FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: DiscoBerry on February 17, 2012, 02:02:43 pm
-
This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.
What’s more, a provision of the law that has received almost no media attention would ensure that a certification by the doctor that the patient either did or didn’t “avail herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat will go into the woman’s medical record. Whether she wants it there or not. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters in Richmond.
So the problem is not just that the woman and her physician (the core relationship protected in Roe) no longer matter at all in deciding whether an abortion is proper. It is that the physician is being commandeered by the state to perform a medically unnecessary procedure upon a woman, despite clear ethical directives to the contrary. (There is no evidence at all that the ultrasound is a medical necessity, and nobody attempted to defend it on those grounds.) As an editorial in the Virginian-Pilot put it recently, “Under any other circumstances, forcing an unwilling person to submit to a vaginal probing would be a violation beyond imagining. Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html)
-
Every time I think the legislative branch can sink no further.
-
This is absolute insanity. It's like the politicians think that women just go "Oh! Whelp! Preggers again! Time to get my monthly abortion!"
Do they honestly think that ANY woman out there takes this procedure so non-chalantly? Now, before it can be done, the woman will have to see the ultrasound and go thru a waiting period to go through with her abortion. It's like they are trying to guilt them into keeping the baby.
I swear...it's just so rage inducing...I'm curious how many of the votes for this bill were cast by women and how many against were cast by women. I think those statistics would be rather telling, but I'm making a guess at that.
-
It's like they are trying to guilt them into keeping the baby.
Yes.
And if that doesn't work, maybe they can entangle her in red tape.
Either way, they can spin it to make it look like they were right all along.
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975)
-
No way in hell this is legal. This is basically state-sanctioned rape.
-
http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-requires-women-to-name-baby-paint-nursery,14393/
Linked to an awesome Onion page.
-
It's like they are trying to guilt them into keeping the baby.
What do you mean "like"? That's literally what this is. Guh. Sorry to take it out on you but this is rage-inducing.
-
Just in case you were thinking how invasive could it really be:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad220/mrtraffic97/tumblr_lzk5kqbd741ql6jblo1_400.jpg)
-
"Stop government mandates! Freedom! Small government!" screamed one side of the Republican's mouth. "Mandate reproductive rights. End women's freedom over their bodies. Have the government intrude into each and every vagina," whispered the other.
-
Raaaaaage!
-
I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.
I am quite certain that it is quite true under the current FBI definition at least.
So, at what point does a fetus actually start to look like a baby, anyway?
-
That looks extremely uncomfortable.
So, at what point does a fetus actually start to look like a baby, anyway?
Basically, the third trimester.
-
Invasive and uncomfortable yes. Rape, no.
That being said perhaps the thought escaped some of the state legislators that women might now just wait longer to have an abortion and avoid this procedure.
-
That looks extremely uncomfortable.
That's the idea. The more uncomfortable, invasive, expensive and hideously complex getting an abortion is, the more women--especially women on fixed incomes or with very low incomes--will be bluffed away. If abortion remains technically legal but becomes all but impossible to get, there may never be a NEED to repeal Roe v. Wade, which they've found problematic for decades. No one will be able or willing to get one--unless of course they're loaded or come from a family that is, in which case, Darling Daughter takes a trip abroad and comes back a little lighter, just like in the old days.
-
I've had one of those ultrasounds before and let me tell you, it is fucking uncomfortable. And that was for nothing more than seeing that my IUD was in the right place after the procedure was done--nothing so emotionally manipulative on the line as making me look at a grey blurry blob on a screen or hear a faint heartbeat to guilt me into keeping a pregnancy I neither planned nor wanted.
Fuck Virginia.
-
Fuck Virginia.
:-\ Its really a good state. The temperature is nice, there's a fair amount of scenario and history if you interested, the beaches in summer are amazing. Our representatives are just assholes.
-
Invasive and uncomfortable yes. Rape, no.
OF COURSE YOU DON'T THINK IT'S RAPE! OF COURSE!
Ironbite-how typical.
-
I kind of want to see how he can possibly claim it's not rape without saying something that sounds eerily similar to a rape apologist argument.
-
It's not rape because it is a medical procedure that is agreed to by the women. Yes, by this new law she must have one before she can have an abortion. It's stupid and pointless, but she still has to agree to the procedure.
-
Congrats....you're now a rape apologist.
Ironbite-congrats.
-
It's not rape because it is a medical procedure that is agreed to by the women. Yes, by this new law she much have one before she can have an abortion. It's stupid and pointless, but she still has to agree to the procedure.
"Either let me put this device in your vagina or you will be withheld medical treatment" sounds a hell of a lot like rape to me. Sure, she can decline, but I see very little difference between that and any other sort of threat. About the only difference I can think of is that the penetration isn't designed for the sexual or egoistic needs of the individual; it's just to punish the woman for having sex.
-
It's not rape because it is a medical procedure that is agreed to by the women. Yes, by this new law she much have one before she can have an abortion. It's stupid and pointless, but she still has to agree to the procedure.
This is what you might call "coercion."
-
Congrats....you're now a rape apologist.
Ironbite-congrats.
Coming from you that means absolutely nothing.
-
It's not rape because it is a medical procedure that is agreed to by the women. Yes, by this new law she much have one before she can have an abortion. It's stupid and pointless, but she still has to agree to the procedure.
This is what you might call "coercion."
That might be true if the doctors were the ones making that decision. They are not. They will be following that law. They will not have an option to just preform the abortion.
Plus I might think that actual victims of rape might disagree that having this procedure done is rape. Hell, lets just call routine pap-smears rape as well. I hear those are uncomfortable.
-
Congrats....you're now a rape apologist.
Ironbite-congrats.
Coming from you that means absolutely nothing.
After recent events, everything coming from you means absolutely nothing.
-
I think the point they're trying to make to you is that they can use this to withhold treatment if you don't let them shove something you don't want in your vagina into you. That's a weeeeeeee bit different than a pap smear.
-
Invasive and uncomfortable yes. Rape, no.
That being said perhaps the thought escaped some of the state legislators that women might now just wait longer to have an abortion and avoid this procedure.
It's coercive, forcible penetration with an object. Don't they call that 'object rape'?
-
Congrats....you're now a rape apologist.
Ironbite-congrats.
Coming from you that means absolutely nothing.
I don't get it, did Ironbite say anything that would make his view on rape invalid?
-
Speaking as an "actual" sexual assault survivor (not rape, but still a high traumatic experience; I would rather not go into the details), I would not be offended if someone referred to this as medical sexual assault. Granted, I only represent a single data point, but this kind of ranking of sexual assault really pisses me off. All unwanted touching, groping and penetration is traumatic, and how badly a person reacts doesn't work on a linear scale -- it's belittling to say, "Oh, what would REAL victims of rape/sexual assault/whatever think about this!?"
The coercion is at the hands of the government. The fact that the doctor is merely following the law does not alter the fact that this has the potential to traumatize countless women. This is medical assault, period.
And comparing this to a pap smear is ignorant as hell. It's not the discomfort that's the issue -- many medical procedures range from unpleasant to downright excruciation. It's the fact that women are being coerced into an invasive, uncomfortable procedure that's the real problem here. Last I checked, there aren't any laws forcing women to get pap smears.
-
Speaking as an "actual" sexual assault survivor (not rape, but still a high traumatic experience; I would rather not go into the details), I would not be offended if someone referred to this as medical sexual assault. Granted, I only represent a single data point, but this kind of ranking of sexual assault really pisses me off. All unwanted touching, groping and penetration is traumatic, and how badly a person reacts doesn't work on a linear scale -- it's belittling to say, "Oh, what would REAL victims of rape/sexual assault/whatever think about this!?"
The coercion is at the hands of the government. The fact that the doctor is merely following the law does not alter the fact that this has the potential to traumatize countless women. This is medical assault, period.
Not only is it unwanted, it's unnecessary.
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975)
(http://www.quiterly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/152.jpg)
-
Fuck Virginia.
:-\ Its really a good state. The temperature is nice, there's a fair amount of scenario and history if you interested, the beaches in summer are amazing. Our representatives are just assholes.
Unfortunately, representatives can be real deal-killers.
-
Congrats....you're now a rape apologist.
Ironbite-congrats.
Or he could be correct, under Virginia law....
"If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person. . . he or she shall be guilty of rape."
That is the entirety of rape under VA law. Note the phrase "sexual intercourse"? That is used twice in the statute?
"Sexual intercourse" is not defined in VA law. Which would lead a jurist to common definition.
From Ballentine's Legal Dictionary: "1. The actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman, and an actual penetration into the body of the latter."
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "1: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis"
Since an ultrasound does not involve either definition of "sexual intercourse," the ultrasound cannot fit the legal definition of "rape" in VA law.
There is another VA statute, which could be referenced here...
"An accused shall be guilty of inanimate or animate object sexual penetration if he or she penetrates the labia majora or anus of a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, other than for a bona fide medical purpose, or causes such complaining witness to so penetrate his or her own body with an object or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in such acts with any other person or to penetrate, or to be penetrated by, an animal, and
1. The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age, or
2. The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person, or through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness."
An argument could be made that the law in question would violate this law, since there is no "bona fide medical purpose." However, that would create a legal catch-22, as a doctor would be forced to violate either the statute being discussed in this thread, or the statute I just quoted. As such, I cannot see the Commonwealth actually getting convictions in such a circumstance. (It would be an interesting legal challenge to the force-ultrasound law, though...) Also, there is no "force, threat or intimidation of" the woman.
Finally, there is a third possible criminal charge...
"An accused is guilty of sexual battery if he sexually abuses. . . the complaining witness against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse,..."
Well, no "force, threat, intimidation, or ruse" in play here. The "complaining witness" willingly went to the medical facility (no force, threat, or intimidation) and was told she would have to undergo this procedure (no ruse).
-
No I'm going to go with my assesment that Nickerson's scum.
Ironbite-much better that way.
-
No I'm going to go with my assesment that Nickerson's scum.
Ironbite-much better that way.
You can consider him scum if you want. I don't know all the comments he's made that led to that decision (though I know this discussion has come up before). You can even think of the forced-ultrasound as a kind of rape (personally, I tend to agree with you). But in this case, he is legally correct.
-
Legally correct he might be...I don't give a fuck.
Ironbite-he's scum and I'm tired of his shit.
-
Legal things
I don't think people are relying on legal definitions of rape or coercion when statements of the sort are made, but rather the ethical problem of behaviors that certainly resemble, if not precisely meet the definition of, the comparisons.
-
I'm with ironbite - I almost forgot ol nicky existed until he came in here and shat all over the thread.
Oh, and VA's legal system might not technically make this rape - but over 40 states legally say that gay love doesn't amount to shit, so you'll excuse me if I don't take the law's word with the same weight as, say, Newton's Laws.
-
Yeah, I'm not overly concerned with the legal definition. It's the pap smear and "actual" victims of rape comments that I take issue with.
As a side note, I'm hoping that someone will sue and get this overturned as unconstitutional. As far as I know, there's some legal precedent for barring laws which interfere with a patient's right to refuse invasive medical procedures, provided that they're competent -- that, along with the gross violation of women's sexual rights, could work in favour of getting this law off the books.
-
Laws do not always make morals. I'm not concerned with the legal definition either.
Invasive medical procedures are under the right to refuse for patients especially when it's not medically necessary (this is defined as being something to see a tumor or making sure everything is working right). I am also concerned about things being put into a permanent record like we were threatened with in school.
As someone who has been asked constantly by their doctor if I'd like something omitted from my record, I find it disturbing that if I were to live in Virginia, have this law forced on me, I'd have that added to my chart. There is no medical reason for that at all! It's like having my favorite color placed in my medical record. It is not medically relevant to my knowledge. All putting the information that I was forced to have a vaginal ultrasound is that I had one. This isn't shot records or a scan of my head, people. It's unnecessary info in my med chart. It may be more info but it's not needed.
-
Invasive and costly for poor women? Anti-choicer's dream come true! It must be their birthday.
-
Legally correct he might be...I don't give a fuck.
Ironbite-he's scum and I'm tired of his shit.
...meet in the Angry Multiverse everyone?
I'd start the thread there myself but I feel it's not my place to do so. I also feel that this is the wrong place to be hurling personal insults.
-
Yes, everyone can call it rape if they want to. Just like the pro-life side calls abortion murder. They're in the same vein. You know the one where people use words loosely so to make the other side as horrible as possible. I know it's not possible at all for anyone to express how much they think this law is wrong without calling it rape, so you all have fun with that.
-
Finally, there is a third possible criminal charge...
"An accused is guilty of sexual battery if he sexually abuses. . . the complaining witness against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse,..."
Well, no "force, threat, intimidation, or ruse" in play here. The "complaining witness" willingly went to the medical facility (no force, threat, or intimidation) and was told she would have to undergo this procedure (no ruse).
At least in my opinion, "Get this unnecessary and invasive medical procedure (ruse) done at your own expense OR we'll deny you legal medical care (threat) and force you to bear the physical, mental, and financial cost of gestating an unwanted child (threat)." could certainly be seen as coercive or threatening in nature.
-
I too thought calling this rape was a stretch. I'm not saying it isn't terrible what they're doing, but rape? And anyone who agrees is a rape apologist? Give me a break. Isn't it enough that we all agree it's unnecessary and should be done away with? Do you have to agree it's rape to not be scum?
-
Come to think of it, how is this even constitutional? Freedom of association and all that...
-
There is no evidence at all that the ultrasound is a medical necessity, and nobody attempted to defend it on those grounds.
It is undefendable on those grounds, because we don't legislate what constitutes best practice; medical science moving on as fast as it does, and legislature as slow as it does, it would force doctors to use outdated means. However, according to my about-8-years-out-of-date knowledge, it is best practice; the idea that TVUS is not the norm for women undergoing an abortion in the US strikes me as irresponsible.
The main thing about the procedure is objectively measuring how far along the pregnancy is. Since menstruation is not an exact predictor of ovulation, and vaginal bleeding can occur in pregnancy and be mistaken for menstruation, making sure to recommend the optimal method (and not use ones not proven safe) would seem important to me. It is also the way to find out about anatomical anomalities that might be worth knowing for curettage.
That being said, it is clearly a dickish law, not intended for protecting women from quacks. And even if it was intended as benevolent, it would go about it wrong, since you don't legislate best practice. However, for its effect right now, it's like having a law that you can't have back surgery without having your spine imaged first.
-
There is no evidence at all that the ultrasound is a medical necessity, and nobody attempted to defend it on those grounds.
It is undefendable on those grounds, because we don't legislate what constitutes best practice; medical science moving on as fast as it does, and legislature as slow as it does, it would force doctors to use outdated means. However, according to my about-8-years-out-of-date knowledge, it is best practice; the idea that TVUS is not the norm for women undergoing an abortion in the US strikes me as irresponsible.
The main thing about the procedure is objectively measuring how far along the pregnancy is. Since menstruation is not an exact predictor of ovulation, and vaginal bleeding can occur in pregnancy and be mistaken for menstruation, making sure to recommend the optimal method (and not use ones not proven safe) would seem important to me. It is also the way to find out about anatomical anomalities that might be worth knowing for curettage.
