Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 108
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

    If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

    I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.

    They can't make it illegal because the Supreme Court usurped their authority to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Well, that would be as bad as Gingridge wanting "activist judges" arrested. It's still a free country. We want to keep it that way. :D
    "Gingridge"?? :eek:
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

    If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

    I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.
    First off, the only source for this is the Guttmacher Institute, which is the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood. There is no evidence that the law requires invasive procedures in order to conduct an ultrasound. What the law does compel is informed consent, which every other surgical procedure requires.
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    I wouldn't go as far as to say painless. Let me ask you a question, what medical necessity does this have?

    You are ok with the state requiring women to undergo an invasive procedure, that yes can be considered rape by almost all the laws out there, for no medical necessity.

    It's all so that the legislature feels better about themselves.

    This is wrong, it is the state bullying women. Forcibly trying to discourage them from practicing something that the Supreme Court said was legal.
    The state bullies people all of the time, and progressives usually like it when it does. After all, if the Surgeon General can confiscate the space on a cigarette pack in order to lecture us on the perils of smoking, and provide graphic illustrations of same, then the state can compel doctors to inform patients of the consequences of their procedures. Not that I agree with the former, but I must point out the hypocrisy in play here. The progs' only objection this time is that it cuts into one of their sacred (cash) cows. But, informed consent is of greater medical necessity than the abortion is in the first place. The overwhelming majority of abortions are elective procedures, done solely because of the inconvenience of the pregnancy. They are of necessity only if you accept that preventing the birth of a healthy child to a healthy woman is medically necessary. Those few cases in which an abortion is medically necessary, due to an inability to carry the fetus to term or a genuine risk to the life of the mother, are those cases where an ultrasound is redundant, as all of the procedures have already been done, and the determination has been made after due consideration.

    However, if one has chosen to undergo an elective medical procedure, then the issue is not the medical necessity of the information regarding that procedure, but whether the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that people make informed decisions about their health care. Informed consent laws in every other area of medical practice demonstrate that this is the case, so the question becomes, why the exemption for abortion? Why, of all surgical procedures, should an abortion be exempted from the requirement to inform the patient of the details of the procedure and exactly what is being done? After all, if a woman were going to have a lump removed from her breast, she'd be informed of the size, location and risks to her health that the lump presents, as well as the consequences of not having it removed. She'd be informed of the biological nature of the lump, and how quickly it had developed, and whether or not it was benign or malignant. She'd be shown images of the lump from the various diagnostic tools used by her doctors, and presented with all of the facts before she made up her mind. If she is to undergo a medically necessary procedure, such as a mastectomy or lumpectomy, the law says that she must be informed of every possible outcome. But, if she is seeking a purely elective procedure, the abortionists would argue that she needs to know none of these things, and is better left ignorant, that her right to choose precludes her right to be informed exactly what she is choosing.

    There are, of course, other differences between removal of a cancer and removal of a fetus, but can anyone here argue that a fetus deserves less consideration than a cancerous tumor?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    ...
    If we made the thing vibrate, would that be OK?
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    If we made the thing vibrate, would that be OK?
    I know I really shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it.



    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    I know I really shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it.
    I was on the fence about making the post but since you put the argument to bed in post# 20, I figured I was good to go. :D
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,739
    Star Member kpete (31,714 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

    View profile

    "Rape by the State": TX Can Force Doctors to Deliver Intrusive Vaginal Ultrasound to Abortion Seeker
    They use a live dude's penis for ultrasounds in Texas? Wow, now that's different!



    kpete, you're a cut-and-pasted idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post

    That's not the standard, but it necessarily forces a birth mother to consider that she is taking a life instead of disposing of a parasite.
    Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?
    Men who have a clip job are not carrying a human life inside their body.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?
    Short answer... yes.
    When I got mine, the doc "requested" that I talk to a counselor and required a 7 day wait between his original exam when I requested it and he would perform it so I could think it over and be sure.
    Even though I am not very religious, he also "suggested" I talk to my spiritual adviser to be sure I would have no future religious qualms over the surgery, particularly if I was Catholic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •