PDA

View Full Version : Irked by abortion bill, Va. senator adds rectal exams for men



Carol
01-30-2012, 11:29 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/101439525)


kpete (32,222 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

View profile

Irked by abortion bill, Va. senator adds rectal exams for men

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 07:19 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3)
Irked by abortion bill, Va. senator adds rectal exams for men
Posted to: Health Politico State Government Virginia Login or register to post comments


The Roanoke Times
© January 30, 2012
By Michael Sluss

RICHMOND

The state Senate this afternoon gave preliminary approval for legislation that would require pregnant women to undergo ultrasound imaging before an abortion, but not before rejecting a Democratic senator’s attempt to add what she described as “a little gender equity” to the bill.

Democrat Janet Howell of Fairfax County proposed requiring men to undergo a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before getting prescriptions for erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra.

“This is a matter of basic fairness,” Howell said.

Senate Bill 484 would require a pregnant woman to undergo ultrasound imaging to determine the gestational age of the fetus, and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image, before having an abortion. The proposed law also requires the abortion provider to keep a printed copy of the ultrasound image in the patient’s file.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/irked-abortion-bill-va-senator-adds-rectal-exams-men
76


The DUmmies think it is a great idea.

southernyankeebelle (3,558 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
22. I think it is a great idea. I am still laughing and I was trying to read this to my husband.

View profile
Hilarious. Since men want to tell women what to do with their bodies then I think a bill should come before them suggestion any man having more then one child out of wedlock should have a vasectomy. Funny thing I never hear any men agreeing with me on this issue. Hmmmmm interesting. Tell you what to those men who want to tell women what to do with our bodies you mind your business and we will mind ours.

proud2BlibKansan (89,866 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
4. Love it.

View profile
Wish we could bring this senator to Kansas.

WillyT (36,903 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
12. Go Senator Howell !!!



KT2000 (8,434 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. Love this and

the Senator too!!
I am so sick of these male anti-abortion politicians using women's bodies as their own property.
Of course they disregard the fact that there are many women who are against abortion on demand as well.

Apache
01-30-2012, 11:44 PM
WillyT (36,903 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
12. Go Senator Howell !!!...and take the rest of your pathetic party with you! :rolleyes:

Novaheart
01-30-2012, 11:48 PM
There is no other word for these efforts to thwart a woman's legal choice to have an abortion than governmental harassment. Lawyers should get involved and make it expensive and painful for legislators to keep trying these workarounds to Roe.

Judges can award damages paid from the state treasuries, and the plaintiffs can donate that money to Planned Parenthood. Sweet.

Apache
01-31-2012, 01:27 AM
There is no other word for these efforts to thwart a woman's legal choice to have an abortion than governmental harassment. Lawyers should get involved and make it expensive and painful for legislators to keep trying these workarounds to Roe.

Judges can award damages paid from the state treasuries, and the plaintiffs can donate that money to Planned Parenthood. Sweet.

Yeah! Why have any consequences (sp?) for poor decision making...:rolleyes:

michaelsean
01-31-2012, 08:54 AM
There is no other word for these efforts to thwart a woman's legal choice to have an abortion than governmental harassment. Lawyers should get involved and make it expensive and painful for legislators to keep trying these workarounds to Roe.

Judges can award damages paid from the state treasuries, and the plaintiffs can donate that money to Planned Parenthood. Sweet.

They wouldn't have to do a workaround around Roe if the Supreme Court had not intially usurped the power of the legislature.

michaelsean
01-31-2012, 08:56 AM
southernyankeebelle (3,558 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
22. I think it is a great idea. I am still laughing and I was trying to read this to my husband.

View profile
Hilarious. Since men want to tell women what to do with their bodies then I think a bill should come before them suggestion any man having more then one child out of wedlock should have a vasectomy. Funny thing I never hear any men agreeing with me on this issue. Hmmmmm interesting. Tell you what to those men who want to tell women what to do with our bodies you mind your business and we will mind ours.

I agree with you.

I didn't check the thread, but since a large number of black children are born out of wedlock did anyone call her a racist like they would if a consrvative said something like that?

obx
01-31-2012, 09:36 AM
Why are they bothering these poor women? All they want to do is MURDER a baby.

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 10:56 AM
Yeah! Why have any consequences (sp?) for poor decision making...:rolleyes:

And there you have it folks: Debbie isn't supposed to carry a baby to term because life is precious, Debbie is a slut and needs to be punished and in pain (Genesis 3:16).

