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: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).

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Derp....

Derp indeed.

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.

I'd think thats hilarious. Do it!

George Spiggott wrote:

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).

It's not free. You have to pay for it.

d-usa wrote:The question boils down to this:

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.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:The question boils down to this:

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.

Easy E wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:The question boils down to this:

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.

An ultrasound is not required to determine the age of the foetus.

Indeed, this is nothing more than a psychological attack.

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.

Yep.

Here's an interesting The Economist piece on the subject of opinions on abortion:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/ruth-barcan-marcus

Murder is defined by law, actually.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Murder is defined by law, actually.

And abortion aint' it.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Why is that a bad thing?
Either way it'll be settled...

Frazzled wrote:

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.

The current age of viability is 24 wekks right?

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

purplefood wrote:The current age of viability is 24 wekks right?

Modern medicine has pushed that closer to 20 actually.

d-usa wrote:

purplefood wrote:The current age of viability is 24 wekks right?

Modern medicine has pushed that closer to 20 actually.

That's still 5 months...
That seem fair to me...

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.