote:Don't like the law? Then move.
"If you don't like it, fix it" is a less pathetic attitude.
Melissia wrote:Ah yes, "pro-abortion", because you don't have a real argument to stand on so you just demonize the opposition.
MIght as start calling all "pro-lifers" something then. How about "misogynistic bastards"?
Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't make them pro-abortion. Abortion is a traumatic thing, and it isn't the abortion that is supported but the choice to have one.
The crux of the argument.
Essentially, it comes down to trusting people to make their own decisions, and respecting their right to do so regardless of the outcome.
Surtur wrote:How the hell is an ultrasound rape? HOW. EATING IS LIKE RAPING YOUR MOUTH WITH A SPOON! GOING TO THE BATHROOM IS RAPING A TOILET WITH POOP!
Hate to tell ya, when you're getting an abortion, chances are that's not the only thing going up there!
Melissia wrote:Ah yes, "pro-abortion", because you don't have a real argument to stand on so you just demonize the opposition.
Its a fair characterization. I wouldn't object to being called pro-abortion.
Melissia wrote:
Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't make them pro-abortion. Abortion is a traumatic thing, and it isn't the abortion that is supported but the choice to have one.
broodstar wrote:I know medicine and science even philosophy has a definition of life. I think that before the issue of abortion is settled a social definition of life will have to be made.
Does life begin with conception
Does life begin with the first heartbeat
Does life begin with the development of the brain
Does life begin when the mother is showing
Does life begin at birth
Society as a whole needs to define exactly when it recognizes a living being. Without that hard definition other law such as murder can really come into play.
An excellent proposition.
However, society doesn't get to decide when life begins, that issue has been removed from popular referendum by the Supreme Court.
And before anyone says that the Supreme Court is part of society's decision - please point out in which case the Supreme Court decided life begins. The right of abortion may extend beyond the beginning of life, and the Court apparently doesn't have a problem with this.
Easy E wrote:I mean. Wow. I don't even want to think of the implications of that statement.
Ask Andrea Dworkin: "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Manchu wrote:Now, now. If pro-lifers get to call abortion murder then it's only fair that pro-choicers get to call ultrasound rape.
Given the things that pro-lifers are called on a regular basis, this is actually a step up. Nobody knows how to hate and degrade like leftists.
biccat wrote:
However, society doesn't get to decide when life begins, that issue has been removed from popular referendum by the Supreme Court.
Amendment process.
Also, law is not morality, and such.
biccat wrote:
Given the things that pro-lifers are called on a regular basis, this is actually a step up. Nobody knows how to hate and degrade like leftists.
So, those signs that read "Murderer" and "Devil-Spawn" I walked my ex past were indicative of conservative love?
I'm not arguing that American liberals don't hate people, they do an with great fervor, but its not unique to them.
Ouze wrote:I'd wonder how the people who defend this here would feel about a law that mandated a colonoscopy before a prescription could be written for Viagra.
biccat wrote:
Wow. Believe it or not, I actually had a decent amount of respect for you before this comment.
Did you miss the many comments I've made about being pro-choice, and having paid for several abortions?
biccat wrote:
Which is consistent with what I said.
If no one knows how to hate like leftists, one assumes that the argument being made is qualitative, and that the point is that leftists hate more than non-leftisits; which generally means conservatives, being people on the right by convention.
Samus_aran115 wrote:So... why do they need to prove that they're pregnant? What will an ultrasound prove during the first 12 weeks?
Virginia has always been crazy though.
No, we haven't.
We just voted in a governor who might as well be the Virginian Santorum. Except now he's backing off from his unconditional support of this bill. He wants to be Romney's veep, after all.
biccat wrote: Wow. Believe it or not, I actually had a decent amount of respect for you before this comment.
Did you miss the many comments I've made about being pro-choice, and having paid for several abortions?
I have no problem with someone being pro-choice.
But choosing to abort is another matter entirely.
If you ever have a kid: look at him or her and tell yourself that you could have had several just like him/her if his/her mother hadn't had an abortion.
dogma wrote:If no one knows how to hate like leftists, one assumes that the argument being made is qualitative, and that the point is that leftists hate more than non-leftisits; which generally means conservatives, being people on the right by convention.
I'm not sure how this is consistent with your previous comment. Leftists are good at hating. Conservatives less so.
That doesn't mean no conservative has ever said a hateful thing, just that leftists are better at it.
biccat wrote:
Wow. Believe it or not, I actually had a decent amount of respect for you before this comment.
Did you miss the many comments I've made about being pro-choice, and having paid for several abortions?
I have no problem with someone being pro-choice.
But choosing to abort is another matter entirely.
If you ever have a kid: look at him or her and tell yourself that you could have had several just like him/her if his/her mother hadn't had an abortion.
dogma wrote:If no one knows how to hate like leftists, one assumes that the argument being made is qualitative, and that the point is that leftists hate more than non-leftisits; which generally means conservatives, being people on the right by convention.
I'm not sure how this is consistent with your previous comment. Leftists are good at hating. Conservatives less so.
That doesn't mean no conservative has ever said a hateful thing, just that leftists are better at it.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:So it's okay for them to have the choice but not okay for them to choose the option you don't like?
What's the distinction you're trying to make here?
"Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare."
But yes, that's generally what freedom is: you have the right to do X, even if it's a bad thing. I think hate speech is a bad thing. I don't think it should be outlawed.