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 10:58 AM
They wouldn't have to do a workaround around Roe if the Supreme Court had not intially usurped the power of the legislature.

You mean the power of the legislature to crawl inside your vagina and make medical decisions for you?

Bailey
01-31-2012, 11:00 AM
You mean the power of the legislature to crawl inside your vagina and make medical decisions for you?

No you ass bandit, how about speaking up for an unborn child? The mother doesn't have a say past conception

AmPat
01-31-2012, 11:25 AM
There is no other word for these efforts to thwart a woman's legal choice to have an abortion than governmental harassment. Lawyers should get involved and make it expensive and painful for legislators to keep trying these workarounds to Roe.

Judges can award damages paid from the state treasuries, and the plaintiffs can donate that money to Planned Parenthood. Sweet.

Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional and is only the law of the land because of idiots who do not support the Constitution. Why is it that women can't make the decision to close their legs instead of making a life into a bloody, pureed mess? Why do I have to continually try and defend MY RIGHT to not pay for somebody else s poor decisions? If I have to pay for it, aren't I entitled to "hit it?":rolleyes:

michaelsean
01-31-2012, 11:28 AM
You mean the power of the legislature to crawl inside your vagina and make medical decisions for you?

No the power of the legislature, in this case the state legislatures, to make laws. There is absolutely nothing about abortion that is a federal concern.

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 12:32 PM
Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional and is only the law of the land because of idiots who do not support the Constitution. Why is it that women can't make the decision to close their legs instead of making a life into a bloody, pureed mess? Why do I have to continually try and defend MY RIGHT to not pay for somebody else s poor decisions? If I have to pay for it, aren't I entitled to "hit it?":rolleyes:

The Supreme Court is packed with idiots when it disagrees with you, and geniuses when it agrees.


Why is it that women can't make the decision to close their legs ....

I don't know, ask the girls the next time you are in a bordello in Bangkok.


If I have to pay for it, aren't I entitled to "hit it?":rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Since you tell me that you make less than a postal worker, I'm guessing that you don't even pay for your own healthcare, much less anyone else's. I saw nothing in the article specifying that these rules only apply to abortions for indigent women. But you go ahead and "hit" any of them that will agree, or which you can afford. OK? OK!

Rockntractor
01-31-2012, 01:10 PM
Viagra and a bonus rectal exam, why would Nova be behind this or would it be in front?:confused:

Bailey
01-31-2012, 01:20 PM
Viagra and a bonus rectal exam, why would Nova be behind this or would it be in front?:confused:

As long as the Doctor used his fist then Nova would be in front of it.

AmPat
01-31-2012, 03:08 PM
The Supreme Court is packed with idiots when it disagrees with you, and geniuses when it agrees.

In all honesty (look it up, it is an unfamiliar word to you), the SCJ's are only idiots when I know more about the Constitution and our government than they do.


I don't know, ask the girls the next time you are in a bordello in Bangkok.
That is closer to your lifestyle than mine but whatever bends you over.



:rolleyes: Since you tell me that you make less than a postal worker, I'm guessing that you don't even pay for your own healthcare, much less anyone else's. I saw nothing in the article specifying that these rules only apply to abortions for indigent women. But you go ahead and "hit" any of them that will agree, or which you can afford. OK? OK!

Where did I "tell you I made less than a postal worker?" As for your completely stupid yet expected comment. I PAY FOR MY HEALTH CARE. Clear enough Skippy? :rolleyes:

The internet bravery of you liberals is an amazing thing. Strange how when confronted by a real man you piss your panties.:cool:

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 03:33 PM
Where did I "tell you I made less than a postal worker?"

That wasn't you who said that you have problem when postal workers make more than you do? My mistake.


I PAY FOR MY HEALTH CARE.

Really? I thought you worked for the government. My mistake again. But if you did get a government paycheck, then the payment you make for health benefits is a fraction of the actual cost.


Strange how when confronted by a real man you piss your panties.:cool:

I love it when you get ghetto and juvenile. It's like watching some stupid sitcom.

Odysseus
01-31-2012, 04:50 PM
There is no other word for these efforts to thwart a woman's legal choice to have an abortion than governmental harassment. Lawyers should get involved and make it expensive and painful for legislators to keep trying these workarounds to Roe.

Judges can award damages paid from the state treasuries, and the plaintiffs can donate that money to Planned Parenthood. Sweet.
Once again, if we treat abortion the way that we treat all other surgeries, then informed consent ought to be the standard. It's not harassment to tell someone that they might die if they have an epidural during childbirth, but it is harassment to show a woman who is considering an abortion the factual information about the development of the fetus? What planet does that make sense on?