That being said, it is clearly a dickish law, not intended for protecting women from quacks. And even if it was intended as benevolent, it would go about it wrong, since you don't legislate best practice. However, for its effect right now, it's like having a law that you can't have back surgery without having your spine imaged first.
Abortion done by a licensed doctor is one of the safest medical procedures a woman can get. It is nowhere near the severity of back surgery. This law is just a means to make it embarrassing and difficult for lower-class women to get abortions.
-
...it's like having a law that you can't have back surgery without having your spine imaged first.
Abortion done by a licensed doctor is one of the safest medical procedures a woman can get. It is nowhere near the severity of back surgery.
It's safe because it's performed according to best practice, which in my memory includes TVUS.
Granted, back surgery was an overly dramatic metaphor. Going for under-dramatic ones, it's like a law that you can't prescribe antibiotics for a sinus infection without doing a sinus ultrasound. Both are equally enforcing something that should be highly encouraged.
This law is just a means to make it embarrassing and difficult for lower-class women to get abortions.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is the lawmaker's intent, and I think I stated so in my post. I just don't think making it mandatory will change anything, since TVUS is a valid, recommendable medical procedure in the situation and is probably performed on 95% of the women already.
-
Granted, back surgery was an overly dramatic metaphor. Going for under-dramatic ones, it's like a law that you can't prescribe antibiotics for a sinus infection without doing a sinus ultrasound. Both are equally enforcing something that should be highly encouraged.
It'd be a more apt metaphor if people were arguing for the rights of the contents of your sinuses to have precedent over your rights as the owner of said sinuses, and if there were no medically rational reason to do a sinus ultrasound in the first place.
-
I too thought calling this rape was a stretch. I'm not saying it isn't terrible what they're doing, but rape? And anyone who agrees is a rape apologist? Give me a break. Isn't it enough that we all agree it's unnecessary and should be done away with? Do you have to agree it's rape to not be scum?
It is rape. It's coerced penetration of the vagina. It's rape. I don't know what you want me to do about it, I can't make it not rape. You know who can make Nickerson look like less of an asshole? Nickerson. I'm not covering for him, I don't particularly like the guy either. But I do like you, so I'm going to do you a favor & eplain something: "We still think it's wrong" is a cute sentiment, but what happens when you get an activist group who claims it's rape? How do you handle their concerns? Do you tell them they're full of shit because of one or more legal loopholes? Or do you concede that it's institutionalized rape by coercion? You're not going to be able to remain neutral, they're going to feel like you're making an extremely important concern into something much less important. You will be their enemy, their arguments will be made to prove you wrong. If you can't handle it here, on an internet forum, with me, who does not feel like he's been raped, then I'd hate to see how your position holds up in the real world.
Yes, everyone can call it rape if they want to. Just like the pro-life side calls abortion murder. They're in the same vein. You know the one where people use words loosely so to make the other side as horrible as possible. I know it's not possible at all for anyone to express how much they think this law is wrong without calling it rape, so you all have fun with that.
Of course you can think the law is incorrect without being rape. That doesn't make you right. It also doesn't make your analogy to abortion accurate, because there is a lot more to that issue that makes it much different to walking up & shooting a guy. You have issues with rights to bodily autonomy, the difference between a fully formed human & a bunch of cells, & Roe vs. Wade, just to name a few. But if you want to get mad, & claim persecution when people are offended by your illogical arguments & lack of tact, be my guest. All it will mean for me is that I need to go make some Pop-Corn.
Or he could be correct, under Virginia law....
This is a stupid argument. This is effectively saying that it can't be rape if it's legal. So say, for the sake of the argument, Congress somehow & for some reason legalized using rufelin to drug someone into unconsciousness & have sex with them. According to this line of reasoning, you have no right to question the law as state-sanctioned rape, because it's legal. Hey, look at the shape that argument makes! It's a circle!
People have long been arguing that the definition of rape is invalid. Do you consider man-on-man penetration to be rape? Because that's a fairly recent change to the legal definition.
With your last thing, I have to wonder if VA also does not recognize getting someone drunk, or having sex with someone who's underaged as some form of sexual assault. Because if they do, then that means you don't have to be using overt violence to be convicted.
That might be true if the doctors were the ones making that decision. They are not. They will be following that law. They will not have an option to just preform the abortion.
Plus I might think that actual victims of rape might disagree that having this procedure done is rape. Hell, lets just call routine pap-smears rape as well. I hear those are uncomfortable.
First of all, I never said the doctors were the guilty party, so don't get smart with me when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Secondly, you just made the "few minutes of discomfort" argument with no sense of irony. Yeah, it's not like this is the same argument used by people claiming "rape is just sex," or anything.
All I said was that it was unlikely you could make an argument that this isn't rape without using rape apology arguments. For the backlash you're getting from not only proving it, but by coming across as a belittling asshole to anyone who doesn't fit your definition of "actual rape," that's on you.
-
Hey... can we potentially arrest the Virginia state legislature for accessory to rape?
-
First of all, I never said the doctors were the guilty party, so don't get smart with me when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Secondly, you just made the "few minutes of discomfort" argument with no sense of irony. Yeah, it's not like this is the same argument used by people claiming "rape is just sex," or anything.
All I said was that it was unlikely you could make an argument that this isn't rape without using rape apology arguments. For the backlash you're getting from not only proving it, but by coming across as a belittling asshole to anyone who doesn't fit your definition of "actual rape," that's on you.
So it's rape, but the doctors will not be guilty. How does that work?
If you bothered to notice my saying we should also call pap-smears rape was ridiculous, which was the point. It stupid that same way calling a mandatory sonogram rape. It is nothing more that verbal posturing.
As far as any activist group or groups that want to call this rape, I think they are off base as well. If and activist group or anyone here wants to pull that "you agree with us or you are against us" so be it.
-
So it's rape, but the doctors will not be guilty. How does that work?
It's not that difficult a concept if you're not a second grader. The guilty party is the party doing the coercion. If I put gasoline over a house, knowing someone in there is a smoker, they aren't guilty of arson/murder/what have you because they ignited the fire. I made it happen, they were an unwitting & unwilling tool.
If you bothered to notice my saying we should also call pap-smears rape was ridiculous, which was the point.
...What?
No, seriously, what the Hell? Do you think I am unable to tell when you're saying something stupid intentionally, to make some kind of "point," & when you're doing it unintentionally? It's not like I "missed this," or anything, it's what I was talking about when I said you made the "few minutes of discomfort" argument.
Because what makes it rape has nothing to do with it being uncomfortable, lots of things are uncomfortable. Just like not all forms of vaginal penetration are rape. Neither facet of this procedure makes it rape, it's the coercion aspect, COMBINED with the vaginal penetration aspect, that does.
Seriously, Nicky, listen to the Soup: "Those who can't approach a discussion with a basic level of intelligence & maturity shouldn't expect to be taken seriously."
It stupid that same way calling a mandatory sonogram rape. It is nothing more that verbal posturing.
No it's not. It was just stupid by its own merits. It's like saying getting a girl drunk & having sex with her isn't rape because she consented to drink with you, & then she consented to sex. At no point did you "force her" to do anything. But obviously, that defense doesn't work.
-
It's not that difficult a concept if you're not a second grader. The guilty party is the party doing the coercion. If I put gasoline over a house, knowing someone in there is a smoker, they aren't guilty of arson/murder/what have you because they ignited the fire. I made it happen, they were an unwitting & unwilling tool.
Pouring the gas would not be coercion. Your not talking the person into lighting the cigarette. Yes, pouring the gas would still be murder, but not by coercion.
...What?
No, seriously, what the Hell? Do you think I am unable to tell when you're saying something stupid intentionally, to make some kind of "point," & when you're doing it unintentionally? It's not like I "missed this," or anything, it's what I was talking about when I said you made the "few minutes of discomfort" argument.
Because what makes it rape has nothing to do with it being uncomfortable, lots of things are uncomfortable. Just like not all forms of vaginal penetration are rape. Neither facet of this procedure makes it rape, it's the coercion aspect, COMBINED with the vaginal penetration aspect, that does.
There is a bit more then just discomfort to pap-smears. They are also a medical procedure. They are also required before some other types of treatments can be administers. Not to mention they are done only by consent.
Seriously, Nicky, listen to the Soup: "Those who can't approach a discussion with a basic level of intelligence & maturity shouldn't expect to be taken seriously."
Perhaps you and others should take that advice.
No it's not. It was just stupid by its own merits. It's like saying getting a girl drunk & having sex with her isn't rape because she consented to drink with you, & then she consented to sex. At no point did you "force her" to do anything. But obviously, that defense doesn't work.
...well it might be like that except for that whole part about getting drunk. Impaired people really can't give consent. Plus a women would have to consent to both the ultrasound and the abortion.
-
*Content cut to save post space*
(http://i.imgur.com/Vb4g4.gif)
There is a bit more then just discomfort to pap-smears. They are also a medical procedure. They are also required before some other types of treatments can be administers. Not to mention they are done only by consent.
(http://i.imgur.com/xC4oD.gif)
No seriously, this has nothing to do with the argument.
Anyway...
The state of Virginia is saying it wants to humiliate and brow-beat women into having their baby by forcing them to have a useless vaginally-invasive procedure against their will. That basically fits the textbook definition of rape, as the crime can be carried out with a non-penile instrument and it still qualifies.
-
Hey, I have an idea, let's replace "ultrasound" with "the doctor's penis," since that's clearly what you're having difficulty with.
Well, golly, I don't see why it's rape if she's expected to let the doctor stick his penis in her vagina. I mean, she could just opt not to have the abortion. No one's FORCING her to have a penis in her vagina. It's not rape, I'm sorry, but you guys are just overreacting to call it rape. She CONSENTED to have this penis in her vagina, just like she CONSENTED to have an abortion. The fact that having the doctor stick his penis in her vagina isn't necessary for the abortion to be successful, but she still has to do it in order to get her medical treatment, that doesn't make it rape. Why are you guys being so MEAN to me, & calling me a rape apologist? All I'm saying is that being told you have to let a man stick his penis in your vagina in order to have an abortion isn't rape.
And if you say it is, well, you're just being unreasonable. And persecuting me for my beliefs!
Yeah, I'm with Ironbite on this one. I haven't the patience for this horseshit.
-
The state of Virginia is saying it wants to humiliate and brow-beat women into having their baby by forcing them to have a useless vaginally-invasive procedure against their will. That basically fits the textbook definition of rape, as the crime can be carried out with a non-penile instrument and it still qualifies.
Really what definition is that, lets have it.
-
Hey, I have an idea, let's replace "ultrasound" with "the doctor's penis," since that's clearly what you're having difficulty with.
Well, golly, I don't see why it's rape if she's expected to let the doctor stick his penis in her vagina. I mean, she could just opt not to have the abortion. No one's FORCING her to have a penis in her vagina. It's not rape, I'm sorry, but you guys are just overreacting to call it rape. She CONSENTED to have this penis in her vagina, just like she CONSENTED to have an abortion. The fact that having the doctor stick his penis in her vagina isn't necessary for the abortion to be successful, but she still has to do it in order to get her medical treatment, that doesn't make it rape. Why are you guys being so MEAN to me, & calling me a rape apologist? All I'm saying is that being told you have to let a man stick his penis in your vagina in order to have an abortion isn't rape.
And if you say it is, well, you're just being unreasonable. And persecuting me for my beliefs!
Yeah, I'm with Ironbite on this one. I haven't the patience for this horseshit.
No lets not replace "ultrasound" with "the doctor's penis", because that is not my issue. Nor I'm I whining about being persecuted or being called a rape apologist. It was a nice try.
What if a doctor required an ultra sound before they preformed an abortion. What if they though it was for the best to make sure their were no other problems, would that be rape? No, I don't think so. What if the ultra sounds could be done without entering the vagina? Doubt you will call that rape. Oh, I get it must be that we can call rape just because it involves a doctor or nurse inserting a probe into the vagina...after a women consents to the procedure.
Well that would mean who ever did it would be rapist. How could they not be? A rapist is simply a person that commits rape.
-
Oh, I get it must be that we can call rape just because it involves a doctor or nurse inserting a probe into the vagina...after a women consents to the procedure.
No, you don't "get it." We're not calling it rape because it involves a vaginal probe, nor because it's uncomfortable, nor for any other stupid bloody misrepresentation you've concocted. The procedure itself is not rape, but you cannot shove a bloody goddamn sonic dildo up someone's fucking snatch whenever it strikes your fancy!
-
Oh, I get it must be that we can call rape just because it involves a doctor or nurse inserting a probe into the vagina...after a women consents to the procedure.
No, you don't "get it." We're not calling it rape because it involves a vaginal probe, nor because it's uncomfortable, nor for any other stupid bloody misrepresentation you've concocted. The procedure itself is not rape, but you cannot shove a bloody goddamn sonic dildo up someone's fucking snatch whenever it strikes your fancy!
Consenting to abortion =/= consenting to a medically invasive and unnecessary procedure.
-
The state of Virginia is saying it wants to humiliate and brow-beat women into having their baby by forcing them to have a useless vaginally-invasive procedure against their will. That basically fits the textbook definition of rape, as the crime can be carried out with a non-penile instrument and it still qualifies.
Really what definition is that, lets have it.
You don't know what rape is?
That's truly unfortunate since you're the one sitting here arguing that this can't possibly qualify.
Well, the burden of proof is technically on you, but if I thought for a second you'd actually do research instead of sitting here shitting on the thread... LOL. That's simply not going to happen. We've said multiple times that rape is forced penetration either against the person's will or under duress. That's exactly what it is, and that's exactly what this is. Women will "consent" to this in the same way that someone will "consent" to sex with someone pointing a gun at a child.
Also, note how nobody is agreeing with you? You might want to think about that for a second.
-
You know he's going to cry ad populum. Why did you do that?
-
Only person who is agreeing with him is the law student because legally...he is correct. Morally on the other hand he's so far wrong he's gone around the bend 5 times and ended up in Kansas somehow.
Ironbite-which really is what we're objecting to this law on...moral grounds.
-
Ironbite-which really is what we're objecting to this law on...moral grounds.
Whoa, there. Speak for yourself. By definition, anything that is legal is not legally a crime. That would make no sense. But I'm objecting on the grounds that the law can pretend this isn't rape, but it's still logically rape.
-
Ironbite-which really is what we're objecting to this law on...moral grounds.
Whoa, there. Speak for yourself. By definition, anything that is legal is not legally a crime. That would make no sense. But I'm objecting on the grounds that the law can pretend this isn't rape, but it's still logically rape.
I think that's what he meant to say, actually. :)
You know he's going to cry ad populum. Why did you do that?
Now that we've called him on it preemptively... I doubt it. If he does anyway, I'm sorry.
-
So, we're all in agreement then? Richmond should be destroyed by orbital bombardment.
-
If he does anyway, I'm sorry.
You should be. Though he does seem to want to do the opposite of whatever we say.
-
So, we're all in agreement then? Richmond should be destroyed by orbital bombardment.
Nah, that'd cost far too much money and cause too much collateral damage. A quick, surgical strike with a well-armed, well-trained black ops team is a far better, far quieter solution.
