Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Can't it be both?

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.

We like to call that 'servicing the account.'

So wrong...

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:T ing M ing I!!!!!

I can't figure out what this means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:We like to call that 'servicing the account.'

You don't want to know what we really mean by "retainer."

Too ing Much Information, a favorite phrase of the Wife's.

Manchu wrote:I'm not sure biccat had zero knowledge of the circumstances there. IIRC, dogma has posted about this before.

If biccat already knew, why did he lose respect just now?

Frazzled wrote:Too ing Much Information, a favorite phrase of the Wife's.

Oh, I mistook the capital "I" for an exclamation mark.

RustyKnight wrote:If biccat already knew, why did he lose respect just now?

I mentioned context rather than the specific fact. I'm just going to leave it at that and let the men speak for themselves.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:If biccat already knew, why did he lose respect just now?

I mentioned context rather than the specific fact. I'm just going to leave it at that and let the men speak for themselves.

I've said it before in threads in which biccat has posted, whether or not he read my posts is separate; but he probably didn't.

Wow, this thread happened quickly. Anyways.....

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.

dogma wrote:

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."

I guess I just don't have a "squick" reaction.

Maybe it comes with territory?

I hear you can suppress that by squeezing your thumb in your left fist.

Manchu wrote:I hear you can suppress that by squeezing your thumb in your left fist.

Alternatively just firing them works well too.

If the law becomes personhood at conception does that mean you could claim your unborn kid as a dependant before they breath oxygen? Cool.

Think of all those people on food stamps that won't actually have to wait for the kid to be born to draw more benefits!

Conservatives are so nice to poor people.

A quick internet search gave me this.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/fetal-ultrasound

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.

broodstar wrote:

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.

Manchu wrote:This can be said of some radical liberals.

I agree that there are radicals on both sides, but I still feel that there is more ad hominem denouncement or even dehumanizing coming from the right.

It's probably just where I happen to live though.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:This can be said of some radical liberals.

I agree that there are radicals on both sides, but I still feel that there is more ad hominem denouncement or even dehumanizing coming from the right.

It's probably just where I happen to live though.

Texas 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.

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.

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?

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.

As an update, Virginia has dropped the mandatory vaginal ultrasound element of the law.