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.
No you are not alone. This topic is one that people will not change their minds on though. No amount of back an forth will. They say rape we say murder and then we both shake our heads at the others stupidity and lack of reason and understanding.
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.
But you see...the difference you see in it isn't seen by everyone...that is the problem i talked about. the line is drawn all over the place. The government thinks it owns part of your body...they tell you what you can put into it in regards to recreational drugs, they tell you how you have to protect it when riding a bike as a kid, they tell you how to protect it when riding in a car, why can't they tell you what to put into it in this type of situation?... we have deferred to the idea that Law makers know best it seems. we have lawyers deciding all kinds of things they know very little about... Once they are in your body with one thing...they will be in it with anything they choose. It is only a matter of time before we are all forced into procedures we don't want... i don't see a difference in this type of action and telling someone how they can have sex in their bedroom with sodomy laws. They are all wrong...different degrees of wrong doesn't really matter to me.
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
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Sorry this doesn't have to do with the original post but I have to say this - while I don't doubt there are some women who take the procedure and entire experience lightly, the majority are not "oft penetrated women" skipping into the doc's office for an abortion whenever they have the whim.
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
Sorry this doesn't have to do with the original post but I have to say this - while I don't doubt there are some women who take the procedure and entire experience lightly, the majority are not "oft penetrated women" skipping into the doc's office for an abortion whenever they have the whim.
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
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
Sorry this doesn't have to do with the original post but I have to say this - while I don't doubt there are some women who take the procedure and entire experience lightly, the majority are not "oft penetrated women" skipping into the doc's office for an abortion whenever they have the whim.
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
Ya, implying that irresponsible women who use abortion as birth control is "digusting" to you, but you have no problem murdering a baby that is inside your own body?
And have the gall to ask that it not be too intrusive as well- mostly because women who choose abortion are accustomed to choosing convenience over responsibility.
That's disgusting.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
OK then...no point discussing this, as your assumptions have GOT to be right on.
Sorry this doesn't have to do with the original post but I have to say this - while I don't doubt there are some women who take the procedure and entire experience lightly, the majority are not "oft penetrated women" skipping into the doc's office for an abortion whenever they have the whim.
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
Ya, implying that irresponsible women who use abortion as birth control is "digusting" to you, but you have no problem murdering a baby that is inside your own body?
And have the gall to ask that it not be too intrusive as well- mostly because women who choose abortion are accustomed to choosing convenience over responsibility.
That's disgusting.
But this thread is discussing the attack on women...forcing them to participate in this unnecessary procedure, as a prerequisite to a LEGAL abortion procedure. Whether or not abortion is right or wrong is another topic.
Again, this would be like demanding a prostate exam on the father. Its unnecessary, costly, and a waste of time.
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.
No, I didn't, I don't buy it. A lot of this has to do with the definition:
Definition 1:
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
Definition 2:
rape
1.a
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
So, a couple things from the above. This is not a sexual assault, nor would it be unlawful or be sexual intercourse.
I also don't necessarily agree that this would be classified as under duress because of withheld medical care. No medical care is being withheld. A prerequisite for the medical care desired is being established. That's it. You can still get an abortion, but you have to get an ultrasound first. What are you so scared of, that once they hear the heartbeat or see the fetus, they will choose not to get an abortion? Is that what you fear?... less abortions?
When I was on an HMO, I would have to go see my family care doc, before I go to a specialist. If my Doc wants to check my prostate before sending me to a specialist for another test, am I being raped? No offense, I get that your very into abortion rights, but your words here like "rape" are misleading and inflammatory... moreover, their not factual.
And limiting abortions is in everyone's best interest, right? You do want to limit abortions, right? Please answer that question.
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.
[/quote]
Why'd you bring up "men" in that 2nd sentence? Where the hell are you going with anyone condoning non-virgin rape here, or rape at all? The question was in regards to whether an ultrasound is rape at all. You do realize that women can rape men too, right? Is that a men's fault too? This post above screams "sexist".