-
So, we're all in agreement then? Richmond should be destroyed by orbital bombardment.
Let's see, first slavery, then the Civil War (Richmond was the capital), denial of gay rights, mandatory medical rape...
Yeah, it's time to take off and nuke the site from orbit.
-
My kingdom for a Falken....that TLS could do some real wonders...and make my Falken black and gold...
-
Actually, a more humiliating fate would be to send in the SWAT teams to arrest the legislators on charges of accessory to rape and conspiracy to commit rape.
-
Someone mentioned sending in a black ops team. I'm down with that. But only if we get to perform the take-downs of the people who thought this up by sticking salty lime exploding sounding rods laced in the juices of the Trinidad Scorpion Butch T up their weiners.
-
Alternatively, we could just pay Garrett to go in and rob the bastards blind. The man's stolen from a god, I'm sure he can manage to nick the shit of a few petty politicians.
-
(http://lounge.moviecodec.com/images/attachment/httpwwwfreewebscommmxcaliburauronjpg-2753.jpg)
For all my FFX Bitching, I think this guy could really say a few words on the matter. Yuna was a fucking idiot on several occasions, but Auron always, always respected her decisions and did everything he could to protect her.
That, and he could carve up the VA Senate with his fucking "katana". :)
-
Yeah, but the cleaning bill would be a bitch.
Send her in:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6-L0O-npjrU/TvOxIjqis3I/AAAAAAAALxM/3tfvcM8Z-ew/s1600/Buffy.jpg)
-
Yeah, but the cleaning bill would be a bitch.
Send her in:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6-L0O-npjrU/TvOxIjqis3I/AAAAAAAALxM/3tfvcM8Z-ew/s1600/Buffy.jpg)
Well, they probably define as vampires of some sort...
-
Yuna was a fucking idiot on several occasions
Only time I can think of was killing Yunalesca, & no one really thought that out BUT Auron. Actually, it's never mentioned outright, but if you think about it, most of the events of the game were pre-planned by Auron & Jecht.
-
FYI, a good chunk of the legislature realized it was a bad idea. Including the men. (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/some-sanity-in-virginia/msg16821/#msg16821)
-
Yuna was a fucking idiot on several occasions
Only time I can think of was killing Yunalesca, & no one really thought that out BUT Auron.
Apologizing for being kidnapped, anyone?
-
Let's not forget "not telling anyone about her marriage gambit to get Seymour alone... in an attempt to get him to turn himself in to Yevon." No thought to the idea that he wouldn't want to turn himself in, no thought to having her bodyguards... nothing.
-
Can we split this off into a "Final Fantasy Crap" thread so we can get back to the original topic?
-
It's like 3 posts & the original topic is Nickerson being a derp, calm down.
Let's not forget "not telling anyone about her marriage gambit to get Seymour alone... in an attempt to get him to turn himself in to Yevon." No thought to the idea that he wouldn't want to turn himself in, no thought to having her bodyguards... nothing.
Oh, right, I forgot she found out Seymour was a murderer BEFORE that. Yeah, that is pretty dumb.
I don't remember how she got kidnapped, but I THINK it was from right under the party's nose.
-
No need. I think we're done. If someone wants to make a thread on it, they can.
As for the thread...
FYI, a good chunk of the legislature realized it was a bad idea. Including the men. (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/some-sanity-in-virginia/msg16821/#msg16821)
Well at least there's that.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/xC4oD.gif)
Fuck. Yeah.
-
It'd be a more apt metaphor if [...] there were no medically rational reason to do a sinus ultrasound in the first place.
My point was that there is a medically rational reason to do the ultrasound: objectively measuring gestational age. However, this morning I had the time to find some actual sources other than my memory.
Here in Finland ultrasonography is part of best practice and should be given to every woman about to have an abortion like I recalled, although obviously there is no need for the patient to see the image [guidelines in Finnish] (http://www.kaypahoito.fi/web/kh/suositukset/naytaartikkeli/tunnus/hoi27050). However, WHO (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241590343.pdf) and The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web_1.pdf) do not think it is always necessary in early abortions (unless the womb size in pelvic examination and menstrual dating disagree, or some other common indications including provider uncertainty (http://www.arhp.org/uploadDocs/RH10_PRE_Abortion.pdf)), and WHO outright states that mandatory US is a barrier.
That being said, it is a standard medical examination and not the huge thing people here make it out to be. I would hope that every woman undergoing an abortion in the US is at least given a bimanual pelvic examination in accordance with WHO guidelines, so they are already pantless and being prodded. Every site should have the device at hand and the staff trained in its use for the common indications (pregnancy-related and otherwise), so it shouldn't be a huge financial burden. I'd hardly say that every woman undergoing an abortion in Finland gets raped. It is even a standard in US medical abortion trials [source] (http://www.arhp.org/uploadDocs/RH10_PRE_Abortion.pdf). So I really don't see the law (and it is a bad law written with horrible intentions) currently having a large impact; I'm mainly worried that as technology progresses and we may eventually develop means beyond ultrasound, the legislation will still mandate the use of an outdated study.
-
No, you don't "get it." We're not calling it rape because it involves a vaginal probe, nor because it's uncomfortable, nor for any other stupid bloody misrepresentation you've concocted. The procedure itself is not rape, but you cannot shove a bloody goddamn sonic dildo up someone's fucking snatch whenever it strikes your fancy!
So what is it rape or not? You can't say the procedure is not rape but then spout off about a "sonic dildo".
-
Oh, I get it must be that we can call rape just because it involves a doctor or nurse inserting a probe into the vagina...after a women consents to the procedure.
No, you don't "get it." We're not calling it rape because it involves a vaginal probe, nor because it's uncomfortable, nor for any other stupid bloody misrepresentation you've concocted. The procedure itself is not rape, but you cannot shove a bloody goddamn sonic dildo up someone's fucking snatch whenever it strikes your fancy!
Consenting to abortion =/= consenting to a medically invasive and unnecessary procedure.
Your right, you would have to consent to the the ultrasound separately. I think I said that once before.
-
You don't know what rape is?
That's truly unfortunate since you're the one sitting here arguing that this can't possibly qualify.
Well, the burden of proof is technically on you, but if I thought for a second you'd actually do research instead of sitting here shitting on the thread... LOL. That's simply not going to happen. We've said multiple times that rape is forced penetration either against the person's will or under duress. That's exactly what it is, and that's exactly what this is. Women will "consent" to this in the same way that someone will "consent" to sex with someone pointing a gun at a child.
Also, note how nobody is agreeing with you? You might want to think about that for a second.
rape
1.
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.
3.
statutory rape.
Okay, now tell me how a medical procedure is the same as intercourse again? Even in sexual assault there is always a sexual component. An ultra-sound is not sexual.
-
Only person who is agreeing with him is the law student because legally...he is correct. Morally on the other hand he's so far wrong he's gone around the bend 5 times and ended up in Kansas somehow.
Ironbite-which really is what we're objecting to this law on...moral grounds.
Good object to the law on moral grounds. I do as well. It is unnecessary and is putting more stress on someone who is already going through a very difficult decision. Someone the pro-life side things that by seeing some grainy image of what looks like a grain of rice will make Baby Jesus' love flow into them and they will decide not to have an abortion.
You can state that a law such as this is immoral without calling it rape.
-
By the FBI's definition, it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Definitions)
The 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.
See, we have 1) penetration of the vagina, 2) with an object, 3) without consent.
If we go by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda definition (which is used by some foreign countries), it's even more obvious.
a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive
Consent under duress is not consent. Consent under duress is coercion. A violation of your vagina with an object under duress is rape.
-
So what is it rape or not? You can't say the procedure is not rape but then spout off about a "sonic dildo".
Is it just me, or does that phrase also lead any of you to think of Doctor Who porn? ;)
-
So what is it rape or not? You can't say the procedure is not rape but then spout off about a "sonic dildo".
Is it just me, or does that phrase also lead any of you to think of Doctor Who porn? ;)
I could have sworn I saw a sonic screwdriver dildo before...
-
By the FBI's definition, it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Definitions)
The 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.
See, we have 1) penetration of the vagina, 2) with an object, 3) without consent.
If we go by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda definition (which is used by some foreign countries), it's even more obvious.
a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive
Consent under duress is not consent. Consent under duress is coercion. A violation of your vagina with an object under duress is rape.
Good call, Smurfette :)
-
nickerson, asshole, It's called the "Insert Quote" button (scroll down!). You don't have to post three times in a row. Fuck's sake.
By the FBI's definition, it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Definitions)
The 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.
See, we have 1) penetration of the vagina, 2) with an object, 3) without consent.
If we go by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda definition (which is used by some foreign countries), it's even more obvious.
a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive
Consent under duress is not consent. Consent under duress is coercion. A violation of your vagina with an object under duress is rape.
At any rate, thanks Smurfette. That's pretty abundantly clear.
-
So what is it rape or not? You can't say the procedure is not rape but then spout off about a "sonic dildo".
Is it just me, or does that phrase also lead any of you to think of Doctor Who porn? ;)
I could have sworn I saw a sonic screwdriver dildo before...
... YOU DID NOT! *runs and hides them all*
-
Only person who is agreeing with him is the law student because legally...he is correct. Morally on the other hand he's so far wrong he's gone around the bend 5 times and ended up in Kansas somehow.
Ironbite-which really is what we're objecting to this law on...moral grounds.
Good object to the law on moral grounds. I do as well. It is unnecessary and is putting more stress on someone who is already going through a very difficult decision. Someone the pro-life side things that by seeing some grainy image of what looks like a grain of rice will make Baby Jesus' love flow into them and they will decide not to have an abortion.
You can state that a law such as this is immoral without calling it rape.
Except...you don't object to it. Not once. Find me a fucking post of your's that says that. Because I can't. I don't think anyone can. It's like you've decided to play Devil's Advocate and that's really fucking annoying.
Ironbite-especially when you fucking know this is bad.
-
Consent under duress is not consent. Consent under duress is coercion. A violation of your vagina with an object under duress is rape.
Unfortunately it does not fit the definition of duress, because there is no threat of force, nor black mail, nor an abuse of power by the doctor. Those come from your link.
-
Except...you don't object to it. Not once. Find me a fucking post of your's that says that. Because I can't. I don't think anyone can. It's like you've decided to play Devil's Advocate and that's really fucking annoying.
Ironbite-especially when you fucking know this is bad.
Invasive and uncomfortable yes. Rape, no.
That being said perhaps the thought escaped some of the state legislators that women might now just wait longer to have an abortion and avoid this procedure.
It's not rape because it is a medical procedure that is agreed to by the women. Yes, by this new law she must have one before she can have an abortion. It's stupid and pointless, but she still has to agree to the procedure.
...not to mention the post you replied to. The legislation is bad, but it is not rape. As I said we can disagree with the legislation without calling it rape. All you are doing to use rape as a propaganda word, just like the pro-life side says that abortion is murder.
-
Yes, it is duress. It is forcing them to do this procedure or else they can't get an abortion. And then there is the blackmail that is placed in their medical file.
It is ridiculous that you'd rather see them wait until later to get an abortion than do it earlier so there's little to no problems.
-
Yes, it is duress. It is forcing them to do this procedure or else they can't get an abortion. And then there is the blackmail that is placed in their medical file.
It is ridiculous that you'd rather see them wait until later to get an abortion than do it earlier so there's little to no problems.
No it is not, because they can always wait until they can get a external ultra-sound and then have the abortion.
Saying it is duress is like saying the a person whom consents to go through a body scanned at an airport is forced to under duress, or that a person is forced to take a drives test under duress since they have to before they can get a license.
-
Yes, it is duress. It is forcing them to do this procedure or else they can't get an abortion. And then there is the blackmail that is placed in their medical file.
It is ridiculous that you'd rather see them wait until later to get an abortion than do it earlier so there's little to no problems.
No it is not, because they can always wait until they can get a external ultra-sound and then have the abortion.
Saying it is duress is like saying the a person whom consents to go through a body scanned at an airport is forced to under duress, or that a person is forced to take a drives test under duress since they have to before they can get a license.
Yea! If you want to increase the stress for a later-term abortion! The earlier you get an abortion the safer it is. Don't you think? Besides, you're still getting that ultrasound to guilt-trip you. Thus... It is still forcing you to be stressed and felt like a monster.
Pull the other one.
-
Yea! If you want to increase the stress for a later-term abortion! The earlier you get an abortion the safer it is. Don't you think? Besides, you're still getting that ultrasound to guilt-trip you. Thus... It is still forcing you to be stressed and felt like a monster.
Pull the other one.
If you wait to long, yes. Trans-vaginal Ultrasounds are typically used before 8 weeks. Chemical abortion can be done up to 9 weeks. Of course that is still the women's choice. Should she have to make such a choice, no. That is why is it a ridiculous law.
-
Yea! If you want to increase the stress for a later-term abortion! The earlier you get an abortion the safer it is. Don't you think? Besides, you're still getting that ultrasound to guilt-trip you. Thus... It is still forcing you to be stressed and felt like a monster.
Pull the other one.
No, he does not.
Yes, it is duress. It is forcing them to do this procedure or else they can't get an abortion. And then there is the blackmail that is placed in their medical file.
It is ridiculous that you'd rather see them wait until later to get an abortion than do it earlier so there's little to no problems.
Repeated for emphasis.
-
If you wait to long, yes. Trans-vaginal Ultrasounds are typically used before 8 weeks. Chemical abortion can be done up to 9 weeks. Of course that is still the women's choice. Should she have to make such a choice, no. That is why is it a ridiculous law.
So if you can't get off work in the one week you could still have a safer abortion, you're fucked? It's duress. I wouldn't call it rape myself, if only because that would make the doctor the rapist (or at the very least an accessory) but it does feature women being blackmailed into either having a transvaginal ultrasound or waiting (at the very least) until the last possible moment to have a safe, non-intrusive abortion. Certainly unduly traumatizing, more so than the images provided likely would be.
-
Its rape by proxy really. And it's state mandated so you know it's got all kinds of connotations.
Ironbite-plus the whole slut-shaming part of the law.
-
So if you can't get off work in the one week you could still have a safer abortion, you're fucked? It's duress. I wouldn't call it rape myself, if only because that would make the doctor the rapist (or at the very least an accessory) but it does feature women being blackmailed into either having a transvaginal ultrasound or waiting (at the very least) until the last possible moment to have a safe, non-intrusive abortion. Certainly unduly traumatizing, more so than the images provided likely would be.
...and perhaps you can't get off work for many weeks and then have to have a physical abortion. Many things may happen.
As you said, you would not call it rape.
-
Its rape by proxy really. And it's state mandated so you know it's got all kinds of connotations.
Ironbite-plus the whole slut-shaming part of the law.
In more ways than one. I can see someone who agrees with the law defending it by saying something like "well, she didn't mind having something stuck up there before..."
...and perhaps you can't get off work for many weeks and then have to have a physical abortion. Many things may happen.
As you said, you would not call it rape.
And I would call it traumatic, under duress, the product of what amounts to blackmail, an unjust hindrance of fairy routine medical treatment, etc.
