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.

I think that wienerdogs on a sugar high might be one of the most horrifying things I can imagine.

d-usa wrote:I think that wienerdogs on a sugar high might be one of the most horrifying things I can imagine.

You would be right.

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

Every once in a while, something magical happens that restores my belief in the American democratic process.

This is one of those times.

It's... it's so beautiful.

Ouze wrote:

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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:

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?

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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Compromising herd immunity is bad.

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.

How did we get here?

Monster Rain wrote:Compromising herd immunity is bad.

For the Herd!

Grakmar wrote:
Wait... I just realized this is still the Virginia rape thread.

How did we get here?

Virginia? Virgin? Poor treatment of people who have had sex?

Why did I not make this connection before?

It all makes sense now.

dogma wrote:Virginia? Virgin? Poor treatment of people who have had sex?

Why did I not make this connection before?

It all makes sense now.

Virginia was apparently named for Queen Elizabeth, the "Virgin Queen."

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Virginia? Virgin? Poor treatment of people who have had sex?

Why did I not make this connection before?

It all makes sense now.

Virginia was apparently named for Queen Elizabeth, the "Virgin Queen."

Seems a bit personal if you ask me...

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Virginia? Virgin? Poor treatment of people who have had sex?

Why did I not make this connection before?

It all makes sense now.

Virginia was apparently named for Queen Elizabeth, the "Virgin Queen."

Seems a bit personal if you ask me...

Just be happy they had a good queen at the time. The state could have been Slutinia or something like that.

d-usa wrote:

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Virginia? Virgin? Poor treatment of people who have had sex?

Why did I not make this connection before?

It all makes sense now.

Virginia was apparently named for Queen Elizabeth, the "Virgin Queen."

Seems a bit personal if you ask me...

Just be happy they had a good queen at the time. The state could have been Slutinia or something like that.

Now that would be funny...

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.

Their opinion isn't worth much, but their votes are worth the same as everyone else's.

Melissia wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:
I once heard someone say you could only get an STD by having sex. The educational system in this country is terrible.

Sex education most of all.