The truth is, in this thread, we have a difference of opinion on whether having a prerequisite for an abortion (in the form of an ultrasound) is the equivalent of rape. I say, it's not at all and saying it is is simply inflammatory and outrageous. You say, the prerequisite ultrasound is rape.
Regardless, back to this post, I'm so tired of the sexism involved in the abortion argument by the pro-choice (pro-abortion) camp. Typically, it involves a line like "it's my body I can do what I want". I'm fine with you doing whatever you want to your body, jump off a bridge for all I care. That's your decision, and you're right, it's your body. But, the difference is when you're pregnant there's a defenseless life that you have within your body.
The truth is, this issue comes down to when life begins. Everyone wants to avoid it, but that's fact. For example, if life begins at conception, why is one woman's rights to do what she pleases with her body more important than a female fetus (we just assumed was alive)? Their both women. And with that, they both have rights over their bodies, right? The fetus, assumed to be alive above, has rights under the constitution. They have the right to not be killed. That's the issue here. You can glaze over it all you want. No amount of pro-abortion/sexist rhetoric on a woman's body, will take away the fact that half the fetus' being killed are women, and their bodies are not only being invaded, their being destroyed. Where's the outrage over those dead women in garbage cans?
No you are not alone. This topic is one that people will not change their minds on though. No amount of back an forth will. They say rape we say murder and then we both shake our heads at the others stupidity and lack of reason and understanding.
It's a no win. :(
But, see, people's opinions about abortion are not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about whether politicians have a right to mandate unnecessary, invasive medical procedures. The answer should be the same no matter the subject it's attached to.
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.
But you see...the difference you see in it isn't seen by everyone...that is the problem i talked about. the line is drawn all over the place. The government thinks it owns part of your body...they tell you what you can put into it in regards to recreational drugs, they tell you how you have to protect it when riding a bike as a kid, they tell you how to protect it when riding in a car, why can't they tell you what to put into it in this type of situation?... we have deferred to the idea that Law makers know best it seems. we have lawyers deciding all kinds of things they know very little about... Once they are in your body with one thing...they will be in it with anything they choose. It is only a matter of time before we are all forced into procedures we don't want... i don't see a difference in this type of action and telling someone how they can have sex in their bedroom with sodomy laws. They are all wrong...different degrees of wrong doesn't really matter to me.
I see what you're saying, but I think the difference lies in whether the laws merely interfere with personal decisions or are necessary to protect other people. (And, no, embryos don't count as other people.)
Sorry this doesn't have to do with the original post but I have to say this - while I don't doubt there are some women who take the procedure and entire experience lightly, the majority are not "oft penetrated women" skipping into the doc's office for an abortion whenever they have the whim.
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
Sorry this doesn't have to do with the original post but I have to say this - while I don't doubt there are some women who take the procedure and entire experience lightly, the majority are not "oft penetrated women" skipping into the doc's office for an abortion whenever they have the whim.
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
Ya, implying that irresponsible women who use abortion as birth control is "digusting" to you, but you have no problem murdering a baby that is inside your own body?
And have the gall to ask that it not be too intrusive as well- mostly because women who choose abortion are accustomed to choosing convenience over responsibility.
That's disgusting.
A. You don't know the first Goddamn thing about women who have abortions.
B. If you want to discuss the characteristics of women who have abortions, start another thread.
Please, all of you who think this ultrasound procedure is equivalent to rape,...
go tell that to rape victims. See what they say.
bend over and let me stick a probe up your arse against your will and tell me what you would call it.
It's not against their will. They are looking to get an abortion and this is a prerequisite medical procedure.
Once again, saying this rape is in really, really poor-taste and is insulting to those whom have been actually been raped. It's just plain sick to equivocate the two.
Please, all of you who think this ultrasound procedure is equivalent to rape,...
go tell that to rape victims. See what they say.
bend over and let me stick a probe up your arse against your will and tell me what you would call it.