-
No, you would not call it rape. Because your narrow-minded views of the world have restricted you to a definition of the term stricter than the one the rest of the world follows. Honestly, between this and your blatant transsexism, I wonder if you're an RR troll. :P
As for the slut-shaming aspect of the law: Indeed, the law has no place telling a woman how often she can have sex, or with whom. People act like women who get abortions get them all the time, and don't care about it. It's a bullshit fallacy. There may be a few people like that in the world, but we need to make laws for the many, not the few.
-
Am I misunderstanding, or are people really saying you don't need some sort of ultrasound before an abortion? I understand this vaginal probe isn't necessary, but no ultrasound at all? When I was pregnant and trying to decide if I was going to abort or not, all the internet info I found was: If a doctor wants to insert anything into your uterus and doesn't do an ultrasound, run, because it's important to see what's going on inside before sticking anything in there.
-
Am I misunderstanding, or are people really saying you don't need some sort of ultrasound before an abortion? I understand this vaginal probe isn't necessary, but no ultrasound at all?
Nobody's saying that. Performing a procedure to make sure the abortion can proceed safely is fine. Performing a procedure to slut-shame her is not.
-
Am I misunderstanding, or are people really saying you don't need some sort of ultrasound before an abortion? I understand this vaginal probe isn't necessary, but no ultrasound at all? When I was pregnant and trying to decide if I was going to abort or not, all the internet info I found was: If a doctor wants to insert anything into your uterus and doesn't do an ultrasound, run, because it's important to see what's going on inside before sticking anything in there.
According to Wikipedia, the method for an abortion before 8 weeks (the period that correspond to the need for a transvaginal ultrasound) is two pills taken a set time apart. Then you have a huge period, and you're not pregnant. But that is Wikipedia and I have a penis so that might not be correct(ly understood).
-
But that method of abortion doesn't involve sticking anything through the cervix.
I got concerned because people were saying how safe abortion is, even comparing it to having your sinuses drained over back surgery. It isn't that safe.
-
>m52nickerson making five posts in a row
Oh crap, it's the return of <muffled> again.
Okay, listen, no offense nickerson, but this isn't going anywhere, so perhaps it would be wise if you bowed out of the thread? :-/ Just a suggestion, not an order.
-
Am I misunderstanding, or are people really saying you don't need some sort of ultrasound before an abortion? I understand this vaginal probe isn't necessary, but no ultrasound at all?
Nobody's saying that. Performing a procedure to make sure the abortion can proceed safely is fine. Performing a procedure to slut-shame her is not.
This.
-
But that method of abortion doesn't involve sticking anything through the cervix.
No it doesn't, but this law (as I understand it) applies to all abortions, regardless of method. You would have to get an ultrasound and "see the baby" before going to Planned Parenthood and getting your two pills.
-
As I see it, both 'sides' to this whole abortion nonsense need to stop acting like polar opposites and come to the table to compromise. Though I fear that isn't going to happen as either one or the other always has dug their heels deep into the ground.
Both 'sides' in the world's abortion nonsense are completely ignorant to the fact that neither of them will get 100% their way. This law is just posturing on the anti-abortionist's part
-
As I see it, both 'sides' to this whole abortion nonsense need to stop acting like polar opposites and come to the table to compromise. Though I fear that isn't going to happen as either one or the other always has dug their heels deep into the ground.
Both 'sides' in the world's abortion nonsense are completely ignorant to the fact that neither of them will get 100% their way.
There isn't a compromise to be had. One side says "Hey, abortion sucks but so does being raised as an unwanted child who 'ruined' your parents' life. Abortions will always happen, so they should be available safely." The other side says "Life begins the moment sperm meets egg, there is no other moral choice than 'manning up' and raising your child as best you can.*" They disagree on the basic definitions (and there isn't anything hard and fast to support either side, really) of "life" in play and the morality of the choice.
*and frequently a whole lot of sexist bullshit, but let's just go with the ideologically "pure" argument.
-
No, you would not call it rape. Because your narrow-minded views of the world have restricted you to a definition of the term stricter than the one the rest of the world follows. Honestly, between this and your blatant transsexism, I wonder if you're an RR troll. :P
Yes a RR troll that agrees this law is wrong and thinks abortion should remain legal. It is not like I could possibly think it is wrong without calling it rape.
-
Oh, I get it must be that we can call rape just because it involves a doctor or nurse inserting a probe into the vagina...after a women consents to the procedure.
No, you don't "get it." We're not calling it rape because it involves a vaginal probe, nor because it's uncomfortable, nor for any other stupid bloody misrepresentation you've concocted. The procedure itself is not rape, but you cannot shove a bloody goddamn sonic dildo up someone's fucking snatch whenever it strikes your fancy!
Is it bad that I find that last part incredibly amusing and am considering putting it in my sig?
-
No, what's bad is that Nickerson has finally worked his way up to "According to a few dictionary definitions, I win the argument, & I'm just gonna ignore your conflicting definitions for no stated reason."
For the people I can still take seriously, maybe it is a good idea to give someone a sonogram before performing most types of abortion. Fair enough. But you have to ask, "What are the reasons for making this a law"? If there's a legitimate need to have this procedure, that's a good thing. If it's just for slut-shaming, the context is very different.
I know I've mentioned context about 80 times now, but it's important. No, I wouldn't call a stomach sonogram as slut-shaming a form of rape, but I also wouldn't call someone slapping their dick on your stomach rape. I don't know what either of those would be, & they're definitely still wrong, but to act like this is some kind of hypocrisy on my part is completely idiotic. When's the last time you heard of someone being convicted for rape because they streaked? When is the last fucking time that happened? Bajeezus Christmas, it's almost like most crimes have multiple conditions you have to meet before you're guilty. That's why we keep mentioning (A) penetration & (B) coerced consent.
-
Um.... Nickerson, I just have to ask a question here....
Say two men forced their way into mine and my roommate's apartment. One man holds a gun up to my roommate's head and tells me to get naked and spread my legs or he'll kill my roommate. I do so, and the second man starts sticking metalic rods or something up my vagina.
Are you trying to say that it wouldn't be rape because it's a foreign object being stuck up there? Are you saying it's not rape because I said 'okay' so they wouldn't blow out my roommate's brains?
Or even better, if your LANDLORD came up to you and did the same thing, threatening to kick your ass out on the streets when you're in no position to move elsewhere, would you still say that's not rape? After all, you 'consented' to it and there's no penis being inserted.
Also, I've recently had a pap test. Yes, it was uncomfortable and I didn't like it, but those procedures are medically necessary to check for things such as cancer and ovarian cysts. What virginia is doing is NOT medically necessary and is nothing more than trying to guilt women into keeping babies that they don't want and never wanted in the first place.
-
Or even better, if your LANDLORD came up to you and did the same thing, threatening to kick your ass out on the streets when you're in no position to move elsewhere, would you still say that's not rape? After all, you 'consented' to it and there's no penis being inserted.
I want to highlight this one.
Note that there is no "threat of violence." Just a simple, "Fuck me or you're out on the streets." Now. Nicky. Direct question:
Is this rape? Why or why not?
-
It's not rape, it's just like sex. Dana Loesch said so (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/19/cnns-dana-loesch-thinks-a-forced-trans-vaginal-probe-is-just-like-sex-audio/).
-
No, what's bad is that Nickerson has finally worked his way up to "According to a few dictionary definitions, I win the argument, & I'm just gonna ignore your conflicting definitions for no stated reason."
For the people I can still take seriously, maybe it is a good idea to give someone a sonogram before performing most types of abortion. Fair enough. But you have to ask, "What are the reasons for making this a law"? If there's a legitimate need to have this procedure, that's a good thing. If it's just for slut-shaming, the context is very different.
I know I've mentioned context about 80 times now, but it's important. No, I wouldn't call a stomach sonogram as slut-shaming a form of rape, but I also wouldn't call someone slapping their dick on your stomach rape. I don't know what either of those would be, & they're definitely still wrong, but to act like this is some kind of hypocrisy on my part is completely idiotic. When's the last time you heard of someone being convicted for rape because they streaked? When is the last fucking time that happened? Bajeezus Christmas, it's almost like most crimes have multiple conditions you have to meet before you're guilty. That's why we keep mentioning (A) penetration & (B) coerced consent.
And this is why we can't take Nickerson seriously. He ignores half of what is said, puts a spin on the other half, & can't seem to be assed to read, think, THEN respond in that order. You know why I didn't post a billion & 7 goddamn times? Because I read through what was posted in my absence, & then typed up a general response to ALL of the new information. As I post this, I am confident he will cherry pick it. He has the language skills of a waffle.
I just want to note that peeing in public and streaking are reasons you have to register on the sex offender list. The same list rapists and child molesters are on. I don't know but I don't the list says what they're on the list for. I find it stupid but in that context, rape and streaking are the same. I agree with everything you say Lithp, I'm just pointing out that laws about sexual things tend to be bullshit. The reasons for the law are bullshit and I think the politicians behind it need a good slap upside the head.
@Nickerson: While your right that legally it isn't rape depending on where you are and the local laws, that doesn't mean it isn't rape. Legal definitions are quite often bullshit, sometimes to back up bullshit laws.
-
I find it stupid but in that context, rape and streaking are the same.
What I said was that you can't be convicted for rape because you streaked. The sex offender list can not-so-subtly imply you're a rapist. But you can't be convicted for it.
Now, one thing I didn't think of before is that my argument implies the law is the final standard for whether or not something is a rape. Obviously, that is not what I meant to imply, & I agree with your statement about bullshit laws. What I was really getting at is that the definition of rape must have multiple parts by necessity. So no given action can be rape on its own, 100% of the time. Kind of like how punching someone isn't murder...unless you kill them.
It's not rape, it's just like sex. Dana Loesch said so.
Someone used a rape apologist argument to defend this? I'm so shocked I just peed blood.
-
You might want to get that checked out, Lithp.
-
Also, I've recently had a pap test. Yes, it was uncomfortable and I didn't like it, but those procedures are medically necessary to check for things such as cancer and ovarian cysts. What virginia is doing is NOT medically necessary and is nothing more than trying to guilt women into keeping babies that they don't want and never wanted in the first place.
The pap smear analogy is ridiculous on so many levels. Yes, I have pap smears on a yearly basis, and yes, they're uncomfortable, but I chose to have them -- without any coercion, legal or otherwise -- because: A) They're medically necessary, and B) They're being done for my benefit, not to shame me for having sex or guilt me into giving up control over my own body. Until the government enacts a law forcing us to have pap smears for the purpose of slut-shaming us, you can't compare the two.
-
Or even better, if your LANDLORD came up to you and did the same thing, threatening to kick your ass out on the streets when you're in no position to move elsewhere, would you still say that's not rape? After all, you 'consented' to it and there's no penis being inserted.
I want to highlight this one.
Note that there is no "threat of violence." Just a simple, "Fuck me or you're out on the streets." Now. Nicky. Direct question:
Is this rape? Why or why not?
Re-highlighting. It's a very, very pertinent question.
-
I am going to take a slightly different stance on this issue.
In medicine there are often a number of steps that must be legally completed before performing any final operation. Doctors are required to follow all the steps and procedures of they could loose their license. Similarly any patient wishing to undergo such an operation must consent to the intervening steps.
In many ways this law is identical to other medical scenarios. However, I think the problem is that this is quite honestly an unnecessary procedure. While best practice would prefer an ultrasound, it is not required, and chemical abortions are completely safe even without any tests. When an invasive abortion is necessary, then I actually agree that an ultrasound should be mandatory because without it a doctor may accidentally do significant harm to the patient under their care. However, in these cases we are only talking about external ultrasounds so any kind of sexual nature is already removed.
I would like to point out that regardless of ultrasound, there is no reason for anyone other than the doctor to consult the images. Patients are not medically trained persons in general and would not be in a position to interpret the images professionally.
Unfortunately this law is designed to shame and guilt the woman into choosing against the abortion. Further it specifically requires the woman to look at the ultrasound images and listen to a heartbeat. Both of these are entirely unnecessary from a medical perspective.
Personally decisions like which medical procedures must follow what in order for a specific medical procedure to be performed should be left to the medical counsels of the country in question. Politicians have no place legislating best or required medical practice.
I am inclined to lean towards this requirement being state sanctioned rape. However I am also somewhat weary of just jumping up and flat calling it rape. A doctor is allowed to deny a patient access to treatment without certain diagnostic tests. Such tests may include invasive ultrasounds. A patient is within their rights to deny such tests, but is not entitled to the end medical treatment. The reason for this is that a doctor must fort make sure they can perform the treatment or operation as safely as possible. Primary because if the doctor makes an error because they didn't have enough information, legal lawsuits are sure to follow. A simple example would be a doctor can deny prescribing a medicine unless the patient first goes for blood tests, this is a common occurrence. In situation like this one would not consider the doctor to be coercing the patient into undergoing the blood tests. Of course in these cases though the blood tests are normally used to make sure the patient receives the correct dosage. These ultrasounds serve no medical benefit, which is why I lean towards it being rape.
One last point I would like to make. While we all agree that morally this is wrong. Unless it is legally wrong nothing can be done about it. That is unfortunately how society works. As the example given early how 40 odd states don't legally recognize gay marriage is morally wrong, gay marriages will have no legal standing in those states regardless of morality. However, we live in a society where laws can be changed and created, and as such, the people of Virginia have within their power to right and ability to change the laws of their state to more accurately reflect their morals. Remember right and wrong are never absolutes.
-
Do they make men get a digital prostate exam before being prescribed viagra?
-
Do they make men get a digital prostate exam before being prescribed viagra?
A joke suggestion by the Democrats for exactly that occurrence was shot down by three votes.
-
Say two men forced their way into mine and my roommate's apartment. One man holds a gun up to my roommate's head and tells me to get naked and spread my legs or he'll kill my roommate. I do so, and the second man starts sticking metalic rods or something up my vagina.
Are you trying to say that it wouldn't be rape because it's a foreign object being stuck up there? Are you saying it's not rape because I said 'okay' so they wouldn't blow out my roommate's brains?
Major difference - the risk of death or serious bodily injury. Those risks are a basis for coercion.
There's no basis to argue coercion in this law because the woman is at the clinic of her own free will. Laws cannot be the basis of coercion, else anyone who doesn't pay their taxes or drives without a license could argue governmental coercion in paying taxes or getting the license.
Edit:
One last point I would like to make. While we all agree that morally this is wrong. Unless it is legally wrong nothing can be done about it. That is unfortunately how society works. As the example given early how 40 odd states don't legally recognize gay marriage is morally wrong, gay marriages will have no legal standing in those states regardless of morality. However, we live in a society where laws can be changed and created, and as such, the people of Virginia have within their power to right and ability to change the laws of their state to more accurately reflect their morals. Remember right and wrong are never absolutes.
^This.
-
I see no one has answered the question about the landlord.
-
Too bad. I was actually looking forward to reading a hackneyed justification for the situation, or perhaps a twisted attempt to claim that the landlord situation was somehow not applicable. Major antikudos to erictheblue for intentionally not quoting it, by the way...
-
I see no one has answered the question about the landlord.