Abortion is a special case because it requires a balance between the liberty interest of the mother and the future life interest of the child.
biccat wrote:
If you ever have a kid: look at him or her and tell yourself that you could have had several just like him/her if his/her mother hadn't had an abortion.
I've funded this process 4 times (only 1 was mine), and walked friends through it 7 times; including the paid instances. I'm not at all uncomfortable with the prospect.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how this is consistent with your previous comment. Leftists are good at hating. Conservatives less so.
That doesn't mean no conservative has ever said a hateful thing, just that leftists are better at it.
Its consistent in the sense that my argument is based on a talent for hate knowing no political boundary.
Those abortion clinic protesters were pretty damn hateful, and I've seen some (liberal) immigration protesters that were just as hateful.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:So it's okay for them to have the choice but not okay for them to choose the option you don't like?
What's the distinction you're trying to make here?
But yes, that's generally what freedom is: you have the right to do X, even if it's a bad thing. I think hate speech is a bad thing. I don't think it should be outlawed.
Abortion is a special case because it requires a balance between the liberty interest of the mother and the future life interest of the child.
I'm going to guess the outburst at Dogma was a case of strong personal feelings, then?
That at least I can understand, given how thorny an issue things like abortion have proven to be.
biccat wrote:That doesn't mean no conservative has ever said a hateful thing, just that leftists are better at it.
Knowing your strict code of never making political assertions without proof, and your tendency to flee when you do, I'd appreciate some empirical evidence to back that up.
Well, the thread isn't really about abortion. The thread is about whether if you want an abortion and I say, okay, but I have to stick this thing in your vagina, and you say, yeah, I really want the abortion so go ahead, is that rape?
Stormrider wrote:
Don't like the law? Then move. There's plenty of states in the US who have no restrictions whatsoever. That's the beauty of the system. Freedom of movement.
"Love it or Leave it." is an awful argument for a number of reasons.
Manchu wrote:Well, the thread isn't really about abortion. The thread is about whether if you want an abortion and I say, okay, but I have to stick this thing in your vagina, and you say, yeah, I really want the abortion so go ahead, is that rape?
Not really...
Rape has to be non-consensual...
If you say yes then it is consensual...
Well if he believes that life begins at conception, yea he probably does.
The abortion could've been necessary to save the mother's life.
That is at least one or two percent more likely than winning the big Power Ball, but agreed there is that chance. Of course under the law killing someone to save yourself is a very iffy proposition...
Unless its Shane from Walking Dead of course. Then again I never understood why the Shane hate, when he's the only one to make the right decisions so far in the show.
Manchu wrote:Well, the thread isn't really about abortion. The thread is about whether if you want an abortion and I say, okay, but I have to stick this thing in your vagina, and you say, yeah, I really want the abortion so go ahead, is that rape?
So it isn't about abortion, it is just about abortion. Makes perfect sense.
It is simple, and basically necessitates the invalidity of any political change, and therefore democracy.
Then there's the capacity objection, by which one might want to live under different conditions, but lack the ability to simply move without significant hardship. Basically, X is bad, but Y is worse.
purplefood wrote:Not really...
Rape has to be non-consensual...
If you say yes then it is consensual...
Yeah, I know. The point I am glossing is that the decision to be penetrated here is only related by law to the decision to have an abortion. It is a bit uncomfortable. I mean, what if a woman went to get a loan at the bank and the banker said, sure but only if I get to stick this thing in your vagina?
purplefood wrote:Not really...
Rape has to be non-consensual...
If you say yes then it is consensual...
Yeah, I know. The point I am glossing is that the decision to be penetrated here is only related by law to the decision to have an abortion. It is a bit uncomfortable. I mean, what if a woman went to get a loan at the bank and the banker said, sure but only if I get to stick this thing in your vagina?
Well, if a woman can only get a loan if she lets the banker do stuff to her vagina ... I mean, we're not really talking about loans when we consider what's wrong with this scenario.
Well, if a woman can only get a loan if she lets the banker do stuff to her vagina ... I mean, we're not really talking about loans when we consider what's wrong with this scenario.
Well, if a woman can only get a loan if she lets the banker do stuff to her vagina ... I mean, we're not really talking about loans when we consider what's wrong with this scenario.
sebster wrote:Except the colonoscopy is a medically necessary procedure, whereas abortions do not require this procedure. It is only being mandated because it is hoped it will discourage abortions.
Actually, in this thread right here. A doctor who was against the legislation went on to say that before he performs any abortions he does the ultrasound. So that he can obtain the age of the fetus and the position in the womb.
d-usa wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Melissia wrote:Oh lookie, some sheepfethers have yet again tried to put as many barriers between women and abortions as possible. It's almost as if they don't like abortion or something.
You are still throwing up this argument despite people(myself mainly) attempting to explain to you why it is a good idea to get an ultrasound before an abortion in a previous thread?
Is it medically necessary? Is it the standard of care according to evidenced based practice of medicine? It is a good idea to get an ultrasound before an abortion according to whom?
Yes, there are doctors who believe so, see previous statement.
You cannot just walk in to a place and go "Yeah, I need an abortion." and get the "Right this way Ma'am." with no questions asked. Doctors actually have to make sure things go right, you know, so you cannot sue them. Because malpractice is a huge deal.
Frazzled wrote:
Too ing Much Information, a favorite phrase of the Wife's.
No such thing.
Well, unless you know everything, if that were the case life would be boring; and boredom is hell.