It's not against their will. They are looking to get an abortion and this is a prerequisite medical procedure.
Once again, saying this rape is in really, really poor-taste and is insulting to those whom have been actually been raped. It's just plain sick to equivocate the two.
no, transvaginal ultrasound is not prerequisite for an abortion. it is not necessary and only serves to shame the woman and make her change her mind. if that is not government getting between a patient and the doctor i do not know what is.
but just keep harping on about how obama's health insurance plan is stepping over some boundaries...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
no, transvaginal ultrasound is not prerequisite for an abortion. it is not necessary and only serves to shame the woman and make her change her mind. if that is not government getting between a patient and the doctor i do not know what is.
but just keep harping on about how obama's health insurance plan is stepping over some boundaries...
It wasn't before, but it could be. Medical prerequisites are established every day. As for your point on the purpose, if you're right... and the hope is the change the persons mind, why is that bad?
PLEASE ANSWER:
Do you want to increase abortions or limit them? Do you think abortions are a good thing?
people, we have to be more precise and less combative with our language.
we're worlds apart on these issues because there are people saying;
"abortion IS murder"
and
"forced ultrasound IS rape"
both are unequivocally incorrect and both are pejoratives that get the "other side's" panties into a ruffle.
our words are very important, and some people treat language like it is some sort of trickery and without ANY intention of gaining understanding from people who start out opposing their viewpoint.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
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.
No, I didn't, I don't buy it. A lot of this has to do with the definition:
Definition 1:
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
Definition 2:
rape
1.a
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
So, a couple things from the above. This is not a sexual assault, nor would it be unlawful or be sexual intercourse.
I also don't necessarily agree that this would be classified as under duress because of withheld medical care. No medical care is being withheld. A prerequisite for the medical care desired is being established. That's it. You can still get an abortion, but you have to get an ultrasound first. What are you so scared of, that once they hear the heartbeat or see the fetus, they will choose not to get an abortion? Is that what you fear?... less abortions?
When I was on an HMO, I would have to go see my family care doc, before I go to a specialist. If my Doc wants to check my prostate before sending me to a specialist for another test, am I being raped? No offense, I get that your very into abortion rights, but your words here like "rape" are misleading and inflammatory... moreover, their not factual.
And limiting abortions is in everyone's best interest, right? You do want to limit abortions, right? Please answer that question.
Rape with an object is still rape. That is very clear in the FBI definition of rape that I quoted in my original post. Just because a couple of definitions you found online somewhere didn't think to mention that doesn't mean it's not true. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of convictions to prove it.
Yes, they are withholding medical care. If you don't get an ultrasound, you are refused medical care. That's what a prerequisite is.
What am I scared of? Rape. That's what I'm scared of. And politicians - not doctors - mandating unnecessary medical procedures against the wishes & judgement of the actual doctors.
I want to limit unintended pregnancy. I want to eliminate the need for abortions. But I don't want to force women to bring unwanted children into the world.
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.
No, I didn't, I don't buy it. A lot of this has to do with the definition:
Definition 1:
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
Definition 2:
rape
1.a
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
So, a couple things from the above. This is not a sexual assault, nor would it be unlawful or be sexual intercourse.
I also don't necessarily agree that this would be classified as under duress because of withheld medical care. No medical care is being withheld. A prerequisite for the medical care desired is being established. That's it. You can still get an abortion, but you have to get an ultrasound first. What are you so scared of, that once they hear the heartbeat or see the fetus, they will choose not to get an abortion? Is that what you fear?... less abortions?
When I was on an HMO, I would have to go see my family care doc, before I go to a specialist. If my Doc wants to check my prostate before sending me to a specialist for another test, am I being raped? No offense, I get that your very into abortion rights, but your words here like "rape" are misleading and inflammatory... moreover, their not factual.
And limiting abortions is in everyone's best interest, right? You do want to limit abortions, right? Please answer that question.