Missed that one the first time. I'll get back to you on it.
Too bad. I was actually looking forward to reading a hackneyed justification for the situation, or perhaps a twisted attempt to claim that the landlord situation was somehow not applicable. Major antikudos to erictheblue for intentionally not quoting it, by the way...
I didn't quote it because I didn't see it.
EDIT: Addressing the coercion / landlord thing. (As before, I am only addressing VA law.)
There are several legally defined tests for coercion in VA. "sufficient to destroy free agency on the part of the . . . testator." "the party had no free will". The person being coerced must be "overborne and his capacity for self-determination [be] impaired." If there is no "free and unconstrained choice," it is coercion. In one case, it was not coercion when the defendant willingly went to the police station after being told the police wished to speak to him. Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 62 S.E.2d 112 (Va. 1995).
Coercion is a very high bar to pass. Coercion by the state is even higher. (The court in Midkiff commented that setting a low bar could turn any police interrogation into coercion because of the power the police have.) What could be coercion by a private citizen is not coercion when done by an actor of the state (i.e. paying taxes v. extortion, police interrogations).
The issue comes down to the issue of free will. In the landlord example, the tenant took no action to lead the landlord to act as they did. However, in the law under discussion, the woman did take action - she walked into a medical facility. She also asked for a service (the abortion), which the tenant did not. Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the woman is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice.
-
Is anyone else starting to think of Virginia in the same light as Texas, from a legal perspective? I am.
-
So, I chanced across this (http://jezebel.com/5885747/how-in-the-hell-are-we-supposed-to-grant-fertilized-eggs-constitutional-rights) while looking for reasons to be embarrassed when I have to admit that I'm from Oklahoma. Yes, Oklahoma passed their own personhood act but that's not why I'm mentioning this, nor is it because the article is nicely snarky.
It's the comments.
A lot of the comments are from women sharing their own experiences with the periscope dildo.
I was eighteen when I had my first vaginal ultrasound, and a virgin. As someone who'd never had anything bigger than a super-slim tampon in my vagina, it was incredibly painful and I cried the entire time. The tech (a woman) was very apologetic, but it was still easily one of the most humiliating moments in my entire life.I can't imagine being a survivor of rape and being forced to go through this horrifically invasive and painful procedure to receive an abortion. To me, it would feel as though I was being raped all over again. Just the thought of it make me want to curl up in a ball and cry.
The trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement is so fucking horrendous. I've had two, and in both cases it was a brief introduction to an ultrasound tech (both male), and a couple of minutes later I'm pantsless, in stirrups, in a dark room, and dude-I-just-met has put a condom (no kidding!) and lube on the wand and is probing around my vagina. In writing, it sounds like a letter to Penthouse. In real life, it's horrifying enough when it isn't a mandated step preceding your upcoming super-fun abortion.
I had to be sedated the first time I had one. Fucking horrible. Should not be done unless absolutely necessary.
Those are a few of the comments regarding this practice and how humiliating it can be even without the stress of having to get an abortion.
-
Well, the woman in my example with the landlord would have had the same right to walk away and live on the streets. The women in virginia have the choice of walking out of the clinic and being forced to carry the baby to term because they don't want to experience an unnecessary vaginal penetration, which purpose is to guilt them and nothing more. Given the hell pregnancy puts your body through, I'd rather live on the streets than ever carry a child to term.
I think I see a rise in back alley abortions in Virginia's future.
Edit: Thank you for that, Damen :)
-
...
Do they honestly think that ANY woman out there takes this procedure so non-chalantly? ....
Having talked to several pro life people...
Yes, they do think that.
Many pro lifers think women who have abortions do so because they are selfish and don't want to be bothered with a pregnancy. One guy even called it a "get out of jail free" card.
Even saw this done on Bill Maher where the conservative, who said he doesnt' support the bill, still defended it by saying it was good if government made a woman think even MORE before she decided to abort.
-
One guy even called it a "get out of jail free" card.
So...he thinks of having children in the same vein as doing jail time.
Good to know. Says a lot about his personality.
-
It's not rape because it is a medical procedure that is agreed to by the women. Yes, by this new law she must have one before she can have an abortion. It's stupid and pointless, but she still has to agree to the procedure.
She has to put up with it; she does not have to WANT it.
Something is being placed inside a woman's vagina that she doesn't want in there.
If this happened with a penis, it would be rape.
If this happened with a glass bottle, it would be rape.
If this happened in a dark alley or the back seat of a car, it would be rape.
But clearly if a doctor is doing it, then it is a necessary medical procedure and is not rape at all. Somehow.
-
Um.... Nickerson, I just have to ask a question here....
Say two men forced their way into mine and my roommate's apartment. One man holds a gun up to my roommate's head and tells me to get naked and spread my legs or he'll kill my roommate. I do so, and the second man starts sticking metalic rods or something up my vagina.
Are you trying to say that it wouldn't be rape because it's a foreign object being stuck up there? Are you saying it's not rape because I said 'okay' so they wouldn't blow out my roommate's brains?
Or even better, if your LANDLORD came up to you and did the same thing, threatening to kick your ass out on the streets when you're in no position to move elsewhere, would you still say that's not rape? After all, you 'consented' to it and there's no penis being inserted.
Also, I've recently had a pap test. Yes, it was uncomfortable and I didn't like it, but those procedures are medically necessary to check for things such as cancer and ovarian cysts. What virginia is doing is NOT medically necessary and is nothing more than trying to guilt women into keeping babies that they don't want and never wanted in the first place.
Rape in both cases, erictheblue explained why.
-
Do they make men get a digital prostate exam before being prescribed viagra?
A joke suggestion by the Democrats for exactly that occurrence was shot down by three votes.
You know, that actually sounds like it is more relevant than probes.
Rape in both cases, erictheblue explained why.
How is the landlord one any less rape than the probes?
-
How is the landlord one any less rape than the probes?
This...
The issue comes down to the issue of free will. In the landlord example, the tenant took no action to lead the landlord to act as they did. However, in the law under discussion, the woman did take action - she walked into a medical facility. She also asked for a service (the abortion), which the tenant did not. Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the woman is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice.
-
So you finally agree that both are rape?
-
However, in the law under discussion, the woman did take action - she walked into a medical facility. She also asked for a service (the abortion), which the tenant did not. Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the woman is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice.
I still say a "choice" where the options are 'submit to an unnecessary procedure itself tantamount to rape and enacted solely to shame you into changing your mind, or we'll deny you medical care' isn't much of a "choice" at all. It is in no way fair or moral to make a woman chose between being medically molested or bearing (and usually raising for 18+ years) a child she does not want. It's telling women that they don't really know their own minds and opinions when they say "This is my body, and my life, and I will do with both whatever I wish."
If a woman's gotten to the point where she's begun steps toward having an abortion, she's already decided what she wants. If she wants to back out of her own free will, that's her choice. But she needs be able to make that choice, unencumbered by threats, coercion, or attempts to undermine her rights, will, and intellect.
-
The issue comes down to the issue of free will. In the landlord example, the tenant took no action to lead the landlord to act as they did. However, in the law under discussion, the woman did take action - she walked into a medical facility. She also asked for a service (the abortion), which the tenant did not. Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the woman is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice.
Um, yeah.
"However, in the law under discussion, the tenantdid take action - she brought and lives in a house. She also asked for a service (electricity water, gas, ect). Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the tenant is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice."
-
The issue comes down to the issue of free will. In the landlord example, the tenant took no action to lead the landlord to act as they did. However, in the law under discussion, the woman did take action - she walked into a medical facility. She also asked for a service (the abortion), which the tenant did not. Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the woman is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice.
Um, yeah.
"However, in the law under discussion, the tenantdid take action - she brought and lives in a house. She also asked for a service (electricity water, gas, ect). Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the tenant is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice."
THIS
Edit: Placed reply in wrong space >.<
-
The issue comes down to the issue of free will. In the landlord example, the tenant took no action to lead the landlord to act as they did. However, in the law under discussion, the woman did take action - she walked into a medical facility. She also asked for a service (the abortion), which the tenant did not. Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the woman is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice.
Um, yeah.
"However, in the law under discussion, the tenantdid take action - she brought and lives in a house. She also asked for a service (electricity water, gas, ect). Much as I hate to admit it, I suspect a court would look at this and hold that the tenant is perfectly free to turn around and walk out, meaning she still has free will. She has a choice."
(http://miscellany101.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nail.jpg)
-
Except the women is walking in or at least told before hand that she must have an ultrasound first. So unless the landlord stipulated that sex was involved before the tenant moved in it is not the same.
-
Or if the tenant moved in, and then the landlord made a new rule saying that, and giving the tenants "enough time" to think about it before moving.
Moving out of a house is an inconvenience. So is having a baby. It's comparable.
-
Many pro lifers think women who have abortions do so because they are selfish and don't want to be bothered with a pregnancy.
What I can't figure out is why they think that's any of their business. Mostly in regards to the ones who will make exceptions for "good reasons." Once you've acknowledged that abortion can be done at all, you really aren't in a position to dictate why people have them. That is not how laws work.
patient is within their rights to deny such tests, but is not entitled to the end medical treatment. The reason for this is that a doctor must fort make sure they can perform the treatment or operation as safely as possible.
This seems irrelevent to your overall point, but I wanted to address it anyway, because I thought of using a similar example earlier:
In this case, the patient can go find someone else. If every physician is sending him or her away, s/he really oughta think about that. If not, then s/he is golden. Now. If that patient had taken the recommended test, then found out later from other doctors that it was unnecessary & potentially being used to violate his or her privacy, look at that, s/he has grounds for a malpractice suit.
And this is why I've been emphatically putting my foot down on this "it's a medical procedure" BS. We don't live in some kind of fantasy world where Cure does nothing if you're at full health. Medical procedures can be abused. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Remember that guy who was posing as a "door-to-door breast examiner"? That's "a medical procedure." And notice that he wasn't JUST charged with practicing without a license, he also got hit for sexual assault.
Unless it is legally wrong nothing can be done about it.
If this were true, the Supreme Court would not exist. Laws are not absolute. I mean, look at your gay marriage example. Is everyone just sitting back & saying, "Well, it's the law, so I guess we can't change it." No! No they are not. And progress, though slow, has occurred. So it's not a waste of time to point out that the Virginia legislature is full of shit.
However, we live in a society where laws can be changed and created, and as such, the people of Virginia have within their power to right and ability to change the laws of their state to more accurately reflect their morals.
Depends on how you define "rights." I do not think any government has a "right" to persecution, & if they're exercising that nonexistant "right," then something is clearly very, very wrong.
Except the women is walking in or at least told before hand that she must have an ultrasound first. So unless the landlord stipulated that sex was involved before the tenant moved in it is not the same.
Hey, genius, remember why we asked you this question? It was because you previously argued that a situation could not be rape without the immediate threat of violence. And I'm fairly confident this isn't your only instance of back-pedaling.
Seems as though, for as much ranting as you've done about definitions, you are the only one who can't decide what constitutes rape.
-
Hey, genius, remember why we asked you this question? It was because you previously argued that a situation could not be rape without the immediate threat of violence. And I'm fairly confident this isn't your only instance of back-pedaling.
Seems as though, for as much ranting as you've done about definitions, you are the only one who can't decide what constitutes rape.
I remember saying that it was not it was not consented to under duress because it does not fit that definition. Part of that definition was the threat of force, but that was the the whole thing.
Perhaps you should argue against what I'm actually saying and not what you are imagining I'm saying.
...and here is my quote.
Unfortunately it does not fit the definition of duress, because there is no threat of force, nor black mail, nor an abuse of power by the doctor. Those come from your link.
-
Or if the tenant moved in, and then the landlord made a new rule saying that, and giving the tenants "enough time" to think about it before moving.
Moving out of a house is an inconvenience. So is having a baby. It's comparable.
If a woman agreed to have sex with someone just so they would not be inconvenienced I would not call it rape.
That being said depending on a person's situation moving or not getting a place can be more then an inconvenience. Having a child, or even going through pregnancy is also more the an inconvenience.
-
Perhaps you should argue against what I'm actually saying and not what you are imagining I'm saying.
Maybe if you weren't an illiterate savage, you'd realize that I already refuted that, like forever ago.
-
If a woman agreed to have sex with someone just so they would not be inconvenienced I would not call it rape.
No, that's something else entirely. We're talking about a person who wants to get a procedure, and their only way to get that procedure is through an invasion of their genitalia.
If I'm a refugee trying to cross the border into a neutral country, and the border guard tells me that I need to have sex with him in order to get it, that's rape. Because while yes, I could just turn around and go home, but that would be terribly inconvenient (and also potentially life-threatening). Is the border guard not raping me because he's not the one pointing the guns at me?
Perhaps you should argue against what I'm actually saying and not what you are imagining I'm saying.
Maybe if you weren't an illiterate savage, you'd realize that I already refuted that, like forever ago.
Guys, I understand your frustration, but please calm down before the thread gets locked.
-
patient is within their rights to deny such tests, but is not entitled to the end medical treatment. The reason for this is that a doctor must fort make sure they can perform the treatment or operation as safely as possible.
This seems irrelevent to your overall point, but I wanted to address it anyway, because I thought of using a similar example earlier:
In this case, the patient can go find someone else. If every physician is sending him or her away, s/he really oughta think about that. If not, then s/he is golden. Now. If that patient had taken the recommended test, then found out later from other doctors that it was unnecessary & potentially being used to violate his or her privacy, look at that, s/he has grounds for a malpractice suit.
And this is why I've been emphatically putting my foot down on this "it's a medical procedure" BS. We don't live in some kind of fantasy world where Cure does nothing if you're at full health. Medical procedures can be abused. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Remember that guy who was posing as a "door-to-door breast examiner"? That's "a medical procedure." And notice that he wasn't JUST charged with practicing without a license, he also got hit for sexual assault.
I agree that doctors often do prescribe unnecessary tests. Often its done for pure profit reasons. Regardless of the abuse of the system though, there are a large number of operations and treatments that do require certain medical tests to be performed beforehand. While the patient can in theory go and see another doctor, any doctor that is worth their qualification will tell the patient the same thing, that they need to go through the correct processes.
However like you said though, unnecessary diagnostics are grounds for a malpractice suit and can in theory be filed against doctors that force their patients to undergo the ultrasound because of this law. Of course this would play right into the anti-choice camp as doctors will just stop offering abortions completely to protect themselves from malpractice suits.
Unless it is legally wrong nothing can be done about it.
If this were true, the Supreme Court would not exist. Laws are not absolute. I mean, look at your gay marriage example. Is everyone just sitting back & saying, "Well, it's the law, so I guess we can't change it." No! No they are not. And progress, though slow, has occurred. So it's not a waste of time to point out that the Virginia legislature is full of shit.
However, we live in a society where laws can be changed and created, and as such, the people of Virginia have within their power to right and ability to change the laws of their state to more accurately reflect their morals.
Depends on how you define "rights." I do not think any government has a "right" to persecution, & if they're exercising that nonexistant "right," then something is clearly very, very wrong.
