Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape

_ · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

_ · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13 · February 2012

_ wrote:

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.

_ wrote:

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.

_ · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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?

inlet13 · February 2012

_ wrote:

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?

_ · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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.

_ · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

_ wrote:

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.

_ · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

inlet13 · February 2012

_ wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

inlet13 · February 2012

_ wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

_ wrote:

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)?

mikepegg44 · February 2012

_ wrote:

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.)

I see the distinction and agree with it. But if we want the feds to overstep that distinction on some things, we shouldn't be surprised when others do as well...I hate the thought of someone having an abortion, and I don't envy anyone who is in the position where they need to consider it, even for a second...

and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?

inlet13 · February 2012

mikepegg44 wrote:

and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?

Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:

I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?

Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.

I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.

mikepegg44 · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?

Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:

I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?

Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.

I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.

you don't have to apologize for jumping in,

I suppose any abortion is birth control if we try hard enough to call it that. People who come to the conclusion to have an abortion don't think of it as birth control. They don't use it as their family planning technique. They use it to terminate a pregnancy for one reason or another...it is RARELY if ever used as a birth control technique in the sense used when discussing the pill or iud's.
...in order to really answer your question I think we would have to decide what "as birth control" means. I would think it would mean that a person PLANS on having abortions INSTEAD of taking the pill or using another contraception device. But I don't think it would be fair for either of us to assume one way or the other when i am sure someone out there gathers these stats...I think we are also talking about a relatively small number of them in either case.
So i guess i could have spelled it out further in my initial question.

drinkbigredinstead · February 2012

_ wrote:

drinkbigredinstead wrote:

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.

True. I did go off topic.

I agree with this mandate.

brandon10 · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?

Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:

I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?

Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.

I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.

And frankly, I'm ok with that. It's not a decision I would ever make. If I ever got a girlfriend or wife pregnant I would do everything I could to convince her to have our child. I couldn't bear the thought of going through life wondering about the child I could have had. I know I'll get berated for this, but I could care less if others around the world have abortions. There are too many people on this planet anyway. And I would venture to guess that most of those having abortions do so because they feel they can't support the child. So I find it odd that it's always those who don't support welfare or public programs that want to abolish abortions.

Cheeks · February 2012

So here is a scenario for you....
I have a very good friend who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when we were 20. She has decided that she does not want children because there is a high risk that after pregnancy and childbirth that her disease will become much more aggressive. Because of other health issues, she's can't use contraceptives and her and her long-time boyfriend rely on condoms. Well, at one point one of them must have broken because she ended up pregnant. Thankfully, she lives here in Canada, but let's move her Virginia for the sake of this debate.
She decides that she is going to have an abortion. Let's also mention that she was beaten and raped as a teen and suffers from PTSD. So, she gets the the doctor and is told they need to determine the age of the fetus before they can preform the abortion. A regular ultrasound can't detect the fetus, so she is told she needs a “internal ultrasound.” She is not visibly pregnant, and obviously not very far along. BUT... because of government legislation she has to be subjected to the completely unnecessary, intrusive and upsetting procedure before the doctor can perform the abortion (something that is very upsetting and traumatizing to her to begin with).
Her CHOICES in the situation are:
1. Suffer through an very upsetting procedure where a probe is inserted and moved around until the doctor can get a good enough look at the fetus.
2. Carry the pregnancy to term and risk her own health, eyesight and mobility.

gimmesometruth27 · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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?

it is not a black and white or yes or no answer. it is not as simple as the conservative and the general republican simple minded 2nd grade world view that everything is black or white, everything is good or evil, or that there is a simple answer to everything. i tend to look at this issue and see the gray areas that require a certain higher level of understanding instead of the blanket black and white good vs bad....

i am pro CHOICE. as in i will fight for ANY woman to have the basic human right to CHOOSE what happens inside of her own body. it is a medical decision and the government should stay the fuck out of that situation. to me it is unethical for some virgin, celibate man in a pointy hat who has an office in the vatican to tell anyone what they have to do in medical situations. his views are antiquated and oppressive. to me, if he is going to consciously CHOOSE to never ever shag a woman then he is automatically out of touch with the reality that the rest of us subscribe to, and as such, he should shut the fuck up and mind his own business and focus on exorcising devils or investigating (or not investigating) his pedofile priests... that is why i am against any religious tenets in our set of laws, aside from you shall not kill or steal.

to answer your questions...

do i like the procedure that is abortion?
no i don't.

