I mean, if you're having an abortion, it's probably because you have a problem saying NO to penetration in the first place...
After your 3rd or 4th abortion, it might even be suggested that you ENJOY "penetration"....
Just not while having your abortion.
Now I get it.
How pathetically ironic.
This might be the most pathetic disgusting post I have ever read on any PJ forum.
i completely agree. i have read a lot of offensive things on here over the years, but the sheer ignorance of this post takes the cake... i can't believe VM actually typed that. sometimes it is better to keep opinions like that to yourself.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
i am surprised that the focus of this legislation in states liuke virginia, and addtionally the presidential campaign has turned to make contraception and social issues the main topic being debated. what happened to the economy and jobs? why is the existance of satan being discussed on the campaign trail? this is the kind of shit that makes me embarrassed to be a human being sometimes.
my prediction is after november we will not hear about any of these social issues until the next presidential campaign.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Under the proposed legislation, does a woman have the right to say "no"?
Some legislation allows women to say no and some doesn't. I'm referring to the legislation that doesn't.
Also, I'd like to add that when we turn rape experiences into a competition, no one wins.
I agree that this law is intrusive but I'm still not on board with defining it as rape. You still have the right to say no and they will not shackle you down and rape you. If you object, then they may either skip it or tell you to hit the bricks, but you will not get raped.
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
Rape: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
I'm confused. If you're going to get an abortion, and a new law is passed that requires an ultrasound prior to the abortion, then one would have to "consent" to the ultrasound in order to get the abortion. Right? In other words, under this new law, you CAN'T get an abortion without the procedure, first. So, you need to consent to the procedure prior to obtaining the abortion in order to get the abortion. A big term in your definition is consent. An individual seeking an abortion may not like the ultrasound, but I'm betting most women don't like gyno appointments, where similar "penetrations of the vagina by an object" occur, either.
The terminology "state-sanctioned rape" is not only outrageous, it's misleading... regardless of your feelings on the issues or merits of the law.
Rape: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
I'm confused. If you're going to get an abortion, and a new law is passed that requires an ultrasound prior to the abortion, then one would have to "consent" to the ultrasound in order to get the abortion. In other words, under this new law, you CAN'T get an abortion without the procedure. So, you need to consent to the procedure prior to the abortion in order to get the abortion. A big term in your definition is consent. They may not like the ultrasound, but I'm betting most women don't like gyno appointments, where similar events occur, either.
The terminology "state-sanctioned rape" is not only outrageous, it's misleading... regardless of your feelings on the issues or merits of the law.
I agree that this law is intrusive but I'm still not on board with defining it as rape. You still have the right to say no and they will not shackle you down and rape you. If you object, then they may either skip it or tell you to hit the bricks, but you will not get raped.
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
how about we start forcefully sticking probes up your urethra for a prostate exam?
it is not necessary for a prostate exam, just liek a transvaginal ultrasound is not necessary for abortion, but hey let's just do it anyway...
fair enough?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Rape: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
I'm confused. If you're going to get an abortion, and a new law is passed that requires an ultrasound prior to the abortion, then one would have to "consent" to the ultrasound in order to get the abortion. Right? In other words, under this new law, you CAN'T get an abortion without the procedure, first. So, you need to consent to the procedure prior to obtaining the abortion in order to get the abortion. A big term in your definition is consent. An individual seeking an abortion may not like the ultrasound, but I'm betting most women don't like gyno appointments, where similar "penetrations of the vagina by an object" occur, either.
The terminology "state-sanctioned rape" is not only outrageous, it's misleading... regardless of your feelings on the issues or merits of the law.
it is not outrageous. look at the definition of the terms. the ultrasound is not a necessary part of the procedure. it is designed to shame and guilt the woman into not going through with the procedure, thus forcing the state's will on women.
women are being objectified for political gain, and that is wrong.
come on man, you are a libertarian, right? where is your defense against the overreach of government dictating medical procedures and the unresonable search of the uterus on this one?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I agree that this law is intrusive but I'm still not on board with defining it as rape. You still have the right to say no and they will not shackle you down and rape you. If you object, then they may either skip it or tell you to hit the bricks, but you will not get raped.