Right and wrong are not absolutes. A cursory glance at history will show that even rape was acceptable in some cultures. I also like how you split my quote up to make it look like I meant to separate things. Rights change as time changes. Our perception of what is right and wrong is biased by the culture and era we are living in. You are perfectly correct in your feeling that a government does not have the right to persecution. If you feel that something is not right and it is not legislated, get enough similarly minded people together to change it. However, while it is legislated against, you are unfortunately forced to fit within the legal framework, or alternatively to violate the law.
And this is why I've been emphatically putting my foot down on this "it's a medical procedure" BS.
Unfortunately it is a medical procedure. It is used for more things than just slut shaming women who want abortions. The fact that it is a medical procedure that is painful and invasive does not change the fact that it is one none the less. However, what is important is that it is medically unnecessary. With that as the main point it becomes a medical procedure that is humiliating painful and traumatizing. It becomes such because of the intent behind the procedures use, and not the procedure itself.
-
Aye. They're saying that they will make you have something inserted into your vagina against your wishes, a procedure that is quite likely unnecessary in many (if not most) cases, if you want to have another procedure performed. Pregnancy is not an easy time for a woman. It is, in fact, quite often traumatizing; severe mood swings caused by hormonal changes, morning sickness, and the fact that you have another being growing inside you. Its a terrifying prospect, if unplanned. Being extremely scared is a state of emotional duress. This law attempts to force a quite likely painful, humiliating procedure be done should you decide that you wish to abort; this, to me, constitutes coercion.
Now, I'm not attacking the procedure itself, it could very well be quite useful for such things. The thing I, and quite a few folks here, I believe, are against is the intent behind the law. They did not do it because it was in the best interests of the female population of Virgina, they did it to promote their own religious ideology and force it on others who do not agree with it. Their intentions were impure, and that is the grounds on which this law, to me, is being attacked.
(Note: I am not trying to be condescending or anything like that. I'm simply stating my opinion, point-by-point, in as concise and logical a manner as I can.)
-
Indeed. While I do contend that this constitutes rape, it is a secondary argument to the main, huge issue with this law: That the entire point of the law is to humiliate women and intimidate them into carrying their baby, because the pro-life agenda starts at conception and ends at birth. Were I a woman in VA, I would go through the trouble of going out-of-state to have the procedure done, if possible.
-
nickerson, it is completely possible for the state to abuse its power by threatening individuals with punishments just for exercising their rights. That is exactly what is happening with this law. The state has used its power so that any woman who does not get a painful, embarrassing, and irrelevant medical procedure before procuring an abortion is breaking the law.
-
Posting again mainly because some people seem to have an excessively negative perception of the study, and I'd hate to have anyone leave this discussion and feel anxious about undergoing a transvaginal ultrasound later.
1. The procedure is not that bad. Any gynaecological procedure is horrible for some people, but for most it isn't any worse than a PAP smear, and for many it's easier. In any device I've seen, the probe is more finger- than cock-sized; and at least here they usually use a finger of a rubber glove for the covering, not a condom. Definitely smaller than the regular gyneaecological speculum (the plastic or metal thing they usually insert). While there is more movement than with a speculum in a normal gynecological check-up, the user is usually more experienced and knows how to avoid the painful spots, and there is no widening the scope involved.
...and since I'm posting anyway, opinions...
2. The difference between the landlord comparison and TVUS is that vaginal penetration has nothing to do with renting an apartment. TVUS is standard enough that it is best practice in Finland, performed in medical abortion trials, and is just a really common gynaecological study in general. It provides more reliable data of gestational age (a necessary bit of information) than other means, and the reason it is not more widely recommended is because that certainty is (by most) not considered worth the cost or the discomfort, not because that certainty wouldn't be good to have. Mandatory ultrasound would be more like requiring the landlord to go through an overly invasive background check for new tenants. Again, I object to the Indiana law and I would object to a law of such a check, but the rape comparisons in this thread are IMHO horrible hyperbole. Sorry.
3. The "prostate exam before prescribing treatment for erectile dysfunction" -comparison is very apt, kudos to ms. Howell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/mandatory-ultrasound-bill-virginia-anti-abortion_n_1242627.html?ref=tw&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008) for suggesting it and Smurfette for bringing it to this discussion. While I would object to such a law on similar grounds as this one, I do not think it would describe rape either. And that doesn't even take into consideration the unnecessary "patient needs to see it" -bit.
4. Vaginal penetration should already happen in the pre-abortion check-up (WHO (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241590343.pdf): "Health providers must confirm pregnancy and estimate its duration by a bimanual pelvic examination."). I fail to see how being subjected to TVUS would cause a woman willing to go through that to decide against abortion, or why the physical process would be so horrible in general, given point one. Again, the why of it is horrible, and forcing the patient to see the image is pointless and offensive.
While I do contend that this constitutes rape, it is a secondary argument to the main, huge issue with this law: That the entire point of the law is to humiliate women and intimidate them into carrying their baby, because the pro-life agenda starts at conception and ends at birth.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
-
No, that's something else entirely. We're talking about a person who wants to get a procedure, and their only way to get that procedure is through an invasion of their genitalia.
If I'm a refugee trying to cross the border into a neutral country, and the border guard tells me that I need to have sex with him in order to get it, that's rape. Because while yes, I could just turn around and go home, but that would be terribly inconvenient (and also potentially life-threatening). Is the border guard not raping me because he's not the one pointing the guns at me?
If it was turning around could be a threat to your life, then yes. Terribly inconvenient, no. So it would depend on the situation.
You must also remember that nothing says that the women have to have a vaginal ultra-sound if they are that uncomfortable with it. They can make the choice to wait and have a external ultra-sound later on. If there was a medical reason for them to need an abortion that early it is likely they would require an ultra-sound regardless.
-
Guys, I understand your frustration, but please calm down before the thread gets locked.
I don't know about you, but I don't particularly care what happens to it. There is little else to say that hasn't already been said. And I'll call Nickerson an illiterate savage if he keeps proving he either can't or won't read.
Of course this would play right into the anti-choice camp as doctors will just stop offering abortions completely to protect themselves from malpractice suits.
Or they could stop doing that thing. Because I'm talking about areas where it is not mandated, & the doctor himself feels that he should insert his beliefs into the situation. To show how it would be unacceptable in that case.
I'm still trying to figure out just what blinders people have about the fact that this occurs in a doctor's office.
Unfortunately it is a medical procedure.
...Did you just complain about the way I quoted you, then take something I said out-of-context to make it look like I said it wasn't a medical procedure? Because I believe you just did that thing I said.
Vaginal penetration should already happen in the pre-abortion check-up .
"I don't see why it's rape if a man doesn't pull out, she's already agreed to being penetrated."
Seriously guys. Before you post. Just take the extra 5 seconds to ask yourself if it sounds like one of the major rape apology arguments. This whole argument could be done a lot quicker if you did.
-
nickerson, it is completely possible for the state to abuse its power by threatening individuals with punishments just for exercising their rights. That is exactly what is happening with this law. The state has used its power so that any woman who does not get a painful, embarrassing, and irrelevant medical procedure before procuring an abortion is breaking the law.
I'm not saying that is not possible for the state to abuse it's power. All I'm arguing is that in this regard it is not rape.
As far as if it is illegal, that is yet to be decided. Let's hope that the courts do find it that way to help protect women's right and help keep legislators from mandating to doctors things that are not in the best interest of their patience.
-
Just take the extra 5 seconds to ask yourself if it sounds like one of the major rape apology arguments. This whole argument could be done a lot quicker if you did.
Just because an argument against calling a mandated vaginal ultra-sound rape could be used as an attempt to justify rape does not mean it is invalid in this case.
-
Just because an argument against calling a mandated vaginal ultra-sound rape could be used as an attempt to justify rape does not mean it is invalid in this case.
Fallacies aren't fallacious! Why didn't I see it before? Everything makes sense now!
-
Just because an argument against calling a mandated vaginal ultra-sound rape could be used as an attempt to justify rape does not mean it is invalid in this case.
Fallacies aren't fallacious! Why didn't I see it before? Everything makes sense now!
It all depends on context.
-
Vaginal penetration should already happen in the pre-abortion check-up.
"I don't see why it's rape if a man doesn't pull out, she's already agreed to being penetrated."
And I hope I made it clear that my argument on why it's not rape is because it's a medical procedure that serves a medical purpose in the scenario (points 2 and 3 in the post you quoted). The cost/benefit and discomfort/benefit -analyses swinging against performing it routinely (and again, I come from a country where the consensus is that they don't) doesn't change the fact that the benefit is there. The quoted bit was me wondering why people think TVUS (not viewing the image) would be a game-changer in the pre-abortion procedure that would make it significantly more invasive and unpleasant, even deter some women entirely.
Seriously guys. Before you post. Just take the extra 5 seconds to ask yourself if it sounds like one of the major rape apology arguments. This whole argument could be done a lot quicker if you did.
The whole argument could be done a whole lot quicker if people skipped the sensationalist "it's rape!" argument, and focused on "it's unnecessary and hypocritical, the law's only goal is to make a woman feel even worse about something she already feels terrible about, and to guilt her out of a decision". The rape-argument only serves to sidetrack the conversation, and turns some of the people who would otherwise agree with you to argue against you. Sort of like comparing someone we both dislike to Hitler.
-
It all depends on context.
No it doesn't, rape apology is still rape apology, & you're still a hypocrite.
And I hope I made it clear that my argument on why it's not rape is because it's a medical procedure that serves a medical purpose in the scenario (points 2 and 3 in the post you quoted).
1. Assume I know nothing about gynecology. Why do you need a precise measure of gestational age for an abortion?
2. Funny enough, if it's so necessary, why has the US operated under the assumption that it's NOT necessary for so long?
3. A blanket law is a bad law, m'kay. I shouldn't need a vaginal probe to take some contraceptive pills.
4. IF Finland has good reasons for it, that is still not true of the Virginia Law.
The whole argument could be done a whole lot quicker if people skipped the sensationalist "it's rape!" argument, and focused on "it's unnecessary and hypocritical, the law's only goal is to make a woman feel even worse about something she already feels terrible about, and to guilt her out of a decision". The rape-argument only serves to sidetrack the conversation, and turns some of the people who would otherwise agree with you to argue against you. Sort of like comparing someone we both dislike to Hitler.
No. This whole argument is stupid. I already explained why "but guys we're totally on the same side" doesn't hold up in the real world. Besides that, the reason you just gave sounds weak & unconvincing to ME, let alone a misogynist legislature. Why should I waste time & money trying to get rid of a guilt trip? Maybe if it were something more serious, like rape or malpractice, but we can't call it that for some reason. Speaking of, you guys are the ones complaining that we're calling it rape! The division is coming from YOU! So, to recap: By belittling the nature of the problem by creating complicated arguments about how "it's a medical procedure" & "you're being sensationalist," you're only being self-destructive to your stated goal to get the law repealed.
-
adding my voice to the chorus of disgust.
-
Calling it rape is far more self-destructive. You start to call something like this rape people are going to think you are over reacting. That is going to make the other side of the argument seem saner then it is. You are also going to make people who are against the law but not willing to spew rhetoric walk away.
If someone can't argue against this law without calling it rape they don't have a good argument.
-
Right, I'm going to take advice on rhetorical tone from the man who just defended rape apology.
You yob, I CAN argue it, but why would I handicap myself when it's been proven to qualify as rape?
-
Calling it rape is far more self-destructive. You start to call something like this rape people are going to think you are over reacting. That is going to make the other side of the argument seem saner then it is. You are also going to make people who are against the law but not willing to spew rhetoric walk away.
If someone can't argue against this law without calling it rape they don't have a good argument.
I possibly wouldn't use rape, but sexual assault?
-
Script-Z says
"You perhaps over reacting is forcing me to defend something that I have no belief or support in. Can't you see that this is all your fault! That you opposing what I oppose makes me not want to oppose it!"
Script-Z says
Fuck those dumbasses.
Nickerson, when not only does a majority of this thread disagree with you, but people you don't even know are saying, "Fuck that dumbass" because I quote your posts at them, it's time to re-examine your claim that I'm sensationalist alienating people. I might not be right (but I am), but your claims of a weak & self-destructive argument are clearly bullshit.
-
Right, I'm going to take advice on rhetorical tone from the man who just defended rape apology.
You yob, I CAN argue it, but why would I handicap myself when it's been proven to qualify as rape?
That's just it. It DOESN'T qualify as rape.
-
ಠ_ಠ
Let's stay on-topic, yeah?
-
You must also remember that nothing says that the women have to have a vaginal ultra-sound if they are that uncomfortable with it. They can make the choice to wait and have a external ultra-sound later on. If there was a medical reason for them to need an abortion that early it is likely they would require an ultra-sound regardless.
As I am speaking to someone who doesn't have a uterus, I'm going to make this quite clear.
The first twelve weeks is considered the first trimester (nine months/4 weeks).
There is no specific medical reason to get an abortion in the first trimester that does not apply to getting an abortion at any other time. That is simply the most common time to get an abortion.
Why is this?
At the end of the first trimester, it is already clear that you are pregnant. You will have started developing a baby bump and people will start asking uncomfortable questions.
You also cannot pass off a second-trimester abortion off as a miscarriage - most spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#First_trimester)
At the second trimester, you lose a lot of the options available to you. You cannot have a medication-based abortion (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp) - instead, you would have a dilation and vacuum abortion, which is where we get the pictures of the baby limbs on protest signs.
That you can so blithely say, "Oh, but she can wait, and there must be a good reason for her to need an abortion that early!" proves that you have absolutely no understanding of why most abortions are in the first trimester and why waiting, in this case, is not an option.
-
I can only assume I am supposed to pick up from where my latest post left off. So let me count the people who are arguing for calling it rape, without going off-site:
Lithp
Smurfetteprinciple
Mlle Antichrist
Eniliad
Zachski
Ironbite
Lexikon
Wykked Wytch
Nightangel8212
TheL
TenfoldMaquette
MadCatTLX
And those against:
Erictheblue
MiramM
M52Nickerson
Clockworkgirl21
...Not including anyone who I could not definitively say was arguing either conclusion. Isn't this odd, considering we're supposed to be alienating some huge amount of support? If anything, it would seem we actually turned away some of the OPPOSITE side's arguments.
-
As I said in the split thread, whether or not it's rape doesn't make the law any better or worse. A rose by any other name and all. Even if it didn't meet the definition of rape it's still horrible for the intentions alone, and it just gets worse from there. I do consider it to be rape in these circumstances.
-
No, I'm pretty sure rape is worse than a guilt trip. Yes, the law is still bad, but it's like arguing that the primary reason a tsunami is bad is because it might give you trench foot.
-
This thread has been split and you two are still arguing in here about it?
For me, I don't know whether to call this actual, physical rape so much as I would call it "rape of the soul." That is, the psychological torment that women who elect to have an abortion for whatever personal reason will be subjected to a rather invasive screening procedure in order to terminate their pregnancy. This is adding to the distress that the woman probably is already feeling due to her circumstances with the unwanted pregnancy. The fact that they are making this into a law violates the sovereignty of the individual and the rights to personal boundaries between a person and another.