Heck yes there is!
"Morning Ralph. How are you this morning?"
"My hemmorhoids are really acting up, and I think I got crabs from last night's party."
"er...I'm going to walk, over there."
Frazzled wrote:
Heck yes there is!
"Morning Ralph. How are you this morning?"
"My hemmorhoids are really acting up, and I think I got crabs from last night's party."
"er...I'm going to walk, over there."
Now not being a doctor, I'll have to assume this is correct. Oh wait, this is the internet...
This is an article I wrote after much study on the subject of "Vaginas, how do they work?" I am a very respected doctor with several surviving patients and many high school diplomas.
In RE: to Biccat's "the left are best at hating"...
Hell fething no. Rhe conservative/religious right spouts by FAR more hate than any other group in the USA. Hell even the people at PETA tend to be less consistently and openly hateful.
Melissia wrote:In RE: to Biccat's "the left are best at hating"...
Hell fething no. Rhe conservative/religious right spouts by FAR more hate than any other group in the USA. Hell even the people at PETA tend to be less consistently and openly hateful...
I'm gonna have to say that this does seem to be the case...
TBF, I think the hatred promulgated by the "Christian" Right is shocking because it contrasts so blatantly with what most people generally consider to be authentic Christianity. There is no issue that Americans are more sensitive to than hypocrisy. It's like sharks and blood in saltwater. If someone calling themselves Christian and someone calling themselves, just for example, an environmentalist say the same hateful message, I think people (especially Americans) will generally be more critical of the person claiming to be Christian.
If I had to postulate, I'd say that it's because it's easy to spout hate when you don't believe people who agree with you really count as people (IE; they're sinners and therefor lesser than you, whom is a good Christian and therefor a good person).
This also applies to certain religious groups in other countries who frequently cry out to anyone who disagrees "infidel!" and treats them as less than a person because of this. If they don't just kill them outright.
Arnold Vinnick: I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there, if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes.
Frankly, all you people who don't follow the teachings of the Great Wiener Dog are infidels and will be cast aside like the cats and squirrels when The Wiener Time comes. Just saying.
Samus_aran115 wrote:So... why do they need to prove that they're pregnant? What will an ultrasound prove during the first 12 weeks?
Virginia has always been crazy though.
A lot of things can be looked at with ultrasound, I had my heart looked at with ultrasound.
No, I understand that an ultrasound is a good idea for a lot of medical things, but I'm pretty sure a woman would 'know' if they were pregnant, and I think if they're walking into an abortion clinic, it's redundant to perform an ultrasound (at the 12th week no less, at which point it's very clear they're pregnant).
At around 16 weeks, I went with my mom and dad to see my sister in the womb via ultrasound. It was a very prolific moment, and I an remember it well. I think it would be heartbreaking for a woman to see that, with the intent of purging it from their body.... I'm all for abortion, and I see a lot of uses for it, but an ultrasound is too much. I don't think a woman should have to see that if she doesn't want to.
Dancing around the part about basically forcing a woman to have a probe stuck up her minge. Obviously that's silly.
Melissia wrote:If I had to postulate, I'd say that it's because it's easy to spout hate when you don't believe people who agree with you really count as people.
How about if you don't feel that people even count? This can be said of some radical liberals. There's no point playing the "which one is worse" game because there's good and bad all around.
biccat wrote:I'd say this surprises me, but honestly it doesn't. The pro-abortion side will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize murder. Which makes sense: nobody wants to be a monster.
Oh look, and here's biccat declaring that abortion is simply murder, and pretending that's an objective truth. That's never happened before, and certainly doesn't bring into question his ability to contribute considered, constructive dialogue to a discussion. No, not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:This thread is a stupid thread...
I don't even know what the problem is here?
It's not rape is it?
It's an ultrasound.
Admittedly an invasive one but that's not because of some twisted punishment idea or to put people off. It's to check the health of the fetus and see how old it is.
It's an important procedure if you want an abortion.
That would useful, if it were true that was necessary to having an abortion. It isn't, and abortions have been carried out for a very long time without this process ever being used, let alone mandated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Meh, I value the right of someone to live over someone else's right to kill them. I also support murder laws, go figure.
Because you belive a fetus to be human. Which is fine, your opinion, which you're entitled to, and can be expected to vote according to. Nothing wrong with that.
What's absurd is you assuming that your opinion is an objective truth, and that we should all believe it is human, just because you think so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:In the US, viability is a hinging issue in the SCOTUS case. Once the baby/zygote/fetus/little blob of eggs whatever you want to call it becomes viable, then thats all she wrote for abortion.
Only if you're willing to build a medical system that will induce the zygote, and then develop it in an artificial womb. Which would make for a great sci-fi story, and theoretically fix the issues of both the pro-choice people (who don't want to force a women to give birth to a baby that isn't her's) and the pro-life people (who finally get to ensure every conception ever can be guaranteed to be brought out into the world, at which point they'll quickly forget about all that pro-life stuff and start talking about how we can't afford for everyone to have healthcare).
But something tells me as an actual plausible reality it's pretty stupid.
Even if abortion became illegal, people will still look for ways to have them.
People with money will go overseas.
People who are too poor will go see that creepy guy who sells heroine on the side. Few might be successful, some will end up being an absolute disaster, infection, death...