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
how about we start forcefully sticking probes up your urethra for a prostate exam?
it is not necessary for a prostate exam, just liek a transvaginal ultrasound is not necessary for abortion, but hey let's just do it anyway...
I agree that this law is intrusive but I'm still not on board with defining it as rape. You still have the right to say no and they will not shackle you down and rape you. If you object, then they may either skip it or tell you to hit the bricks, but you will not get raped.
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
how about we start forcefully sticking probes up your urethra for a prostate exam?
it is not necessary for a prostate exam, just liek a transvaginal ultrasound is not necessary for abortion, but hey let's just do it anyway...
fair enough?
You are not even in the same ballpark. And if they said they needed to do that, I would say "Good day, sir", and leave. Now if the doctor had his lackeys tackle me and they stuck a probe up my urethra, that's another story.
Based on the logic here, is a prostate exam clinically-sanctioned rape?
I agree that this law is intrusive but I'm still not on board with defining it as rape. You still have the right to say no and they will not shackle you down and rape you. If you object, then they may either skip it or tell you to hit the bricks, but you will not get raped.
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
how about we start forcefully sticking probes up your urethra for a prostate exam?
it is not necessary for a prostate exam, just liek a transvaginal ultrasound is not necessary for abortion, but hey let's just do it anyway...
fair enough?
You are not even in the same ballpark. And if they said they needed to do that, I would say "Good day, sir", and leave. Now if the doctor had his lackeys tackle me and they stuck a probe up my urethra, that's another story.
Based on the logic here, is a prostate exam clinically-sanctioned rape?
no it is not necessary for a prostate exam. that is done with a finger through the backdoor. that test is recommended by your doctor and you have the right to ignore your doctor's recommendations. you have to consent to that procedure or you can refuse the test. but if they really wanted to look at the prostate they would have to go up through the urethra, which you would have to consent to, or decline the test. this transvaginal ultrasound would be required by law before an abortion could be performed. so no transvaginal ultrasound, no abortion in the state of virgina. that is the difference. the transvginal ultrasound is not necessary for the procedure, just like the urethra probe is not necessary. if the state said every man had to have the urethra probe then the prostate exams would decline immensely..
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
really? kinda like this well thought out and presented scholarly example?
Re: Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape
by Vitalogy Man » 23 Feb 2012 00:36
"I dont see the big deal...
I mean, if you're having an abortion, it's probably because you have a problem saying NO to penetration in the first place...
After your 3rd or 4th abortion, it might even be suggested that you ENJOY "penetration"....
Just not while having your abortion.
Now I get it.
How pathetically ironic"
:roll:
Am I the only one that sees the irony of oft-penetrated women complaining about penetration during their abortion procedures?
As if this is the source of all our problems in America... uncomfortable abortions.
Instead of just coming into threads, trolling and stirring the pot, how about you act like an adult and give your opinion about the proposed legislation...
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
no it is not necessary for a prostate exam. that is done with a finger through the backdoor. that test is recommended by your doctor and you have the right to ignore your doctor's recommendations. you have to consent to that procedure or you can refuse the test. but if they really wanted to look at the prostate they would have to go up through the urethra, which you would have to consent to, or decline the test. this transvaginal ultrasound would be required by law before an abortion could be performed. so no transvaginal ultrasound, no abortion in the state of virgina. that is the difference. the abortion is not necessary for the procedure, just like the urethra probe is not necessary. if the state said every man had to have the urethra probe then the prostate exams would decline immensely..
I agree with everything above.
I'm probably a handful of years away from the finger ... not looking forward to it. :(
Rape: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
I'm confused. If you're going to get an abortion, and a new law is passed that requires an ultrasound prior to the abortion, then one would have to "consent" to the ultrasound in order to get the abortion. Right? In other words, under this new law, you CAN'T get an abortion without the procedure, first. So, you need to consent to the procedure prior to obtaining the abortion in order to get the abortion. A big term in your definition is consent. An individual seeking an abortion may not like the ultrasound, but I'm betting most women don't like gyno appointments, where similar "penetrations of the vagina by an object" occur, either.
The terminology "state-sanctioned rape" is not only outrageous, it's misleading... regardless of your feelings on the issues or merits of the law.