Why do you object to the presentation of information that might just make a woman change her mind if she knew the facts?

You mean the power of the legislature to crawl inside your vagina and make medical decisions for you?

The legislature isn't crawling anywhere (although they've certainly shoved the tax code up a few places where it shouldn't be), and they aren't making any medical decisions for anyone, they are only mandating that the decision be informed by the facts. Why are you demanding the perpetuation of a woman's ignorance on matters that may prove more traumatic if she finds them out after the fact?

Apache
01-31-2012, 06:50 PM
And there you have it folks: Debbie isn't supposed to carry a baby to term because life is precious, Debbie is a slut and needs to be punished and in pain (Genesis 3:16).

Shove it up your ass Nova...

Debbie's a big girl. Big enough to spread her legs, then she's big enough to deal with the aftermath of that decision. Just like you are Princess...

NJCardFan
01-31-2012, 09:03 PM
There is no other word for these efforts to thwart a woman's legal choice to have an abortion than governmental harassment. Lawyers should get involved and make it expensive and painful for legislators to keep trying these workarounds to Roe.

Judges can award damages paid from the state treasuries, and the plaintiffs can donate that money to Planned Parenthood. Sweet.

Nice to see you advocate the wanton slaughter of innocent children. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
01-31-2012, 09:05 PM
Shove it up your ass Nova...

Debbie's a big girl. Big enough to spread her legs, then she's big enough to deal with the aftermath of that decision. Just like you are Princess...

Here's the equality of the thing. A woman can have an abortion even if the father wants the kid, however, if the woman has the kid, the father must be financially responsible for said child even if he wants nothing to do with said child. Nova, of course, sees no issue with this.

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:11 PM
Once again, if we treat abortion the way that we treat all other surgeries, then informed consent ought to be the standard. It's not harassment to tell someone that they might die if they have an epidural during childbirth, but it is harassment to show a woman who is considering an abortion the factual information about the development of the fetus? What planet does that make sense on?

These attempts to end run Roe have nothing to do with informed consent.

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:19 PM
Here's the equality of the thing. A woman can have an abortion even if the father wants the kid, however, if the woman has the kid, the father must be financially responsible for said child even if he wants nothing to do with said child. Nova, of course, sees no issue with this.

Nova actually considers that to be grossly unfair, but some things in life are grossly unfair. You can't deny a woman an abortion prior to viability. These latest efforts at that are actually aiming at conception. BTW, in some Muslim countries they consider oral sex to be infanticide because "it kills half a baby".

Odysseus
01-31-2012, 11:23 PM
These attempts to end run Roe have nothing to do with informed consent.

Oh, please. They have everything to do with informed consent. Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills do everything in their power to obfuscate and distort the information given to the patient about fetal development. They refer to the fetus in derisive terms, such as calling it a cluster of cells, or a smear of protoplasm, and act as if removing it is inconsequential. But, significant percentages of women report serious regrets about their abortions, and are particularly angry about how little information they had going in, This law protects them by ensuring that the information presented is factual. There is no misrepresentation about the development of the fetus at the point when the abortion is going to be performed, and they can make an informed decision. Why do you object to that? Why are you afraid that they will choose to have their babies rather than flush them?

A person cannot have a tumor removed without hearing the details about the size, rate of growth and nature of the tumor, as well as literally every possible thing that can go wrong, prior to surgery. Do you believe that a fetus is of less consideration than a tumor?

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:24 PM
........ It's not harassment to tell someone that they might die if they have an epidural during childbirth, but it is harassment to show a woman who is considering an abortion the factual information about the development of the fetus? What planet does that make sense on?

I have had several epidurals and have not been warned once of it possibly being fatal. Perhaps that was because the epidural wasn't optional in my case. It was however gross- the "sound" or sensation it makes when the doctor hits the spot is what I call "chicken bones".

The ultrasound is not medically necessary. You can inform a woman of the gestational stage based entirely on her pregnancy date.

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:33 PM
Oh, please. They have everything to do with informed consent. Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills do everything in their power to obfuscate and distort the information given to the patient about fetal development. They refer to the fetus in derisive terms,

Derisive terms? You mean like "nasty little POS"? I don't think so. I think you mean "scientific terms" or "medical terms".


But, significant percentages of women report serious regrets about their abortions, .......