I'm personally against abortions, but my personal views should not be forced on anyone. Nor do I go out on the walk way of a woman's health clinic and call them murderers, chances are they are already making a tough choice. They don'y need a guy who knows nothing what they are going through to be harassing them.
broodstar wrote:I know medicine and science even philosophy has a definition of life. I think that before the issue of abortion is settled a social definition of life will have to be made.
Does life begin with conception
Does life begin with the first heartbeat
Does life begin with the development of the brain
Does life begin when the mother is showing
Does life begin at birth
Society as a whole needs to define exactly when it recognizes a living being. Without that hard definition other law such as murder can really come into play.
The issue is that we can't. Life develops over time. Like a boat replaced one plank at a time, at exactly what time is it a whole new boat?
So we all pick our own point, based on entirely subjective means, and knowing that point is entirely subjective, we avoid that discussion (mostly to avoid how weak our own starting position is) and then call the other side monsters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:If you ever have a kid: look at him or her and tell yourself that you could have had several just like him/her if his/her mother hadn't had an abortion.
And they could have even more if only Mummy hadn't been on the pill.
And even more if only you hadn't really felt up to it that Sunday night two years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:How? It's pretty simple.
Because it ignores the prospect of 'While I don't like that law I like it here, and so I will do what I can to change that law to something I like'.
And that's a pretty big thing to ignore, given that, you know, working to change laws to what we like is the basis of democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:Actually, in this thread right here. A doctor who was against the legislation went on to say that before he performs any abortions he does the ultrasound. So that he can obtain the age of the fetus and the position in the womb.
And once you can extend that from 'a doctor' to 'the general consensus of one or more medical boards which has a significant portion of its members drawn from those performing abortions' then you'd have a procedure that is medically necessary. In the meantime you 'a doctor'.
Piston Honda wrote:Even if abortion became illegal, people will still look for ways to have them.
People with money will go overseas.
People who are too poor will go see that creepy guy who sells heroine on the side. Few might be successful, some will end up being an absolute disaster, infection, death...
I'm personally against abortions, but my personal views should not be forced on anyone. Nor do I go out on the walk way of a woman's health clinic and call them murderers, chances are they are already making a tough choice. They don'y need a guy who knows nothing what they are going through to be harassing them.
I do think the Governer of this lovely state, a Republican, is on the record and has called "Obamacare" economic rape. So there you go for crazy rhetoric.
Dreadwinter wrote:Actually, in this thread right here. A doctor who was against the legislation went on to say that before he performs any abortions he does the ultrasound. So that he can obtain the age of the fetus and the position in the womb.
And once you can extend that from 'a doctor' to 'the general consensus of one or more medical boards which has a significant portion of its members drawn from those performing abortions' then you'd have a procedure that is medically necessary. In the meantime you 'a doctor'.
So, a Doctor cannot tell you something is medically relevant? He cannot make that decision on his own? This is what you are telling me?
Dreadwinter wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:Actually, in this thread right here. A doctor who was against the legislation went on to say that before he performs any abortions he does the ultrasound. So that he can obtain the age of the fetus and the position in the womb.
And once you can extend that from 'a doctor' to 'the general consensus of one or more medical boards which has a significant portion of its members drawn from those performing abortions' then you'd have a procedure that is medically necessary. In the meantime you 'a doctor'.
So, a Doctor cannot tell you something is medically relevant? He cannot make that decision on his own? This is what you are telling me?
What he's saying is 1 doctor can be found to tell you anything you want to hear.
A group, or groups, of doctors would mean alot more. C'mon, you've never heard of
"ask for a second opinion"? That's for a reason.
Dreadwinter wrote:So, a Doctor cannot tell you something is medically relevant? He cannot make that decision on his own? This is what you are telling me?
It means that for a process to be deemed medically necessary it needs to be the opinion of more than just one doctor.
Do you seriously, honest to God not understand that?
It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.
Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.
Dreadwinter wrote:So, a Doctor cannot tell you something is medically relevant? He cannot make that decision on his own? This is what you are telling me?
It means that for a process to be deemed medically necessary it needs to be the opinion of more than just one doctor.
Do you seriously, honest to God not understand that?
Do you not understand that a doctor who is against a bill such as this says that it is in fact medically relevant to do a procedure and then describes why it is medically relevant, holds weight in such an argument?
I'm going to stop going to CL forums, omg the morons.
This is what I posted.
I know medicine and science even philosophy has a definition of life. I think that before the issue of abortion is settled a social definition of life will have to be made.
Does life begin with conception
Does life begin with the first heartbeat
Does life begin with the development of the brain
Does life begin when the mother is showing
Does life begin at birth
Society as a whole needs to define exactly when it recognizes a living being. Without that hard definition other law such as murder can really come into play.
The issue is that we can't. Life develops over time. Like a boat replaced one plank at a time, at exactly what time is it a whole new boat?
So we all pick our own point, based on entirely subjective means, and knowing that point is entirely subjective, we avoid that discussion (mostly to avoid how weak our own starting position is) and then call the other side monsters.
These are my replies
I support abortions. Even retroactive abortions 9 out of 10 poor fetuses aborted would grow up to be Liberals.
pay for your own...solved
It doesn't matter what we think It is just going to be decided by a lawyer and 5 supreme court justices anyway. (OK, that one was pretty good.)
Life begins at the beer store
obama: life oficaily (officially, this mother can't spell.) begins at the age when sign up for entitlements
I must say even though some of you I don't agree with, you all show intelligence. I think I've found my new politics forum.