Thus, this law is forcing medical practitioners to use a tool for diagnostics on a woman who has made a difficult and arduous decision about her body. She is already in distress and doesn't want any more piled upon her. This law is basically designed to force a woman in such a psychological state to endure more waiting, more shaming, more guilt and more mental pain. This is why I call it "rape of the soul" It is basically psychological torture and in what? In the name of religious morality.
I'd say more but I actually have some shit I gotta do.
-
You must also remember that nothing says that the women have to have a vaginal ultra-sound if they are that uncomfortable with it. They can make the choice to wait and have a external ultra-sound later on. If there was a medical reason for them to need an abortion that early it is likely they would require an ultra-sound regardless.
As I am speaking to someone who doesn't have a uterus, I'm going to make this quite clear.
The first twelve weeks is considered the first trimester (nine months/4 weeks).
There is no specific medical reason to get an abortion in the first trimester that does not apply to getting an abortion at any other time. That is simply the most common time to get an abortion.
Why is this?
At the end of the first trimester, it is already clear that you are pregnant. You will have started developing a baby bump and people will start asking uncomfortable questions.
You also cannot pass off a second-trimester abortion off as a miscarriage - most spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#First_trimester)
At the second trimester, you lose a lot of the options available to you. You cannot have a medication-based abortion (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp) - instead, you would have a dilation and vacuum abortion, which is where we get the pictures of the baby limbs on protest signs.
That you can so blithely say, "Oh, but she can wait, and there must be a good reason for her to need an abortion that early!" proves that you have absolutely no understanding of why most abortions are in the first trimester and why waiting, in this case, is not an option.
As not to derail this thread I will respond here http://forums.fstdt.net/flame-and-burn/re-nickerson-lithp-fight/15/ (http://forums.fstdt.net/flame-and-burn/re-nickerson-lithp-fight/15/)
-
This law is simply bullshit. The entire purpose is to drive women away, and let's face it... it's based on Christian doctrine. Nobody wants to admit it because it's unconstitutional, but the entire reason they're doing this crap is because they think Jeezus wants them to.
-
As not to derail this thread I will respond here http://forums.fstdt.net/flame-and-burn/re-nickerson-lithp-fight/15/
Hahahano. As far as I can tell, calling the procedure rape still falls under the purview of this topic. Ergo, I will continue to make my arguments here. As stated before, if you don't like it, you can go do something else.
That said, I think my argument pretty much speaks for itself. You can have your own opinions & suppositions, but I'm going with the data.
-
This law is simply bullshit. The entire purpose is to drive women away, and let's face it... it's based on Christian doctrine. Nobody wants to admit it because it's unconstitutional, but the entire reason they're doing this crap is because they think Jeezus wants them to.
^This, and you wouldn't believe how big of a pet-peeve this is of mine. I loath the tendency of people in the USA to blatantly base something in "logic" that only makes sense if you're also holding hands with their personal make-believe best buddy, then try to dance around the origins of their bullshit because they KNOW that if someone out-and-out said "This is based on my religious beliefs, herp derp" the fruits of their efforts would get (rightfully) shit-canned faster than they could blink. Everybody knows they're doing it but looks the other way, and apparently that's okay (freedom of/from religion my friggin fanny) so long as no one points it out in public. It's like they think if everyone pretends otherwise, than the blatant violation of the 1st Amendment somehow doesn't count.
Fucksake. I hate that shit. x_x
-
This law is simply bullshit. The entire purpose is to drive women away, and let's face it... it's based on Christian doctrine. Nobody wants to admit it because it's unconstitutional, but the entire reason they're doing this crap is because they think Jeezus wants them to.
Pretty much.
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
Wait, who the heck said that???
-
As not to derail this thread I will respond here http://forums.fstdt.net/flame-and-burn/re-nickerson-lithp-fight/15/
Hahahano. As far as I can tell, calling the procedure rape still falls under the purview of this topic. Ergo, I will continue to make my arguments here. As stated before, if you don't like it, you can go do something else.
That said, I think my argument pretty much speaks for itself. You can have your own opinions & suppositions, but I'm going with the data.
I followed along and posted in that topic, though why I - who have not flamed him, and posted an actual rebuttal of his points as pertaining to the topic - was singled out for moving to the F&B thread is beyond me.
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
Wait, who the heck said that???
Check page...11? 10? I forget who said it.
Ironbite-didn't feel like naming it.
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
Wait, who the heck said that???
Right hyar. (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/legally-required-invasive-procedure-and-medical-scarlet-letter-law/msg29032/#msg29032)
-
Or if the tenant moved in, and then the landlord made a new rule saying that, and giving the tenants "enough time" to think about it before moving.
Moving out of a house is an inconvenience. So is having a baby. It's comparable.
If a woman agreed to have sex with someone just so they would not be inconvenienced I would not call it rape.
Really?
Have sex with me or I'll inconvenience you.. by firing you, or with holding your promotion, or by damaging your property
Not rape?
-
1. The procedure is not that bad.
Neither is a vasectomy... do you think that argument will make people ok about being told they need one?
-
As not to derail this thread I will respond here http://forums.fstdt.net/flame-and-burn/re-nickerson-lithp-fight/15/
Hahahano. As far as I can tell, calling the procedure rape still falls under the purview of this topic. Ergo, I will continue to make my arguments here. As stated before, if you don't like it, you can go do something else.
That said, I think my argument pretty much speaks for itself. You can have your own opinions & suppositions, but I'm going with the data.
I followed along and posted in that topic, though why I - who have not flamed him, and posted an actual rebuttal of his points as pertaining to the topic - was singled out for moving to the F&B thread is beyond me.
I don't know what you want me to do about it. Or what you're talking about, for that matter. Did I think you were Nickerson? That's weird.
Edit: Nope, I was quoting Nickerson.
-
No, the original "I will take this to the other thread" was originally directed at me. So I responded with a "yeah, I'm not moving either" sort of thing.
-
I thought he was talking to me. I didn't click the link.
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/jon-stewart-virginia-ultrasound-law-a-tsa-pat-down-inside-your-vagina/
Since most abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the fetus is too small to be viewed by an abdominal ultrasound, the ultrasound image would need to be captured by inserting a probe into the vagina.
Noting that women are not required to actually view the ultrasound, Stewart said “Virginia could have forced you to watch the image like in the dystopian classic A Clockwork Orange.”
“But instead, they are just going to be coming at you with a giant phallic object — like in A Clockwork Orange.”
After playing a clip of Virginia Gov. Bob McConnell (R) saying that TSA pat-down infringed Americans’ civil liberties, Stewart explained that for women the bill McConnell was about to sign was “like a TSA pat-down inside their vagina.”
-
Even the TSA isn't that invasive...
-
Legal technicalities hardly matter for such a fucked up situation. I'd still call it rape.
Is the only difference in the landlord situation really that the woman didn't "do something" to get that treatment? Let's say the landlord made a policy that women had to be penetrated by an inanimate object* before any maintenance could be done on her apartment, she unknowingly or unwillingly agreed to it because she needed housing, and a pipe burst. This is what led up to the previous scenario. Would it now be "not rape"? How about if the state made such a law, with its convenient higher threshold for what's considered coercion?
Direct question to Nickerson or erictheblue, whoever answers first.
*we can even make the penetration a "bona fide medical procedure", just not one that is in any way relevant to the situation.
-
Really?
Have sex with me or I'll inconvenience you.. by firing you, or with holding your promotion, or by damaging your property
Not rape?
I said that those situations are more than an inconvenience in the last part of my post.
-
Legal technicalities hardly matter for such a fucked up situation. I'd still call it rape.
Is the only difference in the landlord situation really that the woman didn't "do something" to get that treatment? Let's say the landlord made a policy that women had to be penetrated by an inanimate object* before any maintenance could be done on her apartment, she unknowingly or unwillingly agreed to it because she needed housing, and a pipe burst. This is what led up to the previous scenario. Would it now be "not rape"? How about if the state made such a law, with its convenient higher threshold for what's considered coercion?
Direct question to Nickerson or erictheblue, whoever answers first.
*we can even make the penetration a "bona fide medical procedure", just not one that is in any way relevant to the situation.
In the case of the landlord no, not rape if the woman knows about that stipulation before hand. Of course that stipulation would be sexual harassment and most likely not even be legal, but it would not be rape.
For the state, that is a lot closer. The difference is that everyone needs housing so it is not an option to rent from a different landlord.
-so are we all just going to continue this discussion here or the new thread?
-
Nickerson, normally I defend people for sticking up for their beliefs or such around here. But that last post is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. Rape or not, that landlord would be a dead man in my book regardless of contracts signed.
That said, the lot of folks need to take this argument with Nickerson into the other thread. And I'll probably be joining in from the looks of things.
-
Really?
Have sex with me or I'll inconvenience you.. by firing you, or with holding your promotion, or by damaging your property
Not rape?
I said that those situations are more than an inconvenience in the last part of my post.
Ok, so who gets to make that particular distinction? When is something an inconvenience, when is it more than an inconvenience?
And, on topic, how do you tell which category a unnecesary intra vaginal ultra sound falls in?
-
He backed off on the legislation.
clicky (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479256-virginia-governor-mcdonnell-backs-away-from-ultrasound-bill)
-
FUCK YEAH.
-
He backed off on the legislation.
clicky (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479256-virginia-governor-mcdonnell-backs-away-from-ultrasound-bill)
I'm not so sure about that. The story indicates the Governor saying...
"Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.
For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision."
Yet here is a link to the bill itself...
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+SB484S2
No where in the bill do I see that it requires a transvaginal ultrasound. I thought from the beginning that was the case and the issue was that before 9 weeks transvaginal ultrasounds were need to measure gestational age. So when the Governor say that they should not be required "unless a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient" I don't see how that changes anything.
-
Relevant:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-21-2012/punanny-state---virginia-s-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill
-
For me, I don't know whether to call this actual, physical rape so much as I would call it "rape of the soul."
That's a good description. I've been thinking of it as "rape-like." It isn't legally rape, but it is still crappy.
This law is simply bullshit. The entire purpose is to drive women away, and let's face it... it's based on Christian doctrine. Nobody wants to admit it because it's unconstitutional, but the entire reason they're doing this crap is because they think Jeezus wants them to.
I've been thinking about the constitutionality of this law for a few days, and I am really not sure how a court would rule. I suspect it would come down to whether the challenge was done as a prima facia challenge, or done as-applied.
Abortion (as part of the fundamental right to privacy) requires a strict scrutiny analysis. This means limiting access to abortion would require (1) a compelling governmental interest, and (2) the law be narrowly tailored to meet that compelling governmental interest.
If challenged prima facia, I fear the law would pass constitutional muster. Analysis would not get to strict scrutiny because (on the face), there is no restriction of the fundamental right. Virginia is not telling women they cannot have an abortion. The law only says a procedure must be done before the abortion can be carried out. Once the procedure is done, she can have the abortion. No restriction --> No constitutional issue.
If challenged as-applied, and the ones challenging the law can show that the law kept women from getting abortions, it would flunk constitutional muster. (Getting the evidence to show the laws effect would take time, but could be done.) The only possible compelling governmental interest (and it is a weak one) is health and safety. ("We're making sure women are healthy enough to have the abortion" or something like that...) Given how weak that argument is, I doubt any court would find there is a compelling governmental interest. Even if that was sufficient, it clearly flunks narrow tailoring, as it requires all women to undergo the procedure, regardless of the woman's overall health. (It is "over inclusive.")
It's also possible it could be challenged under the Fourth Amendment. ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...") Although a lot of that challenge comes down to whether it is legally a "search" and whether the doctor was acting as an agent of the state. And there is also the issue of consent (as consent makes a search automatically reasonable).
Neither is a vasectomy... do you think that argument will make people ok about being told they need one?
I have no idea, but apparently it isn't a big deal around here. There's several giant billboards for a surgeon who does scalpel-free vasectomies on a main road between here and Gainsville. A few years ago in DC, a surgeon was offering a special right before the Super Bowl - a lower price and a bag of frozen peas! :)
Legal technicalities hardly matter for such a fucked up situation. I'd still call it rape.
You can call it whatever you want. Legally, it does not rise to the level of the definition of rape in VA. That doesn't mean it isn't invasive or creepy.
Is the only difference in the landlord situation really that the woman didn't "do something" to get that treatment?
No. The primary difference is the effect of the choice. A woman is free to walk out of the medical facility and there is no consequence to her. (Please note that courts do not consider continuing pregnancy to be consequence.) If, by chance, there was a situation where there would be a dangerous consequence (i.e. she has a medical condition that would cause continued pregnancy to threaten her life), that could be a basis for an as-applied challenge. (See above.)
How about if the state made such a law, with its convenient higher threshold for what's considered coercion?
See my above discussion regarding constitutional challenges. Such a law would likely be seen as a conflict of the Fourth Amendment. It would clearly flunk compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring.
-
That's a good description. I've been thinking of it as "rape-like." It isn't legally rape, but it is still crappy.
I don't understand this authoritarian argument. No one ever claimed it was rape by VA laws. We're not banging rocks together, we know what the law claims. So your legal arguments, while impressive, are way off-base from the original point. Which was that by several other metrics, it should be considered rape by the law. Which is grounds to, you know, change the law.
And hey. Laws DO change. Once upon a time, hanging was not considered cruel & unusual punishment.
-
For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision."
So what he is saying is that an ultrasound is still required, regardless of anything else. However, transvaginal ultrasounds are note. However because an ultrasound is still required it is up to the doctor now to determine if a transvaginal ultrasound is necessary.
This is a lovely way of putting all the blame on the doctors for still forcing women to undergo this unnecessary procedure. The doctor has to provide images to determine gestational age regardless of anything else. However before the second trimester the only way to do that is with a transvaginal ultrasound. Hence, legally the doctor is forced to perform this procedure on the patient because of the law. However because the procedure is unnecessary, he is also liable for a malpractice suit. This laws just screws over everyone.
-
I'm starting to think conservatives literally cannot write logically sound laws.
-
For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision."
So what he is saying is that an ultrasound is still required, regardless of anything else. However, transvaginal ultrasounds are note. However because an ultrasound is still required it is up to the doctor now to determine if a transvaginal ultrasound is necessary.
This is a lovely way of putting all the blame on the doctors for still forcing women to undergo this unnecessary procedure. The doctor has to provide images to determine gestational age regardless of anything else. However before the second trimester the only way to do that is with a transvaginal ultrasound. Hence, legally the doctor is forced to perform this procedure on the patient because of the law. However because the procedure is unnecessary, he is also liable for a malpractice suit. This laws just screws over everyone.
Actually that is the way the original bill was written, it never specify the need for TV ultrasounds. So what the Governor has done is respond to something that was not there in the first place. The media has swallowed it, so far, and some the heat the law was generating has died down. Of course this was made possible by the focus the left put on the TV ultrasounds instead of focusing on the larger overall issues with the bill.
-
I consider state sanctioned rape to be a pretty important concern, actually.
-
One of the biggest reasons the law is bullshit is that it is about informed consent. Call me silly, but I think the women going there know they are pregnant and are seeking to terminate that pregnancy through medical means. It's not like the doctor is giving them an exam and suddenly announcing "There, you're not pregnant any more, I took care of the for you."
