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.

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

THANK YOU

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Excellent news.

I wonder if the usual suspects are going to continue to pretend it was medically necessary?

Quote the Governor:

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.

Who would have thought.

sebster wrote:

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.

That's a scathing condemnation of the internet.

sebster wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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".

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 would consider myself pro-choice, but very anti-abortion.

I'm pro-choice.

@ Melissa: Sorry didn't see that :X wups

@ 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.

sebster wrote:

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.

purplefood wrote:

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.

Ouze wrote:
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.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.