Dreadwinter wrote:Do you not understand that a doctor who is against a bill such as this says that it is in fact medically relevant to do a procedure and then describes why it is medically relevant, holds weight in such an argument?
A doctor? No, of course not, and nor do you. If you did, you'd be off right now hunting down the opinions of all 800,000 doctors across America, and reporting each one to this forum.
But you're not doing that, because you know that we don't base decisions on the single opinions of each person who happens to be in that particular profession, but on the general consensus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:I must say even though some of you I don't agree with, you all show intelligence. I think I've found my new politics forum.
Dreadwinter wrote:Do you not understand that a doctor who is against a bill such as this says that it is in fact medically relevant to do a procedure and then describes why it is medically relevant, holds weight in such an argument?
A doctor? No, of course not, and nor do you. If you did, you'd be off right now hunting down the opinions of all 800,000 doctors across America, and reporting each one to this forum.
But you're not doing that, because you know that we don't base decisions on the single opinions of each person who happens to be in that particular profession, but on the general consensus.
In this link you can open a tab at the bottom that tells you everything involved in an abortion. Note that it says that you will "have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound".
I am not sure if this lets you know if it is medically relevant or not, since it is not on a website and it is not a group of doctors personally telling you while holding your hand that it is indeed relevant. But it may help in the argument.
Also, an ultrasound at this stage of a pregnancy would be a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Not the regular belly goop ultrasound you get when you are in your second trimester.
Frazzled wrote: Well if he believes that life begins at conception, yea he probably does.
For what its worth, I believe that life begins, roughly, at conception. I also believe that abortion is killing a human being, though not necessarily killing a person as personhood is something I generally consider to be established via experience.
I simply consider it a justifiable kind of killing (for a number of reasons) which I suspect, and have generally found, makes me pretty much the epitome of evil in the eyes of most pro-life people. Both because it means there are very few arguments a pro-life person can make that will convince me to side with them, and because it not only makes me a "baby killer", but one who is comfortable with the idea.
Of course, since I basically make my living telling other people how best to manipulate the electorate, and would like to break into the industry of telling other people who to kill, it should be obvious that moral ambiguity is something I'm fairly comfortable with.
Dreadwinter wrote:In this link you can open a tab at the bottom that tells you everything involved in an abortion. Note that it says that you will "have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound".
You do realize their is a difference between may have and must have, right? It also is also only a maybe with one type of abortion procedure. When discussing medicine online there are quite a few "maybes" becuase medicine is complicated and there are a myriad of variables. There is a huge difference between "it is possible this might come up depending on your medical circumstances" and "this is mandatory and required by the government regardless of your medical circumstances".
Surtur wrote:I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Why isn't it anti-life and anti-choice? Or ya know, the more accurate pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
AHEM.
Melissia wrote:Ah yes, "pro-abortion", because you don't have a real argument to stand on so you just demonize the opposition.
MIght as start calling all "pro-lifers" something then. How about "misogynistic bastards"?
Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't make them pro-abortion. Abortion is a traumatic thing, and it isn't the abortion that is supported but the choice to have one. You know, just like how having a "pro-life" stance doesn't meanthat you're a misogynistic gakker.
Dreadwinter wrote:In this link you can open a tab at the bottom that tells you everything involved in an abortion. Note that it says that you will "have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound".
You do realize their is a difference between may have and must have, right? It also is also only a maybe with one type of abortion procedure. When discussing medicine online there are quite a few "maybes" becuase medicine is complicated and there are a myriad of variables. There is a huge difference between "it is possible this might come up depending on your medical circumstances" and "this is mandatory and required by the government regardless of your medical circumstances".
The argument is medical relevancy, not that it is a requirement to do so.
Surtur wrote:I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Why isn't it anti-life and anti-choice? Or ya know, the more accurate pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
I think this bit has been around since the 80's, or at least as long as "why don't they just make the plane out of the black box".
@ Ahtman: Yet it's still here and still stupid and misleading.
@ dogma: That's hardly the issue though. The reason it's not phrased in terms of abortion, but life and choice is because they sound better. It obscures the intent of what is happening and what is being discussed. People don't want to have to stand behind the word abortion, but they think choice is a great idea. Being negative isn't the greatest thing either and hey, those guys are for choice! You need something more popular, how about life? So now you are no longer discussing abortions, but life and choice!
Now I can really get behind choice. I like to choose what I eat for breakfast, how often I work, how much I get paid and when I'm going to die. The answers are of course waffles, once in a while, a lot and never. I'm really glad that people want to allow me to make more choices.
As for life, sure! As I said, I don't want to die and these people want to grant immortality. Sign me up for that!
Dreadwinter wrote:In this link you can open a tab at the bottom that tells you everything involved in an abortion. Note that it says that you will "have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound".
I am not sure if this lets you know if it is medically relevant or not, since it is not on a website and it is not a group of doctors personally telling you while holding your hand that it is indeed relevant. But it may help in the argument.
Also, an ultrasound at this stage of a pregnancy would be a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Not the regular belly goop ultrasound you get when you are in your second trimester.
Just to confirm, you're no longer trying to claim that one doctor should be considered important? Because one post ago you were claiming that very thing, and now you're not.
Meanwhile, there are nine states that presently require an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure. None of them require transvaginal ultrasound, because up until the Virginia legislature most had thought the emotional impact was sufficient to stop abortion, it took Virginia to decide adding degradation would stop abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf
So, basically, no, you're completely wrong and transvaginal ultrasound isn't a necessary element. If looking at the child is needed at all, then more conventional ultrasound can do the job.