Rape with an object is still rape. That is very clear in the FBI definition of rape that I quoted in my original post. Just because a couple of definitions you found online somewhere didn't think to mention that doesn't mean it's not true. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of convictions to prove it.
Yes, they are withholding medical care. If you don't get an ultrasound, you are refused medical care. That's what a prerequisite is.
What am I scared of? Rape. That's what I'm scared of. And politicians - not doctors - mandating unnecessary medical procedures against the wishes & judgement of the actual doctors.
I want to limit unintended pregnancy. I want to eliminate the need for abortions. But I don't want to force women to bring unwanted children into the world.
Even if this was rape, which it's not, you wouldn't have to get raped. Just don't get an abortion. But, it's not rape, it's an additional (perhaps unwanted) medical procedure. Comparing the two is insulting to people who have been raped in real life.
You didn't really answer my question:
Do you want to limit abortions (the act of abortion, the procedure)? Don't stray, it's a yes or no question.
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.
Why'd you bring up "men" in that 2nd sentence? Where the hell are you going with anyone condoning non-virgin rape here, or rape at all? The question was in regards to whether an ultrasound is rape at all. You do realize that women can rape men too, right? Is that a men's fault too? This post above screams "sexist".
The truth is, in this thread, we have a difference of opinion on whether having a prerequisite for an abortion (in the form of an ultrasound) is the equivalent of rape. I say, it's not at all and saying it is is simply inflammatory and outrageous. You say, the prerequisite ultrasound is rape.
Regardless, back to this post, I'm so tired of the sexism involved in the abortion argument by the pro-choice (pro-abortion) camp. Typically, it involves a line like "it's my body I can do what I want". I'm fine with you doing whatever you want to your body, jump off a bridge for all I care. That's your decision, and you're right, it's your body. But, the difference is when you're pregnant there's a defenseless life that you have within your body.
The truth is, this issue comes down to when life begins. Everyone wants to avoid it, but that's fact. For example, if life begins at conception, why is one woman's rights to do what she pleases with her body more important than a female fetus (we just assumed was alive)? Their both women. And with that, they both have rights over their bodies, right? The fetus, assumed to be alive above, has rights under the constitution. They have the right to not be killed. That's the issue here. You can glaze over it all you want. No amount of pro-abortion/sexist rhetoric on a woman's body, will take away the fact that half the fetus' being killed are women, and their bodies are not only being invaded, their being destroyed. Where's the outrage over those dead women in garbage cans?[/quote]
I used the word "men" in the second sentence because, to my knowledge, it's only men who have made the types of comments in this thread that I was referring to. It's not my fault it's all men who are making those statements; I was merely using an accurate noun. I never said all men feel that way. Clearly there are plenty of men right in this thread who disagree with the statements being made by the men to whom I was referring. So there's nothing at all sexist about my observation.
We've had plenty of conversations around here about whether abortions should be legal. Feel free to start another thread if you'd like to have another one. And if you think abortions should be illegal, take it up with the Supreme Court. Because as it stands this is a legal medical procedure and people's opinions that it should be illegal don't change that.
Please, all of you who think this ultrasound procedure is equivalent to rape,...
go tell that to rape victims. See what they say.
As I said before, I've known several rape victims who have said that the prospect of having an unwanted transvaginal ultrasound makes them feel like they're being raped all over again. That's precisely why we don't do them.
I used the word "men" in the second sentence because, to my knowledge, it's only men who have made the types of comments in this thread that I was referring to. It's not my fault it's all men who are making those statements; I was merely using an accurate noun. I never said all men feel that way. Clearly there are plenty of men right in this thread who disagree with the statements being made by the men to whom I was referring. So there's nothing at all sexist about my observation
.
Ummm.... making the assumptions, like you did, is sexist.
