Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape

245678

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,178
    one of the main points of contention in these laws is consent.

    there is a difference between consent, or allowing something such as the insertion of a metal pipe with an untrasound transducer on it, to occur, and forceful compliance, which is being unwillingly compelled by law to allow that insertion to occur.

    a law forcing someone to consent to something invasive like this is a violation of basic human rights. it also represents the power of the state over women, and the implied inequality to men that some people actually feel is the truth.

    i am sorry, but i believe that laws should be passed to grant and guarantee rights, not take them away.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    one of the main points of contention in these laws is consent.
    Well, that is what I'm trying to understand. Under the current conditions of commonly practiced procedures, if you refuse a step of commonly used medical practice that requires "penetration", can you get an abortion without consenting to the doctor?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    edited February 2012
    Jason P wrote:
    _ wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    Let me start be saying that this is a dumb law and a waste of taxpayer's time and money.

    But I have a question as I'm a dude and most likely will go through life without having an abortion unless my life turns into a bad Schwarzenegger movie ... at any point during the abortion process, is there a point where anything penetrates the woman?

    Depends on the kind of abortion.

    But, if I see where you're trying to go with this train of thought, let me just stop you right there and point out that women have a right to decide what is and is not inserted into their vaginas and just because they allow one thing to be inserted doesn't mean they should be required to have something else - that they don't want - inserted.
    I'm glad you see where I'm going with this. My intention is not to support either side, but whether to see if inflammatory language is being used as a tool to combat the proposed legislation.

    Again, under normal and commonly practiced circumstances, is there a part of the clinical procedure that requires a woman to have something "penetrate" her in order to get an abortion during a medical evaluation?

    And if a woman refuses to go let something "penetrate" her under normal circumstances, will she be denied an abortion?

    I'm still not understanding your logic here; all I see is the same "blame the victim for not being a virgin" logic that people use to justify rape. Surely that's not the parallel you're making. Are you really failing to recognize the difference between wanted and unwanted penetration? Or the fact that unwanted penetration - by definition - constitutes rape? :?

    Under "normal and commonly practiced circumstances," as I said before, whether or not there is any penetration depends on the kind of abortion the woman is having. I'm not really understanding your question; I can't tell whether you're referring to the "medical evaluation" for abortion or the abortion itself. If you mean the medical evaluation, no, there is no medically necessary reason for all women to be required to be "penetrated". If you mean the abortion itself, there are two kinds: a pill and a procedure. Women who chose abortion with a pill don't need to be penetrated. When women choose the procedure, instruments must be inserted into the uterus to evacuate its contents. This is the procedure itself, not a requirement to get the procedure. And, again, most women don't have to choose this method. So, no, under most circumstances, women won't be denied abortions for refusing to let something penetrate them.

    Again, though, you seem to be walking on pretty thin ice with this line of reasoning.
    Post edited by _ on
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    one of the main points of contention in these laws is consent.
    Well, that is what I'm trying to understand. Under the current conditions of commonly practiced procedures, if you refuse a step of commonly used medical practice that requires "penetration", can you get an abortion without consenting to the doctor?

    Yes.

    And where are you getting this "commonly used medical practice" from?

    And why should it be up to politicians to dictate medical practice to medical professionals?
  • SweetChildofMine
    SweetChildofMine Posts: 842
    As a woman who has had this kind of ultrasound for medical purposes besides an abortion it is very intimidating piece of machinery. However, whats next you cant use a speculum? Doctors cant give men a proctology exam? I mean come the fuck on.... dont we have better charades to play like putting people to work and make sure they have roofs over their heads and are fed.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    So, if ultrasound bills are okay, this should be okay too, right?

    Brilliant State Senator Attaches Rectal Exam to Anti-Abortion Bill

    A crafty state senator has done something so wonderful that we should all be cheering while simultaneously smacking our foreheads, because why didn't we think of this earlier? The hero in question is Virginia senator Janet Howell. The Democrat wasn't happy with a proposed bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before they can have an abortion, so she attached a very special amendment to the bill.

    Howell simply attached an amendment that requires men to undergo a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before they can be prescribed medication for erectile dysfunction. Genius. Here's what Howell had to say on the matter:

    We need some gender equity here. The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?

    Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! It's like Howell has single-handedly invented a twisted new Golden Rule of Politics: "Do unto others' nether regions as they would do unto yours." And from then on, the good men of Virginia realized it actually feels really terrible when the government tries to "protect" you from yourself, and women were free to do with their bodies whatever they damn well pleased and—screeeech. Dream sequence over.

    Howell's amendment was sadly defeated—though narrowly, 21 to 19—and the rectums of Virginia rejoiced. Who, you might be wondering, would have voted against such an amazing idea? Why, Republican senator Jill Vogel, of course, the sponsor of the original ultrasound bill. Here's her rock solid reasoning:

    I do believe that erectile dysfunction in this context is different from pregnancy.

    In this context? It would be lovely if Sen. Vogel could elaborate on when ED is ever the same as pregnancy, but I digress. What matters is that Howell was happy with the way it turned out, and one hopes she will continue crafting such equitable legislation in the future.

    The bill itself passed in a voice vote yesterday, and it's going to be formally voted on today. A similar bill in Texas has caused a logistical shitstorm for providers and patients alike, and it's being challenged in court. Perhaps sanity will prevail, and this ridiculous practice will someday be abandoned. But for now, let's keep our fingers crossed that Senator Howell's innovative approach to dealing with this nonsense will lead to a long string of similar "Shove It Up Your Ass" amendments in other states. After all, it is our Christian duty to make sure the men of this great land don't accidentally die of a heart attack while having medically-assisted sex with their wives or whomever else their sacred vows of open marriage permit.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    _ wrote:
    I'm still not understanding your logic here; all I see is the same "blame the victim for not being a virgin" logic that people use to justify rape. Surely that's not the parallel you're making. Are you really failing to recognize the difference between wanted and unwanted penetration? Or the fact that unwanted penetration - by definition - constitutes rape? :?