am i glad that that medical procedure is legal and that women have access to safe abortions?
yes i am.

would i want my wife or girlfriend that i had sex with and got pregnant to have an abortion?
no i wouldn't. but at the end of the day it is NOT MY CHOICE TO MAKE because i am not her and i do not have to carry that baby and deliver it and raise it. and i believe that it is severely unethical for me to attempt to FORCE her to have that kid.

do i wish that there were less abortions performed in a year?
yes i do, but it is not my place to impose my self righteous or my misogynistic, or my religious views onto others and make it impossible for others to have the procedure. high risk pregnancies happen all the time. pregnancies where the mother's life is at risk happens all the time. women get raped and pregnant all the time. i would never in a million years force any of the women in those examples to have the kid if their life is at risk, or if the kid is the child of the violent offender who raped her.

do i think abortion is a good thing?
it is not my place to say. that is between the woman and her doctor, and the woman and her conscience. far be it for me to make her feel worse by judging and condemning her for making that difficult life altering choice. but yes i believe that it is a good thing for any woman to have access to safe abortions and i believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and especially out of the doctor's exam/procedure room....

i can't believe any libertarian would support this proposed law that allows government to step over so many boundaries...

cincybearcat · February 2012

Gimmie, in your rant full of derogatory remarks it interests me that you said you wouldn't have to "raise" the child as part of your reasoning that's woman be allowed to make that choice in a vacuum. Why is that? Pretty sure lots of dads raise their kids.

inlet13 · February 2012

mikepegg44 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?

Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:

I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?

Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.

I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.

you don't have to apologize for jumping in,

I suppose any abortion is birth control if we try hard enough to call it that. People who come to the conclusion to have an abortion don't think of it as birth control. They don't use it as their family planning technique. They use it to terminate a pregnancy for one reason or another...it is RARELY if ever used as a birth control technique in the sense used when discussing the pill or iud's.
...in order to really answer your question I think we would have to decide what "as birth control" means. I would think it would mean that a person PLANS on having abortions INSTEAD of taking the pill or using another contraception device. But I don't think it would be fair for either of us to assume one way or the other when i am sure someone out there gathers these stats...I think we are also talking about a relatively small number of them in either case.
So i guess i could have spelled it out further in my initial question.

Yeh, I think in a way, abortion could be considered birth control pretty much every time, but even outside of that we have a difference of opinion then on what is meant by birth control. For example, a lot of people use "the pull out" method. There's risk involved there. Is that a birth control method? Abortion could be considered a back-up birth control method to some there. For others, they just don't really think about what could happen at all. And, to me, it's birth control there too. Lots of scenarios.

Abortion prevents "birth" pretty much every time.

inlet13 · February 2012

brandon10 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

and to those who said it earlier: do you have an example of a woman using abortions as birth control?

Sorry for jumping in... I did not write what you're referring to, but I will add to this discussion:

I'd wager the amount of women using abortions as birth control outweighs the number of women seeking abortions due to rape or health concerns (directed from a doctor). Would you agree?

Since you asked for an example from another poster, my example would be a married couple who have regular unprotected sex and after a while, conceive a child. Afterwards, they discuss it, feel they can't afford it, so they get an abortion. In that sense, they used the abortion as birth control. Particularly, if they do the same thing again.

I'm pretty sure the statistics show that married women have a surprisingly large amount of abortions, in a relative sense... given they're married. Further, I'm fairly certain that once you have an abortion, your chances of having another increase. I'm not positive on that though.

And frankly, I'm ok with that. It's not a decision I would ever make. If I ever got a girlfriend or wife pregnant I would do everything I could to convince her to have our child. I couldn't bear the thought of going through life wondering about the child I could have had. I know I'll get berated for this, but I could care less if others around the world have abortions. There are too many people on this planet anyway. And I would venture to guess that most of those having abortions do so because they feel they can't support the child. So I find it odd that it's always those who don't support welfare or public programs that want to abolish abortions.

I think it's fantastic that you would try to convince your gf or wife to have the child.

But, on your other point, I disagree. There are not too many people on this planet. People were saying the same thing 300 years ago, and they were wrong... global standard of living has improved with population growth. People rarely take into account technology advancement. But, further only about 10% of the earth is inhabited by humans. More people, is not bad for economic growth, in fact it's good. Finally, in order to support your favored welfare or social insurance programs you need young people to tax, so we don't run into problems like we are with the baby boomers.

Forced ultrasound = state-sanctioned rape

Comments

Categories