We've had plenty of conversations around here about whether abortions should be legal. Feel free to start another thread if you'd like to have another one. And if you think abortions should be illegal, take it up with the Supreme Court. Because as it stands this is a legal medical procedure and people's opinions that it should be illegal don't change that.
This very thread has to do with your feelings regarding attempts by government to potentially limit abortion. The question comes back to why? What's wrong with the procedure? Hmmm...
I still don't see what's wrong with limiting abortions and you continue to avoid answering whether you want to limit abortions. I heard Nancy Pelosi and President Obama say verbally that they support limiting abortion. This procedure may help do what Pelosi and Obama want.
Please, all of you who think this ultrasound procedure is equivalent to rape,...
go tell that to rape victims. See what they say.
bend over and let me stick a probe up your arse against your will and tell me what you would call it.
It's not against their will. They are looking to get an abortion and this is a prerequisite medical procedure.
Once again, saying this rape is in really, really poor-taste and is insulting to those whom have been actually been raped. It's just plain sick to equivocate the two.
But see, it's not a REAL prerequisite for the procedure since it's not medically necessary and is not being required by doctors. It's no different than if some politicians said everyone from the opposing party had to be punched in the face before receiving their blood pressure medication. Would you be okay with that?
But see, it's not a REAL prerequisite for the procedure since it's not medically necessary and is not being required by doctors. It's no different than if some politicians said everyone from the opposing party had to be punched in the face before receiving their blood pressure medication. Would you be okay with that?
...is the procedure (abortion) itself "medically necessary" or are they opting into the procedure?
Even if this was rape, which it's not, you wouldn't have to get raped. Just don't get an abortion. But, it's not rape, it's an additional (perhaps unwanted) medical procedure. Comparing the two is insulting to people who have been raped in real life.
You didn't really answer my question:
Do you want to limit abortions (the act of abortion, the procedure)? Don't stray, it's a yes or no question.
Abortions are often - by law & by medicine - medically necessary. So just not getting one isn't a solution.
Your question is not a yes or no question. If you want to make it a yes or no question, you'll have to more precisely define its parameters.
I used the word "men" in the second sentence because, to my knowledge, it's only men who have made the types of comments in this thread that I was referring to. It's not my fault it's all men who are making those statements; I was merely using an accurate noun. I never said all men feel that way. Clearly there are plenty of men right in this thread who disagree with the statements being made by the men to whom I was referring. So there's nothing at all sexist about my observation
.
Ummm.... making the assumptions, like you did, is sexist.
We've had plenty of conversations around here about whether abortions should be legal. Feel free to start another thread if you'd like to have another one. And if you think abortions should be illegal, take it up with the Supreme Court. Because as it stands this is a legal medical procedure and people's opinions that it should be illegal don't change that.
This very thread has to do with your feelings regarding attempts by government to potentially limit abortion. The question comes back to why? What's wrong with the procedure? Hmmm...
I still don't see what's wrong with limiting abortions and you continue to avoid answering whether you want to limit abortions. I heard Nancy Pelosi and President Obama say verbally that they support limiting abortion. This procedure may help do what Pelosi and Obama want.
I didn't really make any assumptions. Most of the people around here have been around long enough for us to know their gender. I merely acknowledged the fact that sometimes people are mistaken about gender.
What is wrong with the abortion procedure? Absolutely nothing.
But see, it's not a REAL prerequisite for the procedure since it's not medically necessary and is not being required by doctors. It's no different than if some politicians said everyone from the opposing party had to be punched in the face before receiving their blood pressure medication. Would you be okay with that?
...is the procedure (abortion) itself "medically necessary" or are they opting into the procedure?
That depends. Most knowledgeable medical professionals and many state laws say it's medically necessary.
But see, it's not a REAL prerequisite for the procedure since it's not medically necessary and is not being required by doctors. It's no different than if some politicians said everyone from the opposing party had to be punched in the face before receiving their blood pressure medication. Would you be okay with that?
...is the procedure (abortion) itself "medically necessary" or are they opting into the procedure?