Significant women regret having married some jackass, but the law doesn't require they be warned not to marry a guy who looks studly but has no prospects or breeding.

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:36 PM
Why do you object to that? Why are you afraid that they will choose to have their babies rather than flush them?

Which other therapy has its own law requiring "informed consent" in a specific way and a way specific to the therapy?

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:39 PM
A person cannot have a tumor removed without hearing the details about the size, rate of growth and nature of the tumor, as well as literally every possible thing that can go wrong, prior to surgery. Do you believe that a fetus is of less consideration than a tumor?

I have had a tumor removed. The doctor told me what he planned to do and how long it would take to recover. He actually didn't warn me about all possible side effects, including that my leg might go necrotic and require numerous surgeries, but he did warn me that I might lose my leg. He didn't try to discourage me from having the surgery.

What you want is an effort to discourage these women from having abortions. They have a right to have an abortion prior to viability. It's not conditional on making them feel like shit for making that decision.

Rockntractor
01-31-2012, 11:45 PM
I have had a tumor removed. The doctor told me what he planned to do and how long it would take to recover. He actually didn't warn me about all possible side effects, including that my leg might go necrotic and require numerous surgeries, but he did warn me that I might lose my leg. He didn't try to discourage me from having the surgery.

What you want is an effort to discourage these women from having abortions. They have a right to have an abortion prior to viability. It's not conditional on making them feel like shit for making that decision.

Tumor? just when I thought my opinion of you could not get lower.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/baby2.jpg

Novaheart
01-31-2012, 11:52 PM
Tumor? just when I thought my opinion of you could not get lower.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/baby2.jpg

I didn't liken abortion to a tumor, Ody did.

Rockntractor
02-01-2012, 12:11 AM
I didn't liken abortion to a tumor, Ody did.

Okay, you're back to upper layer sediment again.:)

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 12:20 AM
Okay, you're back to upper layer sediment again.:)

How kind.

Now for something more interesting - a new thread.

cajunrevenge
02-01-2012, 01:20 AM
Since this Senator is interested in fairness then I am sure she would be for allowing me the same right to abort any financial responsibility if they dont want to be a father right? How is it not discriminatory to let a woman choose after conception and not give a man the same chance? If women want equal rights then they have to give up the special rights they have now. All men want the right to is not support the child, women want the right to kill them.

Apache
02-01-2012, 01:31 AM
Which other therapy has its own law requiring "informed consent" in a specific way and a way specific to the therapy?

Only in your twisted world could abortion be considered "therapy"....:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-01-2012, 01:39 AM
Only in your twisted world could abortion be considered "therapy"....:rolleyes:

I'm thinking Nova was a breach birth and was starved for oxygen at a crucial time in his development.

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 10:46 AM
Only in your twisted world could abortion be considered "therapy"....:rolleyes:

Therapy simply means a service or procedure.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 10:48 AM
I have had several epidurals and have not been warned once of it possibly being fatal. Perhaps that was because the epidural wasn't optional in my case. It was however gross- the "sound" or sensation it makes when the doctor hits the spot is what I call "chicken bones".

The ultrasound is not medically necessary. You can inform a woman of the gestational stage based entirely on her pregnancy date.
When my wife had a kidney stone, she was warned in graphic detail about the potential issues, including paralysis. Of course, she had hers in California, and Florida may be different, but I said that if it was a ridiculously remote possibility, why even mention it, and the docs said that they had to, by law.

Derisive terms? You mean like "nasty little POS"? I don't think so. I think you mean "scientific terms" or "medical terms".
"Cluster of cells" isn't scientifically accurate, although it sounds it. It's a derisive term meant to downplay the significance of what is being done. What is accurate is real-time information about the specific fetus in question.


Significant women regret having married some jackass, but the law doesn't require they be warned not to marry a guy who looks studly but has no prospects or breeding.
And if Planned Parenthood were leading her to the altar and downplaying all of her doubts, lying to her about her intended's record and prospects because they make federal money from convincing her to get married, regardless of the merits of her decision, then the situation would be analogous.

Which other therapy has its own law requiring "informed consent" in a specific way and a way specific to the therapy?
Abortion isn't therapy, it's elective surgery. It is not medically necessary in 94% of the cases.

I have had a tumor removed. The doctor told me what he planned to do and how long it would take to recover. He actually didn't warn me about all possible side effects, including that my leg might go necrotic and require numerous surgeries, but he did warn me that I might lose my leg. He didn't try to discourage me from having the surgery.