You conveniently left out the next sentence of my post, where I pointed out that consent under duress (like the duress of withholding medical care) is not real consent & still legally counts as rape.
It doesn't matter whether women - or men - like gyn appointments, ultrasounds, abortions, toenail extractions, colonoscopies, rectal exams, sex, or anything else; what matters is whether they consent.
What's outrageous here is all these men piping up to say that forcing an object into a woman's vagina against her will is okay because she consented to allowing something else in there. This is the EXACT SAME argument that says that women who are not virgins deserve to be raped. I am just absolutely dumbfounded & saddened & outraged that this perspective still exists. The reason we have such a rape culture in this society isn't because we have a bunch of violent sociopaths lurking in the bushes; it's because rape is normalized by regular men, who re-define it in their minds in a way that excuses their own & their fellow men's behavior & attitudes.
I agree that this law is intrusive but I'm still not on board with defining it as rape. You still have the right to say no and they will not shackle you down and rape you. If you object, then they may either skip it or tell you to hit the bricks, but you will not get raped.
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
I see what you're saying, but you're falling not the same trap the FBI had recently been in, saying only forcible rape counts & rape by means of coercion doesn't. They acknowledged their mistake & changed their definition. Regardless of your opinion, however, most state laws explicitly include coercion in their definition of rape. And it's the legal definition, not your personal one, that counts.
really? kinda like this well thought out and presented scholarly example?
Re: Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape
by Vitalogy Man » 23 Feb 2012 00:36
"I dont see the big deal...
I mean, if you're having an abortion, it's probably because you have a problem saying NO to penetration in the first place...
After your 3rd or 4th abortion, it might even be suggested that you ENJOY "penetration"....
Just not while having your abortion.
Now I get it.
How pathetically ironic"
:roll:
Am I the only one that sees the irony of oft-penetrated women complaining about penetration during their abortion procedures?
As if this is the source of all our problems in America... uncomfortable abortions.
You need to watch what you say. Promoting the forced penetration of "oft-penetrated" women - or of anyone, ever - is NOT OK. What I hear you very clearly saying is, "Sluts deserve to be raped."
(Not to mention the fact that you don't have a fucking clue about how often any woman is penetrated.)
This type of law is pathetic but predictable. Sticking something in the vagina in order to have an abortion should really be only necessary if the DOCTOR thinks it is and explains why to the patient. A lawmaker should really have no say. If we give them the arena, let them in the game, we cannot be mad when they think they can have a say in the rules...
To lawmakers, there is no line...they will always push to see what they can get...this law does nothing but shame those having an abortion...it does nothing but allow those who feel they are morally superior to force their will on others...let them in the game in any capacity and pretty soon they will set the rules...I am sorry if some role their eyes at this line of thinking, but it couldn't be more poignant to a discussion about government invasion of privacy.
This is the problem when we allow government into our personal lives and into our bodies. There really is no line if some draw it here and some draw it there... If you think that we are going to have the government fund things like medicaid and medicare, telling insurance companies what they have to cover, and they are going to stay out of dictating medical procedures, covered or not by insurance, in the medical office... well i don't know what to tell you...Violations of personal privacy...including forced consent to an ultrasound when wanting an abortion, is like a drop of oil in a pan...sure it starts small...but it is going to spread, nothing will stop it until we burn it off and stop the drops in the first place
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Am I the only one that sees the irony of oft-penetrated women complaining about penetration during their abortion procedures?
As if this is the source of all our problems in America... uncomfortable abortions.
Yes, you are the only one seeing the irony. I find it comical that you don't see the difference between consent and by force.
I think this will obviously cause a lot of debate and rolling of the eyes if you take the literal translation of rape, but the whole point is, that if someone chooses to get a legal abortion, under this proposed law, they are forced to receive a vaginal probe that has NOTHING to do with the abortion procedure. I think some of those whacky analogies (male urethra and prostate exams) are sounding about right. Why not require that too? it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure. This is a pathetic attempt to cause shame on a woman. its sad really.
And you and squirt keep bringing up the worst case scanarios...just as bad a tactic to push making women feel bad about abortions. Btw squirt, this "." could be your friend, try it out.