    Under "normal and commonly practiced circumstances," as I said before, whether or not there is any penetration depends on the kind of abortion the woman is having. I'm not really understanding your question; I can't tell whether you're referring to the "medical evaluation" for abortion or the abortion itself. If you mean the medical evaluation, no, there is no medically necessary reason for a woman to be required to be "penetrated". If you mean the abortion itself, there are two kinds: a pill and a procedure. Women who chose abortion with a pill don't need to be penetrated. When women choose the procedure, instruments must be inserted into the uterus to evacuate its contents. This is the procedure itself, not a requirement to get the procedure. And, again, most women don't have to choose this method. So, no, under most circumstances, women won't be denied abortions for refusing to let something penetrate them.

    Again, though, you seem to be walking on pretty thin ice with this line of reasoning.
    My logic is simple. If a pill is used, this isn't even a topic of conversation. If the GOP legislation is passed (and I don't think it should), the ultrasound becomes part of the medical procedure for getting an abortion.

    My problem is not with the legislation, but the language. When the healthcare bill came up, I had a huge problem with pro-GOP people using the term "death panels". I have the same problem with "state-sponsored rape" and the inflammatory language that is being used to combat the issue. I believe it to be offensive to people that have been raped under sexual circumstances.

    Present me facts. Don't present me opinions only when it is advantageous.

    Remember, we all live in a glass house. Call a spade a spade ... don't call it a heart if it benefits your beliefs or agenda.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    _ wrote:
    So, if ultrasound bills are okay, this should be okay too, right?

    Brilliant State Senator Attaches Rectal Exam to Anti-Abortion Bill

    A crafty state senator has done something so wonderful that we should all be cheering while simultaneously smacking our foreheads, because why didn't we think of this earlier? The hero in question is Virginia senator Janet Howell. The Democrat wasn't happy with a proposed bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before they can have an abortion, so she attached a very special amendment to the bill.

    Howell simply attached an amendment that requires men to undergo a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before they can be prescribed medication for erectile dysfunction. Genius. Here's what Howell had to say on the matter:
    If this ends the 4-5 commercials giving me a lecture on what to do if an erection lasts longer then four hours during a football game, I'm all for it.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Jason P wrote:
    My logic is simple. If a pill is used, this isn't even a topic of conversation. If the GOP legislation is passed (and I don't think it should), the ultrasound becomes part of the medical procedure for getting an abortion.

    My problem is not with the legislation, but the language. When the healthcare bill came up, I had a huge problem with pro-GOP people using the term "death panels". I have the same problem with "state-sponsored rape" and the inflammatory language that is being used to combat the issue. I believe it to be offensive to people that have been raped under sexual circumstances.

    Present me facts. Don't present me opinions only when it is advantageous.

    Remember, we all live in a glass house. Call a spade a spade ... don't call it a heart if it benefits your beliefs or agenda.

    Yes, rape is an inflammatory word. And I'm using it because it's warranted. I did present facts - the facts of the procedure and the definition of rape. Those aren't opinions. Sticking an object into a woman's vagina against her will is legally rape. There's no two ways about it.

    I appreciate your concern about victims of sexual assault and I in no way wish to trivialize their experiences. But this qualifies as rape just as much as the little girl who gets a beer bottle shoved up her vagina at the demand of a neighborhood gang. Just because the gang wears suits and sits in Congress doesn't make it any better. Rape is rape. There is no such thing as "rape under sexual circumstances". I see what you're trying to say, but rape is not and had never been about sex; it's about control - in the streets and in the state Congress.

    Also, women who are survivors of sexual assault will tell you that unwanted transvaginal ultrasounds are traumatic. Most of the sexual assault survivors I've known in this circumstance refuse to allow transvaginal ultrasounds because of how similar it is to their previous rape experience.

    So, yes, call a spade a spade. Rape is rape.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    _ wrote:
    So, yes, call a spade a spade. Rape is rape.
    Under the proposed legislation, does a woman have the right to say "no"?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Jason P wrote:
    _ wrote:
    So, yes, call a spade a spade. Rape is rape.
    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.
  • Vitalogy Man
    Vitalogy Man Posts: 174
    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.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    Vitalogy Man wrote:
    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.


    This might be the most pathetic disgusting post I have ever read on any PJ forum.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,178
    brandon10 wrote:
    Vitalogy Man wrote:
    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.


    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.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,178
    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.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • USARAY
    USARAY Posts: 517
    what is crude and pathetic is if women use abortion as birth control having 3 4 or more :wtf:

    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
  • Vitalogy Man
    Vitalogy Man Posts: 174
    squirt wrote:
    what is crude and pathetic is if women use abortion as birth control having 3 4 or more :wtf:

    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?
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    _ wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    _ wrote:
    So, yes, call a spade a spade. Rape is rape.
    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.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • USARAY
    USARAY Posts: 517
    Vitalogy Man wrote:
    squirt wrote:
    what is crude and pathetic is if women use abortion as birth control having 3 4 or more :wtf:

    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?
    of course my point
    torture
    yes abortion is murder let's say it together but it is legalized murder
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    I have a feeling this thread is about to take a very ugly turn.

    Laterhosen.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!

Categories