At which point, I'm just going to ask you to stop pretending that this is a medically necessary process. You don't like abortion, and think it should be illegal. That's cool, I get that, and I believe it's a completely reasonable point of view. But that doesn't mean you need to pretend that this process is medically necessary, or anything other than a means to discourage abortion.
Surtur wrote:
@ dogma: That's hardly the issue though. The reason it's not phrased in terms of abortion, but life and choice is because they sound better.
Welcome to branding.
Though, ultimately, I'm not convinced that either term is inaccurate. Pro-choice people, minimally, want the freedom to choose to have an abortion, and so favor either restricted or unrestricted abortion. Pro-life people consider the life of the fetus/child/whatever to be of paramount concern, and so favor either banning abortion, or restricting it.
You'll notice that there's a degree of overlap there.
I love it when this debate rears its head in any form. At the end of the day what a woman does with her own body is her own fething business anyone that wants to argue that can go die in a hole.
I would love the USA to be a country without a single abortion.
I would love for the GOP to take the care and compassion that they are showing a human being inside a woman, and continue that care and compassion once a person is born.
I would love for a woman to know that she will not be branded a "slut, whore, sinner, etc.." if she lets her family know that she became pregnant and will have all the support needed to have a healthy pregnancy and bring a healthy baby into this world and have the support to raise it or give it up for adoption.
I cannot tell you how much respect I have for women who can give birth to a child that was born of a rape, and love that child despite of the circumstance of how it was conceived. I also realize that many women may not be strong enough for this.
I hate that people feel that abortion is their only way out of their situation.
But I will always be pro-choice, no matter how much I would love for abortion to go away.
Dreadwinter wrote:In this link you can open a tab at the bottom that tells you everything involved in an abortion. Note that it says that you will "have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound".
I am not sure if this lets you know if it is medically relevant or not, since it is not on a website and it is not a group of doctors personally telling you while holding your hand that it is indeed relevant. But it may help in the argument.
Also, an ultrasound at this stage of a pregnancy would be a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Not the regular belly goop ultrasound you get when you are in your second trimester.
Just to confirm, you're no longer trying to claim that one doctor should be considered important? Because one post ago you were claiming that very thing, and now you're not.
Meanwhile, there are nine states that presently require an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure. None of them require transvaginal ultrasound, because up until the Virginia legislature most had thought the emotional impact was sufficient to stop abortion, it took Virginia to decide adding degradation would stop abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf
The impact of that one doctors words is very important. But you are the one asking for more people backing this. I went ahead and I got you the info on this. Now, you made a few mistake here, where you just failed to read what I put up. That is okay, I have learned to deal with this.
sebster wrote:So, basically, no, you're completely wrong and transvaginal ultrasound isn't a necessary element. If looking at the child is needed at all, then more conventional ultrasound can do the job.
You do know that if a person is to get an abortion in the first trimester of their pregnancy and they need to do an ultrasound, they pretty much have to do a trans-vaginal ultrasound. A normal ultrasound will not be able to provide a clear picture of the fetus for them to work with. So, you are wrong.a more conventional ultrasound cannot do the job.
sebster wrote:At which point, I'm just going to ask you to stop pretending that this is a medically necessary process. You don't like abortion, and think it should be illegal. That's cool, I get that, and I believe it's a completely reasonable point of view. But that doesn't mean you need to pretend that this process is medically necessary, or anything other than a means to discourage abortion.
Actually, I am pro-choice. I just think it is stupid that people argue that something is not medically necessary just because legislation is being passed forcing people to do it. It is still medically necessary. The only thing is, instead of a politician saying you have to do it, it will be a doctor. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds help in abortions. They are medically relevant. Opinions have no room here. This is a fact as stated by one doctor in particular and the link to a medical group that performs abortions. Not sure how much more clear I can get.
Manchu wrote:Well, the thread isn't really about abortion. The thread is about whether if you want an abortion and I say, okay, but I have to stick this thing in your vagina, and you say, yeah, I really want the abortion so go ahead, is that rape?
Not really...
Rape has to be non-consensual...
If you say yes then it is consensual...
Let's say a man threatens you with a knife, so you consent to sex with him instead. Was it rape?
/rhetorical -- I am sure we all recognise that consent under coercion is not consent.
Personally I think the characterisation of the proposed ultrasound procedure as rape is emotive, however there is a nugget of meaning in it. It is an invasive procedure that women are to be coerced into for no clinical purpose.
Dreadwinter wrote: It is still medically necessary. The only thing is, instead of a politician saying you have to do it, it will be a doctor.
thatsthepoint.jpg
I'm honestly and truly mystified by the contortions evinced by those defending a law that mandated medical procedure previous to actually getting the medical procedure you want. However, since you clearly wish to continue being fact-resistant, lets try 2 different angles to explain why this law (and laws like it) are problematic.
A.) Lets assume that you absolutely must have a transvaginal sonogram to have an abortion (it's pretty clear that's not actually true, but why bring fact into this). If it's absolutely necessary, why do we need a law for it? What other medical procedures do you suggest carry the weight of prison terms and license revocation if nor performed according to the best judgement of the state legislature, rather then the best judgement of the attending physician and professional medical boards? (and again, it's not like the legislatures in these cases, Texas especially, even pretended this was in the best interests of women;
State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who authored the sonogram bill in three consecutive legislative sessions, estimated the law will save 15,000 lives annually in Texas – if it stops one out in five abortions. "There's no other piece of legislation anywhere else in the country that has that kind of impact," he said Monday. "I don't take credit for it. It's God's hands."