What you want is an effort to discourage these women from having abortions. They have a right to have an abortion prior to viability. It's not conditional on making them feel like shit for making that decision.

Nobody is saying that the doctors should discourage them, only that the ultrasound be viewed. I'd go one step further and bar the doctors from saying anything, yeah or nay, during the ultrasound, so that the woman can make up her own mind without any undue influence. To put it another way, you demand that she have the right to choose, but refuse to provide her with the information that will inform her choice, especially since it might discourage her from making the choice that you obviously want her to make, which leads to my next question: Why do you want a complete stranger to abort her child? The underlying assumption to both of our arguments is that if a woman sees an ultrasound, she may decide not to exercise her right to destroy it. In other words, you aren't simply pro-choice, you're pro-abortion. You so emotionally invested in seeing her choose to destroy the life that's growing inside her that you oppose anything that might dissuade her. The question is, why?

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 11:13 AM
Abortion isn't therapy, it's elective surgery. It is not medically necessary in 94% of the cases.

Therein lies the rub: the 6% creates the legal and ethical paradox.

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 11:25 AM
Why do you want a complete stranger to abort her child? The underlying assumption to both of our arguments is that if a woman sees an ultrasound, she may decide not to exercise her right to destroy it. In other words, you aren't simply pro-choice, you're pro-abortion. You so emotionally invested in seeing her choose to destroy the life that's growing inside her that you oppose anything that might dissuade her. The question is, why?

It's purely academic for me. If I would allow for abortion in the case of rape, threat to the life of the woman, or medical problems of the fetus (and I do), then any moral argument for the prevention of abortion is out the window. There is no moral difference between a product of rape and a product of lust in terms of abortion. That is why this discussion is pointless. Even amongst the anti-abortion crowd, the majority would make an exception for a woman who had been raped by some scumbag, especially if the future child will be the obvious product of a crime.

Moreover, if abortion is murder then women who have abortions are murderers, not just the doctors who perform them. So we want to send those murdering women to jail for life, right? When have you heard an anti-abortion group make such a demand? They don't. Why?

If abortion is murder then it's always murder as long as the zygote, embryo, or fetus has not ceased to function prior to the procedure. No exceptions, not even for your idiotic daughter who thought her coolness would protect her as she jogged through Central Park at 125th.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 11:32 AM
Therein lies the rub: the 6% creates the legal and ethical paradox.

No, the 6% doesn't. If an abortion is medically necessary, then the sonograms have already been done, and the mother knows exactly why she is on the table and what the consequences are. In the case of rape or incest, which account for less than 1% of all cases, the law invariably provides an opt-out. This isn't about that 6%, it's about the 94%, which are elective and medically unnecessary, which takes me back to my question: Why do you want those women to choose to abort?

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 11:38 AM
In the case of rape or incest, which account for less than 1% of all cases, the law invariably provides an opt-out. This isn't about that 6%, it's about the 94%, which are elective and medically unnecessary, which takes me back to my question: Why do you want those women to choose to abort?

And that is what makes it clear that the purpose of this hurdle is intimidation. Why are rape/incest victims exempt? Either the ultrasound is medically necessary or it isn't. Which is it?

You are being dishonest. This isn't about informed consent, it's about infantilizing women and throwing up roadblocks to a decision they are entitled to make. Every one of these bills is similar in this regard: waiting periods, ultrasounds, counseling, etc... it's all to discourage the choice and in some cases to push the woman past the point of viability.

You are being dishonest.

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 11:44 AM
And that is what makes it clear that the purpose of this hurdle is intimidation. Why are rape/incest victims exempt? Either the ultrasound is medically necessary or it isn't. Which is it?

You are being dishonest. This isn't about informed consent, it's about infantilizing women and throwing up roadblocks to a decision they are entitled to make. Every one of these bills is similar in this regard: waiting periods, ultrasounds, counseling, etc... it's all to discourage the choice and in some cases to push the woman past the point of viability.

You are being dishonest.

Any barrier they can throw up is fine by me.

I would be against state coerced vaginal penetration, though. That's sort of a line.

AmPat
02-01-2012, 12:05 PM
That wasn't you who said that you have problem when postal workers make more than you do? My mistake.



Really? I thought you worked for the government. My mistake again. But if you did get a government paycheck, then the payment you make for health benefits is a fraction of the actual cost.



I love it when you get ghetto and juvenile. It's like watching some stupid sitcom.

