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

[Novaheart]

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]

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]

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.

Typical liberal panty waist, start an argument and then hide behind your pseudo- intellectual words to mask your cowardice.

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]

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]

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.

[Odysseus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.