That depends. Most knowledgeable medical professionals and many state laws say it's medically necessary.
So, in all cases, a female MUST get an abortion? Why do I see all these babies about? Seems like 99.99% of cases, it's a choice of the mom's. Not a mandate by government.
I used the word "men" in the second sentence because, to my knowledge, it's only men who have made the types of comments in this thread that I was referring to. It's not my fault it's all men who are making those statements; I was merely using an accurate noun. I never said all men feel that way. Clearly there are plenty of men right in this thread who disagree with the statements being made by the men to whom I was referring. So there's nothing at all sexist about my observation
.
Ummm.... making the assumptions, like you did, is sexist.
We've had plenty of conversations around here about whether abortions should be legal. Feel free to start another thread if you'd like to have another one. And if you think abortions should be illegal, take it up with the Supreme Court. Because as it stands this is a legal medical procedure and people's opinions that it should be illegal don't change that.
This very thread has to do with your feelings regarding attempts by government to potentially limit abortion. The question comes back to why? What's wrong with the procedure? Hmmm...
I still don't see what's wrong with limiting abortions and you continue to avoid answering whether you want to limit abortions. I heard Nancy Pelosi and President Obama say verbally that they support limiting abortion. This procedure may help do what Pelosi and Obama want.
I didn't really make any assumptions. Most of the people around here have been around long enough for us to know their gender. I merely acknowledged the fact that sometimes people are mistaken about gender.
What is wrong with the abortion procedure? Absolutely nothing.
I know you're dodging it, but I'll ask again (Yes or No question):
Do you want to limit abortions (the # of procedures)?
Comments
No you are not alone. This topic is one that people will not change their minds on though. No amount of back an forth will. They say rape we say murder and then we both shake our heads at the others stupidity and lack of reason and understanding.
It's a no win. :(
But you see...the difference you see in it isn't seen by everyone...that is the problem i talked about. the line is drawn all over the place. The government thinks it owns part of your body...they tell you what you can put into it in regards to recreational drugs, they tell you how you have to protect it when riding a bike as a kid, they tell you how to protect it when riding in a car, why can't they tell you what to put into it in this type of situation?... we have deferred to the idea that Law makers know best it seems. we have lawyers deciding all kinds of things they know very little about... Once they are in your body with one thing...they will be in it with anything they choose. It is only a matter of time before we are all forced into procedures we don't want... i don't see a difference in this type of action and telling someone how they can have sex in their bedroom with sodomy laws. They are all wrong...different degrees of wrong doesn't really matter to me.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
For anyone to imply that - especially in the ways expressed in thread - is fucking disgusting.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ya, implying that irresponsible women who use abortion as birth control is "digusting" to you, but you have no problem murdering a baby that is inside your own body?
And have the gall to ask that it not be too intrusive as well- mostly because women who choose abortion are accustomed to choosing convenience over responsibility.
That's disgusting.
_, apologies; didn't mean to derail this topic.
But this thread is discussing the attack on women...forcing them to participate in this unnecessary procedure, as a prerequisite to a LEGAL abortion procedure. Whether or not abortion is right or wrong is another topic.
Again, this would be like demanding a prostate exam on the father. Its unnecessary, costly, and a waste of time.
No, I didn't, I don't buy it. A lot of this has to do with the definition:
Definition 1:
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
Definition 2:
rape
1.a
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
So, a couple things from the above. This is not a sexual assault, nor would it be unlawful or be sexual intercourse.
I also don't necessarily agree that this would be classified as under duress because of withheld medical care. No medical care is being withheld. A prerequisite for the medical care desired is being established. That's it. You can still get an abortion, but you have to get an ultrasound first. What are you so scared of, that once they hear the heartbeat or see the fetus, they will choose not to get an abortion? Is that what you fear?... less abortions?