This type of law is pathetic but predictable. Sticking something in the vagina in order to have an abortion should really be only necessary if the DOCTOR thinks it is and explains why to the patient. A lawmaker should really have no say. If we give them the arena, let them in the game, we cannot be mad when they think they can have a say in the rules...
To lawmakers, there is no line...they will always push to see what they can get...this law does nothing but shame those having an abortion...it does nothing but allow those who feel they are morally superior to force their will on others...let them in the game in any capacity and pretty soon they will set the rules...I am sorry if some role their eyes at this line of thinking, but it couldn't be more poignant to a discussion about government invasion of privacy.
This is the problem when we allow government into our personal lives and into our bodies. There really is no line if some draw it here and some draw it there... If you think that we are going to have the government fund things like medicaid and medicare, telling insurance companies what they have to cover, and they are going to stay out of dictating medical procedures, covered or not by insurance, in the medical office... well i don't know what to tell you...Violations of personal privacy...including forced consent to an ultrasound when wanting an abortion, is like a drop of oil in a pan...sure it starts small...but it is going to spread, nothing will stop it until we burn it off and stop the drops in the first place
I think there's a big difference between government making medical decisions and forcing medical procedures onto people & government not allowing insurance companies to create financial barriers to medical care.
I'm against abortion, as most of you probably know, but you can't start doing all this stupid shit just because you don't agree with the current decision.
Am I the only one that sees the irony of oft-penetrated women complaining about penetration during their abortion procedures?
As if this is the source of all our problems in America... uncomfortable abortions.
Yes, you are the only one seeing the irony. I find it comical that you don't see the difference between consent and by force.
I think this will obviously cause a lot of debate and rolling of the eyes if you take the literal translation of rape, but the whole point is, that if someone chooses to get a legal abortion, under this proposed law, they are forced to receive a vaginal probe that has NOTHING to do with the abortion procedure. I think some of those whacky analogies (male urethra and prostate exams) are sounding about right. Why not require that too? it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure. This is a pathetic attempt to cause shame on a woman. its sad really.
And you and squirt keep bringing up the worst case scanarios...just as bad a tactic to push making women feel bad about abortions. Btw squirt, this "." could be your friend, try it out.
I am pro choice and against the emotional torture this policy brings
multiple abortions=feel bad
never much liked "." 's
Comments
Some legislation allows women to say no and some doesn't. I'm referring to the legislation that doesn't.
Also, I'd like to add that when we turn rape experiences into a competition, no one wins.
I mean, if you're having an abortion, it's probably because you have a problem saying NO to penetration in the first place...
After your 3rd or 4th abortion, it might even be suggested that you ENJOY "penetration"....
Just not while having your abortion.
Now I get it.
How pathetically ironic.
This might be the most pathetic disgusting post I have ever read on any PJ forum.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
my prediction is after november we will not hear about any of these social issues until the next presidential campaign.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
forced ultrasound though assumes women don't have hearts or care when having an abortion
this policy is govt ordered torture not rape thats just stupid
No, I think the woman/mom doesn't want to have the ultrasound b/c it makes them feel worse....
Harder to kill a baby if you have to look it in the face first...
Rape or murder...?
Which is worse?
Rape is rape, but this isn't rape. It's very bad policy.
torture
yes abortion is murder let's say it together but it is legalized murder
Laterhosen.
I'm confused. If you're going to get an abortion, and a new law is passed that requires an ultrasound prior to the abortion, then one would have to "consent" to the ultrasound in order to get the abortion. Right? In other words, under this new law, you CAN'T get an abortion without the procedure, first. So, you need to consent to the procedure prior to obtaining the abortion in order to get the abortion. A big term in your definition is consent. An individual seeking an abortion may not like the ultrasound, but I'm betting most women don't like gyno appointments, where similar "penetrations of the vagina by an object" occur, either.
The terminology "state-sanctioned rape" is not only outrageous, it's misleading... regardless of your feelings on the issues or merits of the law.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
outrageous.
misleading.
well said.
it is not necessary for a prostate exam, just liek a transvaginal ultrasound is not necessary for abortion, but hey let's just do it anyway...
fair enough?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
women are being objectified for political gain, and that is wrong.
come on man, you are a libertarian, right? where is your defense against the overreach of government dictating medical procedures and the unresonable search of the uterus on this one?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
High school shit.