I love it when you wave your limp wrist and act superior after initiating a confrontation. I guarantee you would piss and soil your effeminate panties if you tried this Mano-a-sissy.:rolleyes: http://i42.tinypic.com/2ztfy3p.jpg

Typical liberal panty waist, start an argument and then hide behind your pseudo- intellectual words to mask your cowardice.http://i42.tinypic.com/a5jcd4.jpg

By the way numb nuts, I'm retired now. I WORKED (look it up) for 26 years for my EARNED retirement. I pay for my EARNED benefits throughout 26 years of service and now I PAY for my insurance. Stick your arrogance in your ASSumption.

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 12:24 PM
By the way numb nuts, I'm retired now. I WORKED (look it up) for 26 years for my EARNED retirement. I pay for my EARNED benefits throughout 26 years of service and now I PAY for my insurance. Stick your arrogance in your ASSumption.

Do the math on that to figure out exactly how long it will take for any contributions you made to be exhausted. Three years? Five?

AmPat
02-01-2012, 12:31 PM
Do the math on that to figure out exactly how long it will take for any contributions you made to be exhausted. Three years? Five?
I contribute once a month for life. Do the logic on that moron.:rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 12:35 PM
And that is what makes it clear that the purpose of this hurdle is intimidation. Why are rape/incest victims exempt? Either the ultrasound is medically necessary or it isn't. Which is it?
It's as medically necessary as the procedure is unnecessary. In the case of rape or incest, we concede that the abortion actually serves a purpose, which is to give the victim of a crime the option of mitigating the consequences of the crime. Thus, the abortion itself can be construed as medically necessary, and the discussion of the longterm implications takes the absence of consent to the initial sexual contact into account. In the cases of medical necessity due to life-threatening issues or fetal defect, the issue has already been resolved, since those are not elective abortions. The issue here is the 94% of abortions that are completely, utterly and absolutely elective, and therefore not medically necessary.


You are being dishonest. This isn't about informed consent, it's about infantilizing women and throwing up roadblocks to a decision they are entitled to make. Every one of these bills is similar in this regard: waiting periods, ultrasounds, counseling, etc... it's all to discourage the choice and in some cases to push the woman past the point of viability.
If anything, it is you who is infantilizing women by assuming that they cannot handle the knowledge of what they are doing. Informed consent is just that. The provision of information that the patient needs to know before consenting to the surgical procedure. In this case, the patient needs to know that what is growing inside her isn't an impersonal collection of cells, but developing human being. The various abortion mills object to this because it cuts into their business, but there is no moral or ethical argument against this, which is why the abortion lobby has to lie about the nature of the law and its intent. I don't support waiting periods or extended counselings, which can be harassment (although for some reason, many liberals find waiting periods perfectly acceptable when it comes to rights that are actually in the Constitution, but I digress), but I do support informing a woman about the clearly defined, medical and objective consequences of her choice. No religious coercion, no browbeating, just a simple sonogram, which, BTW, most states require as a matter of course in order to ensure that the fetus isn't already viable and outside the permissible window for an abortion.


You are being dishonest.


No, I admit that I think that this will reduce the number of abortions, but the reason that I think it's necessary is because the abortion providers routinely lie to patients about fetal development and risks in order to gin up business and work their agenda. OTOH, you are presenting false information about these laws, and continue to repeat it, even when presented with the language of the laws. Obviously, your interest goes deeper than simply guaranteeing access to the services, but you won't say why that is. Your ommission is becoming too obvious to ignore, but you keep trying to evade it, and I won't let you do that. Once again: What harm does it do if the presentation of accurate medical data, unemcumbered with moral or religious statements, reduces the number of abortions performed? Why do you want to maximise the number of abortions performed? What is the agenda that you don't want to admit to?

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 12:45 PM
It's as medically necessary as the procedure is unnecessary. In the case of rape or incest, we concede that the abortion actually serves a purpose, which is to give the victim of a crime the option of mitigating the consequences of the crime. Thus, the abortion itself can be construed as medically necessary, and the discussion of the longterm implications takes the absence of consent to the initial sexual contact into account. In the cases of medical necessity due to life-threatening issues or fetal defect, the issue has already been resolved, since those are not elective abortions. The issue here is the 94% of abortions that are completely, utterly and absolutely elective, and therefore not medically necessary.



What does consent have to do with the individual in the womb?

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 01:32 PM
What does consent have to do with the individual in the womb?