When I was on an HMO, I would have to go see my family care doc, before I go to a specialist. If my Doc wants to check my prostate before sending me to a specialist for another test, am I being raped? No offense, I get that your very into abortion rights, but your words here like "rape" are misleading and inflammatory... moreover, their not factual.
And limiting abortions is in everyone's best interest, right? You do want to limit abortions, right? Please answer that question. [/quote]
Why'd you bring up "men" in that 2nd sentence? Where the hell are you going with anyone condoning non-virgin rape here, or rape at all? The question was in regards to whether an ultrasound is rape at all. You do realize that women can rape men too, right? Is that a men's fault too? This post above screams "sexist".
The truth is, in this thread, we have a difference of opinion on whether having a prerequisite for an abortion (in the form of an ultrasound) is the equivalent of rape. I say, it's not at all and saying it is is simply inflammatory and outrageous. You say, the prerequisite ultrasound is rape.
Regardless, back to this post, I'm so tired of the sexism involved in the abortion argument by the pro-choice (pro-abortion) camp. Typically, it involves a line like "it's my body I can do what I want". I'm fine with you doing whatever you want to your body, jump off a bridge for all I care. That's your decision, and you're right, it's your body. But, the difference is when you're pregnant there's a defenseless life that you have within your body.
The truth is, this issue comes down to when life begins. Everyone wants to avoid it, but that's fact. For example, if life begins at conception, why is one woman's rights to do what she pleases with her body more important than a female fetus (we just assumed was alive)? Their both women. And with that, they both have rights over their bodies, right? The fetus, assumed to be alive above, has rights under the constitution. They have the right to not be killed. That's the issue here. You can glaze over it all you want. No amount of pro-abortion/sexist rhetoric on a woman's body, will take away the fact that half the fetus' being killed are women, and their bodies are not only being invaded, their being destroyed. Where's the outrage over those dead women in garbage cans?
<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="
go tell that to rape victims. See what they say.
<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="
But, see, people's opinions about abortion are not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about whether politicians have a right to mandate unnecessary, invasive medical procedures. The answer should be the same no matter the subject it's attached to.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A. You don't know the first Goddamn thing about women who have abortions.
B. If you want to discuss the characteristics of women who have abortions, start another thread.
It's not against their will. They are looking to get an abortion and this is a prerequisite medical procedure.
Once again, saying this rape is in really, really poor-taste and is insulting to those whom have been actually been raped. It's just plain sick to equivocate the two.
<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="
but just keep harping on about how obama's health insurance plan is stepping over some boundaries...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It wasn't before, but it could be. Medical prerequisites are established every day. As for your point on the purpose, if you're right... and the hope is the change the persons mind, why is that bad?
PLEASE ANSWER:
Do you want to increase abortions or limit them? Do you think abortions are a good thing?
<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="
we're worlds apart on these issues because there are people saying;
"abortion IS murder"
and
"forced ultrasound IS rape"
both are unequivocally incorrect and both are pejoratives that get the "other side's" panties into a ruffle.
our words are very important, and some people treat language like it is some sort of trickery and without ANY intention of gaining understanding from people who start out opposing their viewpoint.
Rape with an object is still rape. That is very clear in the FBI definition of rape that I quoted in my original post. Just because a couple of definitions you found online somewhere didn't think to mention that doesn't mean it's not true. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of convictions to prove it.
Yes, they are withholding medical care. If you don't get an ultrasound, you are refused medical care. That's what a prerequisite is.
What am I scared of? Rape. That's what I'm scared of. And politicians - not doctors - mandating unnecessary medical procedures against the wishes & judgement of the actual doctors.
I want to limit unintended pregnancy. I want to eliminate the need for abortions. But I don't want to force women to bring unwanted children into the world.
Even if this was rape, which it's not, you wouldn't have to get raped. Just don't get an abortion. But, it's not rape, it's an additional (perhaps unwanted) medical procedure. Comparing the two is insulting to people who have been raped in real life.
