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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockntractor

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

---

How kind.

Now for something more interesting - a new thread.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apache

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

---

Therapy simply means a service or procedure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odysseus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odysseus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

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?