Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape

inlet13 wrote:

show previous quotes

_ wrote:

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?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

show previous quotes

Jason P wrote:

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?

Jason P wrote:

show previous quotes

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

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..

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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. :(

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

JonnyPistachio wrote:

show previous quotes

Vitalogy Man wrote:

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