B.) In the case of Texas, What's the medical purpose of making the woman listen to the fetal heartbeat, if present?
Ouze wrote:
B.) In the case of Texas, What's the medical purpose of making the woman listen to the fetal heartbeat, if present?
I actually have no problem with this, as it has no medical affect on the woman.
One of the things you always have to ask a woman who wants an abortion is if its really something that she wants to do, and if she really wants to do it hearing a heartbeat won't change her mind. More information is always good in these situations.
Now, I have no doubt that the law is primarily an attempt at manipulating women into not having abortions by making the experience more traumatic, but its already pretty damn traumatic.
dogma wrote:I actually have no problem with this, as it has no medical affect on the woman.
Then why legislate it?
Edit: I'd be ok, technically, with mandating the physician must offer to allow the woman to hear the heartbeat, but I'm leery of any legislation designed to make doctors into better doctors, I think medical boards are better suited for that. Not that there is no place for the legislature, just not seeing it here, they're all just camel's noses anyway.
Edit: I'd be ok, technically, with mandating the physician must offer to allow the woman to hear the heartbeat, but I'm leery of any legislation designed to make doctors into better doctors, I think medical boards are better suited for that. Not that there is no place for the legislature, just not seeing it here, they're all just camel's noses anyway.
My point is that this doesn't make them better or worse doctors, so I don't really care.
Its also basically unenforceable.
Its just some nonsense to placate pro-life voters, and very minor nonsense at that.
Surtur wrote:Or ya know, the more accurate pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
Very few people actually want to abort fetuses, not even me.
I have a list of people I'd like to retroactively apply this to though.
Like Captain Crunch. His cereal has ruined the lives of millions of careless children nationwide.
Oh now you've gone and peed in my corn flakes. Captain Crunch is a time honored Sunday morning tradition for me. I eat the cereal and the wieners get the milk. They go beserk on the sugar/milk combo.
Dreadwinter wrote: It is still medically necessary. The only thing is, instead of a politician saying you have to do it, it will be a doctor.
thatsthepoint.jpg
I'm honestly and truly mystified by the contortions evinced by those defending a law that mandated medical procedure previous to actually getting the medical procedure you want. However, since you clearly wish to continue being fact-resistant, lets try 2 different angles to explain why this law (and laws like it) are problematic.
A.) Lets assume that you absolutely must have a transvaginal sonogram to have an abortion (it's pretty clear that's not actually true, but why bring fact into this). If it's absolutely necessary, why do we need a law for it? What other medical procedures do you suggest carry the weight of prison terms and license revocation if nor performed according to the best judgement of the state legislature, rather then the best judgement of the attending physician and professional medical boards? (and again, it's not like the legislatures in these cases, Texas especially, even pretended this was in the best interests of women;
Well, it is no longer about defending the bill. He was saying that it was in no way a medical procedure needed during an abortion. I told him he was wrong. He went on to say there was no evidence it was. I provided evidence. This is where we stand.
Now, as far as this being a law, I see no problem with it. It is a medically necessary procedure(in some cases, not all) and it does help during the abortion regardless of if it was necessary to perform it or not.
Getting an abortion is a very tough thing for a woman. If you have known a female who has gotten one, a lot of times they go on to regret it. I have heard them say "I wish there was somebody there to just tell me not to do it, or help me with the gravity of the situation" and this is pretty much what is going on. A lot of people go on to regret having it done. That is a terrible thing, a terrible feeling. People commit suicide after this happens. Is preventing that sort of thing terrible?
Dreadwinter wrote:Getting an abortion is a very tough thing for a woman. If you have known a female who has gotten one, a lot of times they go on to regret it. I have heard them say "I wish there was somebody there to just tell me not to do it, or help me with the gravity of the situation" and this is pretty much what is going on. A lot of people go on to regret having it done. That is a terrible thing, a terrible feeling. People commit suicide after this happens. Is preventing that sort of thing terrible?
Besides once again leaning on completely anecdotal evidence, you are also again going against all credible research as well. Do woman who have had an abortion sometimes wonder might have happened? Sure. Do most of them go into depressive spirals and/or become suicidal? No. Most of them go on to lead normal lives.
Apparently the representative that introduced the bill also opposed the HP Vaccine becuase it was to intrusive and the government should not require it.
Dreadwinter wrote:Getting an abortion is a very tough thing for a woman. If you have known a female who has gotten one, a lot of times they go on to regret it. I have heard them say "I wish there was somebody there to just tell me not to do it, or help me with the gravity of the situation" and this is pretty much what is going on. A lot of people go on to regret having it done. That is a terrible thing, a terrible feeling. People commit suicide after this happens. Is preventing that sort of thing terrible?
What other difficult life decisions do you suggest that we should urge state legislatures to impose upon private actors under penalty of imprisonment, loss of license and ruinous fines? Adopting dogs? Whether or not to get married? How about if a wedding planner doesn't show an itemized bill showing how much each slice of cake cost, they should face a fine of $10,000 per slice?
At what point do you feel there really is no role for the government meddling in the private, legal decisions of private people?