The victim of a rape did not consent to sex, and therefore did not consent to the pregnancy that is the consequence of sex. The forcible implantation of someone else's offspring is a violation of her rights as well as her body. One can argue that the innocence of the child obligates the mother to carry him/her to term, and it is a legitimate argument, but in this case, I think that the circumstances of conception in these cases require that her rights be given precedence.

Having said that, I met a woman whose daughter was conceived as a result of rape, but she chose to raise her, because she saw her as a blessing, despite the circumstances. I later found out that in over 70% of rape cases that result in pregnancy, the victims choose not to abort. However, for the 0.3% of women who cannot bear to carry a rapist's child to term, I can accept that their trauma and suffering outweigh the good of giving birth.

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 01:40 PM
The victim of a rape did not consent to sex, and therefore did not consent to the pregnancy that is the consequence of sex. The forcible implantation of someone else's offspring is a violation of her rights as well as her body. One can argue that the innocence of the child obligates the mother to carry him/her to term, and it is a legitimate argument, but in this case, I think that the circumstances of conception in these cases require that her rights be given precedence.

Having said that, I met a woman whose daughter was conceived as a result of rape, but she chose to raise her, because she saw her as a blessing, despite the circumstances. I later found out that in over 70% of rape cases that result in pregnancy, the victims choose not to abort. However, for the 0.3% of women who cannot bear to carry a rapist's child to term, I can accept that their trauma and suffering outweigh the good of giving birth.

I have a different view of the issue. Consent of the mother does not change whether or not the individual in the womb is a human being.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 01:59 PM
I have a different view of the issue. Consent of the mother does not change whether or not the individual in the womb is a human being.

No, but it changes whether that human being has a right to be there.

We're close enough on the rest of the issue that I'm willing to agree to disagree on this point if you are.

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 02:02 PM
No, but it changes whether that human being has a right to be there.

We're close enough on the rest of the issue that I'm willing to agree to disagree on this point if you are.

That's fine. I realized long ago that I am on the extreme end of the issue and have argued about it too many times.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 02:04 PM
That's fine. I realized long ago that I am on the extreme end of the issue and have argued about it too many times.

No problem. We're arguing from shared premises, i.e., the rights of the human being in the womb. Our disagreement is a matter of degree.

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 12:08 PM
That's fine. I realized long ago that I am on the extreme end of the issue and have argued about it too many times.

All of this will or should be moot as soon as medical science comes up with a "switch" type birth control that can stay in the "off" position and requires some positive action, perhaps medical action to be changed to the "on" position.

I'm thinking that a valve of some sort installed in boys at birth would do the trick (and be a mother's dream). Perhaps it could be tied to some kind of medical ethics, ie it cannot be switched to the "on" position if you have a "thug for life" tattoo (only god can judge me, thunderbolts, the name of any other person, dates, or skulls), use the expression "imma gonna", or belong to a megachurch in Colorado.

Odysseus
02-02-2012, 01:41 PM
All of this will or should be moot as soon as medical science comes up with a "switch" type birth control that can stay in the "off" position and requires some positive action, perhaps medical action to be changed to the "on" position.

I'm thinking that a valve of some sort installed in boys at birth would do the trick (and be a mother's dream). Perhaps it could be tied to some kind of medical ethics, ie it cannot be switched to the "on" position if you have a "thug for life" tattoo (only god can judge me, thunderbolts, the name of any other person, dates, or skulls), use the expression "imma gonna", or belong to a megachurch in Colorado.

Or, we can just sterilize everybody at birth and create people in vats, and since we're doing that, we can engineer them for specific aptitudes and functions, and classify them accordingly. Now, if you'll excuse me, the Alpha++ group is having a Soma party and it's my turn to bring the donuts.

AmPat
02-02-2012, 01:53 PM
All of this will or should be moot as soon as medical science comes up with a "switch" type birth control that can stay in the "off" position and requires some positive action, perhaps medical action to be changed to the "on" position.

I'm thinking that a valve of some sort installed in boys at birth would do the trick (and be a mother's dream). Perhaps it could be tied to some kind of medical ethics, ie it cannot be switched to the "on" position if you have a "thug for life" tattoo (only god can judge me, thunderbolts, the name of any other person, dates, or skulls), use the expression "imma gonna", or belong to a megachurch in Colorado.