You didn't really answer my question:
Do you want to limit abortions (the act of abortion, the procedure)? Don't stray, it's a yes or no question.
<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="
Why'd you bring up "men" in that 2nd sentence? Where the hell are you going with anyone condoning non-virgin rape here, or rape at all? The question was in regards to whether an ultrasound is rape at all. You do realize that women can rape men too, right? Is that a men's fault too? This post above screams "sexist".
The truth is, in this thread, we have a difference of opinion on whether having a prerequisite for an abortion (in the form of an ultrasound) is the equivalent of rape. I say, it's not at all and saying it is is simply inflammatory and outrageous. You say, the prerequisite ultrasound is rape.
Regardless, back to this post, I'm so tired of the sexism involved in the abortion argument by the pro-choice (pro-abortion) camp. Typically, it involves a line like "it's my body I can do what I want". I'm fine with you doing whatever you want to your body, jump off a bridge for all I care. That's your decision, and you're right, it's your body. But, the difference is when you're pregnant there's a defenseless life that you have within your body.
The truth is, this issue comes down to when life begins. Everyone wants to avoid it, but that's fact. For example, if life begins at conception, why is one woman's rights to do what she pleases with her body more important than a female fetus (we just assumed was alive)? Their both women. And with that, they both have rights over their bodies, right? The fetus, assumed to be alive above, has rights under the constitution. They have the right to not be killed. That's the issue here. You can glaze over it all you want. No amount of pro-abortion/sexist rhetoric on a woman's body, will take away the fact that half the fetus' being killed are women, and their bodies are not only being invaded, their being destroyed. Where's the outrage over those dead women in garbage cans?[/quote]
I used the word "men" in the second sentence because, to my knowledge, it's only men who have made the types of comments in this thread that I was referring to. It's not my fault it's all men who are making those statements; I was merely using an accurate noun. I never said all men feel that way. Clearly there are plenty of men right in this thread who disagree with the statements being made by the men to whom I was referring. So there's nothing at all sexist about my observation.
We've had plenty of conversations around here about whether abortions should be legal. Feel free to start another thread if you'd like to have another one. And if you think abortions should be illegal, take it up with the Supreme Court. Because as it stands this is a legal medical procedure and people's opinions that it should be illegal don't change that.
As I said before, I've known several rape victims who have said that the prospect of having an unwanted transvaginal ultrasound makes them feel like they're being raped all over again. That's precisely why we don't do them.
Ummm.... making the assumptions, like you did, is sexist.
This very thread has to do with your feelings regarding attempts by government to potentially limit abortion. The question comes back to why? What's wrong with the procedure? Hmmm...
I still don't see what's wrong with limiting abortions and you continue to avoid answering whether you want to limit abortions. I heard Nancy Pelosi and President Obama say verbally that they support limiting abortion. This procedure may help do what Pelosi and Obama want.
<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="
But see, it's not a REAL prerequisite for the procedure since it's not medically necessary and is not being required by doctors. It's no different than if some politicians said everyone from the opposing party had to be punched in the face before receiving their blood pressure medication. Would you be okay with that?
...is the procedure (abortion) itself "medically necessary" or are they opting into the procedure?
<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="
Abortions are often - by law & by medicine - medically necessary. So just not getting one isn't a solution.
Your question is not a yes or no question. If you want to make it a yes or no question, you'll have to more precisely define its parameters.
I didn't really make any assumptions. Most of the people around here have been around long enough for us to know their gender. I merely acknowledged the fact that sometimes people are mistaken about gender.
What is wrong with the abortion procedure? Absolutely nothing.
That depends. Most knowledgeable medical professionals and many state laws say it's medically necessary.
So, in all cases, a female MUST get an abortion? Why do I see all these babies about? Seems like 99.99% of cases, it's a choice of the mom's. Not a mandate by government.
<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="
I know you're dodging it, but I'll ask again (Yes or No question):
Do you want to limit abortions (the # of procedures)?
<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="