Based on the logic here, is a prostate exam clinically-sanctioned rape?
+1
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Re: Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape
by Vitalogy Man » 23 Feb 2012 00:36
"I dont see the big deal...
I mean, if you're having an abortion, it's probably because you have a problem saying NO to penetration in the first place...
After your 3rd or 4th abortion, it might even be suggested that you ENJOY "penetration"....
Just not while having your abortion.
Now I get it.
How pathetically ironic"
:roll:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Am I the only one that sees the irony of oft-penetrated women complaining about penetration during their abortion procedures?
As if this is the source of all our problems in America... uncomfortable abortions.
Instead of just coming into threads, trolling and stirring the pot, how about you act like an adult and give your opinion about the proposed legislation...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I'm probably a handful of years away from the finger ... not looking forward to it. :(
You conveniently left out the next sentence of my post, where I pointed out that consent under duress (like the duress of withholding medical care) is not real consent & still legally counts as rape.
It doesn't matter whether women - or men - like gyn appointments, ultrasounds, abortions, toenail extractions, colonoscopies, rectal exams, sex, or anything else; what matters is whether they consent.
What's outrageous here is all these men piping up to say that forcing an object into a woman's vagina against her will is okay because she consented to allowing something else in there. This is the EXACT SAME argument that says that women who are not virgins deserve to be raped. I am just absolutely dumbfounded & saddened & outraged that this perspective still exists. The reason we have such a rape culture in this society isn't because we have a bunch of violent sociopaths lurking in the bushes; it's because rape is normalized by regular men, who re-define it in their minds in a way that excuses their own & their fellow men's behavior & attitudes.
I see what you're saying, but you're falling not the same trap the FBI had recently been in, saying only forcible rape counts & rape by means of coercion doesn't. They acknowledged their mistake & changed their definition. Regardless of your opinion, however, most state laws explicitly include coercion in their definition of rape. And it's the legal definition, not your personal one, that counts.
You need to watch what you say. Promoting the forced penetration of "oft-penetrated" women - or of anyone, ever - is NOT OK. What I hear you very clearly saying is, "Sluts deserve to be raped."
(Not to mention the fact that you don't have a fucking clue about how often any woman is penetrated.)
To lawmakers, there is no line...they will always push to see what they can get...this law does nothing but shame those having an abortion...it does nothing but allow those who feel they are morally superior to force their will on others...let them in the game in any capacity and pretty soon they will set the rules...I am sorry if some role their eyes at this line of thinking, but it couldn't be more poignant to a discussion about government invasion of privacy.
This is the problem when we allow government into our personal lives and into our bodies. There really is no line if some draw it here and some draw it there... If you think that we are going to have the government fund things like medicaid and medicare, telling insurance companies what they have to cover, and they are going to stay out of dictating medical procedures, covered or not by insurance, in the medical office... well i don't know what to tell you...Violations of personal privacy...including forced consent to an ultrasound when wanting an abortion, is like a drop of oil in a pan...sure it starts small...but it is going to spread, nothing will stop it until we burn it off and stop the drops in the first place
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yes, you are the only one seeing the irony. I find it comical that you don't see the difference between consent and by force.
I think this will obviously cause a lot of debate and rolling of the eyes if you take the literal translation of rape, but the whole point is, that if someone chooses to get a legal abortion, under this proposed law, they are forced to receive a vaginal probe that has NOTHING to do with the abortion procedure. I think some of those whacky analogies (male urethra and prostate exams) are sounding about right. Why not require that too? it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure. This is a pathetic attempt to cause shame on a woman. its sad really.
And you and squirt keep bringing up the worst case scanarios...just as bad a tactic to push making women feel bad about abortions. Btw squirt, this "." could be your friend, try it out.
I think there's a big difference between government making medical decisions and forcing medical procedures onto people & government not allowing insurance companies to create financial barriers to medical care.
I'm against abortion, as most of you probably know, but you can't start doing all this stupid shit just because you don't agree with the current decision.
multiple abortions=feel bad
never much liked "." 's