And then we can have a far left, Marxist group like say, the DIMoRAT party mandate the installation in our babies? Perhaps they could just add it to the forced socialized healthcare they gave us under cover of darkness. If they are clever enough, they can pass it without our consent and we'll all be whistling Dixie and extolling the virtues of our Dear Leaders who know much better than we do what is in our best interest.:rolleyes:

Bailey
02-02-2012, 02:38 PM
Or, we can just sterilize everybody at birth and create people in vats, and since we're doing that, we can engineer them for specific aptitudes and functions, and classify them accordingly. Now, if you'll excuse me, the Alpha++ group is having a Soma party and it's my turn to bring the donuts.

Or if being gay is caused by a defective gene we could weed those out if we grew people in vats, so there is a upside to that.

Rockntractor
02-02-2012, 02:42 PM
Or if being gay is caused by a defective gene we could weed those out if we grew people in vats, so there is a upside to that.

Someone would just forget to clean the bottom of the vats.

Arroyo_Doble
02-02-2012, 03:20 PM
Or, we can just sterilize everybody at birth and create people in vats, and since we're doing that, we can engineer them for specific aptitudes and functions, and classify them accordingly. Now, if you'll excuse me, the Alpha++ group is having a Soma party and it's my turn to bring the donuts.

Huxley understood humans much better than Orwell.

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 03:23 PM
And then we can have a far left, Marxist group like say, the DIMoRAT party mandate the installation in our babies? Perhaps they could just add it to the forced socialized healthcare they gave us under cover of darkness. If they are clever enough, they can pass it without our consent and we'll all be whistling Dixie and extolling the virtues of our Dear Leaders who know much better than we do what is in our best interest.:rolleyes:

Not everyone is in the federal/military healthcare system.

AmPat
02-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Not everyone is in the federal/military healthcare system.

Then they can either pay for it for themselves, AS I DO YOU TURD BURGLAR, or they can go without.

Odysseus
02-02-2012, 05:01 PM
Huxley understood humans much better than Orwell.

I don't know that I agree with that. 1984 described a fairly common type of state, the totalitarian oligarchy, which was beginning to use technology as a means to entrap and enslave its population. Huxley viewed a state that used pleasure to numb its citizens. Both models existes, although Orwell's totalitarian example was more common. Orwell was describing the communist states under Stalin, Mao and the like, while Huxley was describing decaying states as they devolved into decadence, like Rome or the Persian Empire. Voluptuarian states are rarer than totalitarian states, but they have existed.

Hawkgirl
02-02-2012, 08:53 PM
The ultrasound is not medically necessary. You can inform a woman of the gestational stage based entirely on her pregnancy date.


You are such a moron. Most women have biophysical profiles when they're pregnant to determine everything from gestational age, deformities and overall health. Stage two ultrasounds go into even more detail and they correlate the results with blood tests. Why is a homosexual who knows nothing about child birth and the unborn so adamant about killing them?

Hawkgirl
02-02-2012, 09:14 PM
I have a different view of the issue. Consent of the mother does not change whether or not the individual in the womb is a human being.


I have to agree with you there. The individual is still a human being.

Rockntractor
02-02-2012, 09:32 PM
You are such a moron. Most women have biophysical profiles when they're pregnant to determine everything from gestational age, deformities and overall health. Stage two ultrasounds go into even more detail and they correlate the results with blood tests. Why is a homosexual who knows nothing about child birth and the unborn so adamant about killing them?

His lifestyle makes him incapable of creating life so his jealousy demands it be destroyed.

Arroyo_Doble
02-03-2012, 09:40 AM
I don't know that I agree with that. 1984 described a fairly common type of state, the totalitarian oligarchy, which was beginning to use technology as a means to entrap and enslave its population. Huxley viewed a state that used pleasure to numb its citizens. Both models existes, although Orwell's totalitarian example was more common. Orwell was describing the communist states under Stalin, Mao and the like, while Huxley was describing decaying states as they devolved into decadence, like Rome or the Persian Empire. Voluptuarian states are rarer than totalitarian states, but they have existed.

I will get back to you after I watch the Super Bowl.

AmPat
02-03-2012, 09:46 AM
I have to agree with you there. The individual is still a human being.

Now, now, you know that to a committed baby murdering liberal, that "cluster of cells" inside the uterus, if not scrambled like eggs, stands a chance of growing into a SUV. There is no reason to tolerate nor to expect it to terminate in the birth of a HUMAN child.:rolleyes:;)

AmPat
02-03-2012, 09:48 AM
His lifestyle makes him incapable of creating life so his jealousy demands it be destroyed.

Aw come on! He's still moist over the possibility that rectal exams will become the law of the land.