Ahtman wrote:Apparently the representative that introduced the bill also opposed the HP Vaccine becuase it was to intrusive and the government should not require it.
The anti-vaccination movement is one of my particularly enraging pet peeves. I'm all for vaccines being mandatory by law, because there are just way too many dumbasses out there.
Ahtman wrote:Apparently the representative that introduced the bill also opposed the HP Vaccine becuase it was to intrusive and the government should not require it.
Unlike this procedure, vaccines actually have a positive effect on society, thus legally speaking there is a rational basis for vaccination being mandatory.
Namely, preventing outbreaks of diseases has a definitive positive impact on society through reducing the severity of outbreaks and reducing the overall costs induced upon society in terms of both monetary cost of healthcare and the cost of maintaining unproductive members of society.
Forcing women who are considering abortion to undergo an invasive and unnecessary treatment doesn't.
Ahtman wrote:Apparently the representative that introduced the bill also opposed the HP Vaccine becuase it was to intrusive and the government should not require it.
The anti-vaccination movement is one of my particularly enraging pet peeves. I'm all for vaccines being mandatory by law, because there are just way too many dumbasses out there.
Thanks to them, apparently some sweet diseases are on the come back. Who hasn't wanted to watch someone get small pox?
Yeah, there's studies absolutely showing rises in preventable diseases directly attributed to large numbers of people not getting vaccinated.
It shouldn't be optional. Mainly because if someone is going to listen to Jenny McCarthy on a subject of this potential importance they lose their decision-making privilege as far as I'm concerned.
Works Cited:
Spoiler:
Gangarosa, E. J., et al. "Impact of Anti-Vaccine Movements on Pertussis Control: The Untold Story." The Lancet 351.9099 (1998): 356,356-61. ProQuest Science Journals. Web. 4 Sep. 2011.
Larson, Heidi J., et al. "New Decade of Vaccines 5: Addressing the Vaccine Confidence Gap." The Lancet 378.9790 (2011): 526,526-535. ProQuest Central. Web. 3 Sep. 2011.
Kilkrazy wrote:Vaccination was compulsory in the UK in the 19th century.
I'm not sure it is the way forwards, though. Persuasion through education is better, surely?
Not in a world where you can find a group of other idiots who agree with you on the internet to reinforce your terrible decision making. When people refuse to acknowledge simple facts it's hard to make them see reason.
The "Chicken Pox Lollipops" incident comes immediately to mind.
Kilkrazy wrote:Vaccination was compulsory in the UK in the 19th century.
I'm not sure it is the way forwards, though. Persuasion through education is better, surely?
In an ideal world, but if people like Jennifer McCarthy (whose knowledge of biology is comparable to my knowledge of metaphysics) are an indicator, a fair few people will refuse to be educated no matter the proof you offer them.
Kilkrazy wrote:Vaccination was compulsory in the UK in the 19th century.
I'm not sure it is the way forwards, though. Persuasion through education is better, surely?
No. It creates opportunities for a virus to gain immunity against the vaccination and treatment.
You're thinking of antibiotics. Vaccination works a different way, and doesn't cause mutation in the virus.
Both smallpox and polio have been made practically extinct by voluntary vaccination programmes. It did not require compulsion.
Even so, the presence of a larger unvaccinated pool in the population can increase infection rates in the vaccinated too, so there might be some justification on general public health grounds.
It will cause a terrible argument, though, especially when the HPV vaccine is brought forwards.
Kilkrazy wrote:Vaccination was compulsory in the UK in the 19th century.
I'm not sure it is the way forwards, though. Persuasion through education is better, surely?
No. It creates opportunities for a virus to gain immunity against the vaccination and treatment.
You're thinking of antibiotics. Vaccination works a different way, and doesn't cause mutation in the virus.
Both smallpox and polio have been made practically extinct by voluntary vaccination programmes. It did not require compulsion.
Even so, the presence of a larger unvaccinated pool in the population can increase infection rates in the vaccinated too, so there might be some justification on general public health grounds.
It will cause a terrible argument, though, especially when the HPV vaccine is brought forwards.
Not mutation, survival of the best bug. If you everyone is vaccinated, then you wipe out the bug (smallpox).If only a portion of the are vaccinated then the chance of new strains developing continues.
Frazzled wrote:
Not mutation, survival of the best bug. If you everyone is vaccinated, then you wipe out the bug (smallpox).If only a portion of the are vaccinated then the chance of new strains developing continues.
Theoretically, in the absence of mutation, all vaccinated people would still be immune to infection. The problem is that if a sizable portion of the population is not vaccinated, you increase the risk of seeing a mutation that can bypass the vaccine.
There's an argument that choosing to not vaccinate your children is akin to not feeding them, its certainly worse from a social perspective.
I agree with the above posters, but I think the government shouldn't force people to get vaccines.
So, perhaps we make vaccines optional, but permanently quarantine anyone who chooses not to get them? Maybe send them all to someplace out of the way, like Siberia.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait... I just realized this is still the Virginia rape thread.
Kilkrazy wrote:It will cause a terrible argument, though, especially when the HPV vaccine is brought forwards.
Yeah, there's still some ignoramuses out there that think that HPV is caused by promiscuity.
I once heard someone say you could only get an STD by having sex. The educational system in this country is terrible.
HPV can be spread by a variety of means, not simply sexual contact, whereas STDs are spread almost exclusively through sex, or sharing body fluids in some way.
There is in fact a difference.
ing M 