I am curious though. What takes precidence: the laws governing doctors conduct or this law?
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
Ironbite. Read the fucking context in which that was said, shithead! Christ! The procedure itself is not this ginormously horrible thing. The intent behind [the law] is shit, yes, but Miriam was trying to smooth over misconceptions about the procedure, not the law.
Therefore, piss off, metalhead.
-
Oh no! I sure got told. I mean after all, a consensus was reached that this is a stupid procedure that shouldn't even been thought up. Ever. But hey, allow me to do something for you.
Ironbite-Welcome to my Ignore list.
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
Ironbite. Read the fucking context in which that was said, shithead! Christ! The procedure itself is not this ginormously horrible thing. The intent behind [the law] is shit, yes, but Miriam was trying to smooth over misconceptions about the procedure, not the law.
Therefore, piss off, metalhead.
What the fuck?
-
One of the biggest reasons the law is bullshit is that it is about informed consent. Call me silly, but I think the women going there know they are pregnant and are seeking to terminate that pregnancy through medical means. It's not like the doctor is giving them an exam and suddenly announcing "There, you're not pregnant any more, I took care of the for you."
I am curious though. What takes precidence: the laws governing doctors conduct or this law?
Ethically, its the laws governing doctors. I think a lot of doctors will refuse to comply, but also won't break the law and offer terminations. Which is quite possibly an intended effect of the bill.
-
1. The procedure is not that bad
..............any argument you can ever make ever is now and forever invalid.
Ironbite. Read the fucking context in which that was said, shithead! Christ! The procedure itself is not this ginormously horrible thing. The intent behind [the law] is shit, yes, but Miriam was trying to smooth over misconceptions about the procedure, not the law.
Therefore, piss off, metalhead.
What the fuck?
Someone's wearing their big girl panties and wanted to show off.
Ironbite-isn't it cute!?
-
Oh no! I sure got told. I mean after all, a consensus was reached that this is a stupid procedure that shouldn't even been thought up. Ever. But hey, allow me to do something for you.
Ironbite-Welcome to my Ignore list.
Well other than the fact that this procedure was not thought up just for an abortion law. The whole reason for a TV ultrasound is to get clearer pictures if they are needed. My wife had a few with her last pregnancy because early on the placenta was covering her cervix. They used the TV ultrasounds to make sure the placenta was slowly moving up and away from the cervix, because had it not she would have required a cesarean section.
-
Oh no! I sure got told. I mean after all, a consensus was reached that this is a stupid procedure that shouldn't even been thought up. Ever. But hey, allow me to do something for you.
Ironbite-Welcome to my Ignore list.
Well other than the fact that this procedure was not thought up just for an abortion law. The whole reason for a TV ultrasound is to get clearer pictures if they are needed. My wife had a few with her last pregnancy because early on the placenta was covering her cervix. They used the TV ultrasounds to make sure the placenta was slowly moving up and away from the cervix, because had it not she would have required a cesarean section.
There are certainly situations where its an appropriate procedure. But this isn't one of them.
-
I don't understand this authoritarian argument. No one ever claimed it was rape by VA laws.
No way in hell this is legal. This is basically state-sanctioned rape.
I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.
I am quite certain that it is quite true under the current FBI definition at least.
Invasive and uncomfortable yes. Rape, no.
OF COURSE YOU DON'T THINK IT'S RAPE! OF COURSE!
I kind of want to see how he can possibly claim it's not rape without saying something that sounds eerily similar to a rape apologist argument.
It's coercive, forcible penetration with an object. Don't they call that 'object rape'?
I too thought calling this rape was a stretch. I'm not saying it isn't terrible what they're doing, but rape? And anyone who agrees is a rape apologist? Give me a break. Isn't it enough that we all agree it's unnecessary and should be done away with? Do you have to agree it's rape to not be scum?
It is rape. It's coerced penetration of the vagina. It's rape.
Hey, I have an idea, let's replace "ultrasound" with "the doctor's penis," since that's clearly what you're having difficulty with.
Well, golly, I don't see why it's rape if she's expected to let the doctor stick his penis in her vagina. I mean, she could just opt not to have the abortion. No one's FORCING her to have a penis in her vagina. It's not rape, I'm sorry, but you guys are just overreacting to call it rape.
mandatory medical rape...
Actually, a more humiliating fate would be to send in the SWAT teams to arrest the legislators on charges of accessory to rape and conspiracy to commit rape.
Its rape by proxy really.
Indeed. While I do contend that this constitutes rape,
Right, I'm going to take advice on rhetorical tone from the man who just defended rape apology.
You yob, I CAN argue it, but why would I handicap myself when it's been proven to qualify as rape?
Nope. No one is calling it rape. No one at all. No one is making any comparisons to rape.
We're not banging rocks together, we know what the law claims. So your legal arguments, while impressive, are way off-base from the original point. Which was that by several other metrics, it should be considered rape by the law. Which is grounds to, you know, change the law.
I will admit, while doing the scan of the thread, there were several people who made that argument. My posts were not directed at them, but at the people who continued to call it rape.
And hey. Laws DO change. Once upon a time, hanging was not considered cruel & unusual punishment.
Hanging isn't considered cruel and unusual. New Hampshire and Washington (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution) state still have it as an option. (Lethal injection is primary in both.)
-
There are certainly situations where its an appropriate procedure. But this isn't one of them.
I take it you mean that requiring a woman to get a ultra-sound to measure fetal age before an abortion. Remember the law never specifically required TV ultra-sounds just a measure of fetal gestational age.
-
There are certainly situations where its an appropriate procedure. But this isn't one of them.
I take it you mean that requiring a woman to get a ultra-sound to measure fetal age before an abortion. Remember the law never specifically required TV ultra-sounds just a measure of fetal gestational age.
Um, no...
Here, everything you ever wanted to know about trans vaginal ultrasound and why you might want one http://www.insideradiology.com.au/PDF/T72Rtransvaginalus-referrer.pdf (http://www.insideradiology.com.au/PDF/T72Rtransvaginalus-referrer.pdf)
-
Um, no...
Here, everything you ever wanted to know about trans vaginal ultrasound and why you might want one http://www.insideradiology.com.au/PDF/T72Rtransvaginalus-referrer.pdf (http://www.insideradiology.com.au/PDF/T72Rtransvaginalus-referrer.pdf)
No what? I'm not catching what you're trying to get at?
-
Um, no...
Here, everything you ever wanted to know about trans vaginal ultrasound and why you might want one http://www.insideradiology.com.au/PDF/T72Rtransvaginalus-referrer.pdf (http://www.insideradiology.com.au/PDF/T72Rtransvaginalus-referrer.pdf)
No what? I'm not catching what you're trying to get at?
Determining length of gestation before a woman has an abortion, is not, in my opinion, a reason you would order this imaging procedure.
I understand the law isn't demanding one, but that in a particularly early term case, it would be necesary. There's no valid medical reason I can think of for requiring this.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/virginia-backtracks-but-not-enough-on-anti-abortion-bill.html
The state’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, was ready to sign it into law until critics protested that the measure would force some women in early pregnancy to submit to a vaginal ultrasound to locate the fetal heartbeat. Some lawmakers said they did not realize the bill would have required this coerced penetration, which critics not unreasonably likened to rape.
To contain the embarrassment, Mr. McDonnell ordered a new version of the bill that requires a less-invasive abdominal ultrasound. It is still an unacceptable intrusion into women’s medical decisions. The revision also retains the requirement of a 24-hour waiting-period — which has been an enormous practical impediment for women seeking abortions in states that have this rule.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/virginia-backtracks-but-not-enough-on-anti-abortion-bill.html
The state’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, was ready to sign it into law until critics protested that the measure would force some women in early pregnancy to submit to a vaginal ultrasound to locate the fetal heartbeat. Some lawmakers said they did not realize the bill would have required this coerced penetration, which critics not unreasonably likened to rape.
To contain the embarrassment, Mr. McDonnell ordered a new version of the bill that requires a less-invasive abdominal ultrasound. It is still an unacceptable intrusion into women’s medical decisions. The revision also retains the requirement of a 24-hour waiting-period — which has been an enormous practical impediment for women seeking abortions in states that have this rule.
which critics not unreasonably likened to rape.
(http://i.imgur.com/kg7u2.png)
-
I don't understand this authoritarian argument. No one ever claimed it was rape by VA laws.
Eric, before you erect a condescending quote wall, try actually fucking reading. I am now convinced this explains both why some people argue that it isn't a form of rape & why they think the people calling it rape are some kind of fringe group of lunatics, when the comparison has overwhelming support. They either can't or won't read.
-
Determining length of gestation before a woman has an abortion, is not, in my opinion, a reason you would order this imaging procedure.
This I agree with.
-
Eric, before you erect a condescending quote wall, try actually fucking reading. I am now convinced this explains both why some people argue that it isn't a form of rape & why they think the people calling it rape are some kind of fringe group of lunatics, when the comparison has overwhelming support. They either can't or won't read.
Support of calling it rape does not make it so. Plus the support for calling it such is only on the left.
-
Direct. Fucking. Question. Below.
Why is it that you keep bringing up who is & isn't supporting the assertion like it fucking means anything, but whenever anyone else tries to say there's more support for it than you claim, you automatically cry that they're trying to use argument ad populum?
-
I'm putting this in another post because I want the Direct Question to remain highlighted:
I don't really give a fuck if "only the left" calls it rape. You know why? It's almost entirely the left that says it's any sort of violation of women's rights in the first place.
-
Direct. Fucking. Question. Below.
Why is it that you keep bringing up who is & isn't supporting the assertion like it fucking means anything, but whenever anyone else tries to say there's more support for it than you claim, you automatically cry that they're trying to use argument ad populum?
I bring it up because the procedure under this law is being called rape as propaganda. You can't find a legal definition that would make it rape, nor a common one. While people have been fighting about TV ultra-sounds it seems almost everyone has bought the story that the VA legislature has somehow backed off something. They haven't. The bill is largely unchanged, but for those who did not read the original bill is will seem like woman will only have to have external ultra-sounds. That is until you realize that the original bill never called for TV ultra-sounds and for doctors to measure fetal gestational age in early pregnancy, which is required in the bill, TV ultra-sounds may very well still be needed in some cases.
You don't have to worry about me my boy, I'm not running from any questions.
I don't really give a fuck if "only the left" calls it rape. You know why? It's almost entirely the left that says it's any sort of violation of women's rights in the first place.
Good for you. That does not change much.
-
I thought I'd feel more satisfaction when I finally got substantial evidence that nicky was a conservitard... and yet, it barely registers on my satisfact-o-meter. Huh.
Carry on...
-
I thought I'd feel more satisfaction when I finally got substantial evidence that nicky was a conservitard... and yet, it barely registers on my satisfact-o-meter. Huh.
Carry on...
I'll just add that to my list of ridiculous things you have called me. It so much easier to throw names around than to actually debate a topic. Much like how people would rather call something rape then argue how unfair the bill is without the rhetoric.
-
You don't have to worry about me my boy, I'm not running from any questions.
Response:
Good for you. That does not change much.
Well. I don't think I should actually have to spell it out any further, but since you actually said some things that were relatively agreeable, I'll elucidate on 2 points:
1. When I say, "Such & such approves," I am NOT using ad populum, because I am simply trying to debunk claims that it's some kind of lunatic fringe. I am not saying, "It is correct because these people approve." But to say that it's only a small group of radicals making the claim? Now, that is just factually wrong.
2. It is true that, last I was aware, the bill hasn't really changed much, & it is also true that a disturbing number of people are accepting the misdirection. However, it is also true that some are not fooled, & are still sticking to the rape argument.
Much like how people would rather call something rape then argue how unfair the bill is without the rhetoric.
Here's a crazy thought, maybe some of us actually think that's an important issue.
Also, you are aware that "rhetoric" is a synonym for "argument" right? "Empty rhetoric" is the term you're looking for.
-
Well. I don't think I should actually have to spell it out any further, but since you actually said some things that were relatively agreeable, I'll elucidate on 2 points:
1. When I say, "Such & such approves," I am NOT using ad populum, because I am simply trying to debunk claims that it's some kind of lunatic fringe. I am not saying, "It is correct because these people approve." But to say that it's only a small group of radicals making the claim? Now, that is just factually wrong.
Then why bring it up? Regardless of if it lunatic fringe or a majority of people it does not change anything.
...by the way I never once said that only a small group was making that claim. The left is not a small group is it?
2. It is true that, last I was aware, the bill hasn't really changed much, & it is also true that a disturbing number of people are accepting the misdirection. However, it is also true that some are not fooled, & are still sticking to the rape argument.
What has that got them so far other then allowing away for the VA Governor and Legislature to seemingly back peddle and and get a number of people to accept it?
Here's a crazy thought, maybe some of us actually think that's an important issue.
Also, you are aware that "rhetoric" is a synonym for "argument" right? "Empty rhetoric" is the term you're looking for.
What, to call it rape. It is an important argument in the sense that doing so is not helping. Other then a few articles about this bill all you see it the "rape" issue. That is the very issue that as you said got many people to be fooled.
Oh, and it you would like me to say empty rhetoric so we a clear I will, but I was using rhetoric in this way...
rhet·o·ric
noun
1.
(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric)
-
Then why bring it up? Regardless of if it lunatic fringe or a majority of people it does not change anything.
Uh, it changes a lot actually, because while it doesn't make it more logical, it makes it more likely to be taken seriously. Why do you think the right is so dead set on portraying homosexual rights advocates as a vocal minority who want "special rights"? If a narrow majority agrees with them, & the right doesn't do anything about it, the changes will likely pass.
Also, to "Why correct incorrect things," I say, "Why say incorrect things to begin with?"
...by the way I never once said that only a small group was making that claim. The left is not a small group is it?
You've said hundreds of contradictory things this whole damn thread. Or did you forget when you said, "Calling it that scares away many more people who would otherwise support you"?
What has that got them so far other then allowing away for the VA Governor and Legislature to seemingly back peddle and and get a number of people to accept it?
Hey, look at that, the VA Governer & Legislature were threatened enough by the rape claim to at least make it look like they were fixing something. That has not happened with any of these other abortion bills. That alone proves it's pretty damn effective. Now, if the portion of the rape argument who was not fooled convinces the portion who was fooled that they were fooled, they can regain their original numbers & keep the pressure up.
Also, what has NOT arguing that it's rape gotten? I don't see the bill being overturned citing privacy & slut-shaming. As much as you claim the rape argument isn't working, your own arguments are at least as ineffective, & evidence suggests that they are actually being LESS effective.
What, to call it rape.
Are you seriously suggesting that every poster here who says it's rape is just "calling it" that? No, it's important because we believe rape is an important issue!
Other then a few articles about this bill all you see it the "rape" issue.
Yeah. 'Cause it's a major issue. No one says that slut-shaming, waste of legislation, & privacy violations aren't bad, but you yourself admitted that rape is more of a concern than inconvenience. And if we believe it is rape, doesn't it logically follow that we think that's a bigger concern?
That is the very issue that as you said got many people to be fooled.
No, that is not what I said, in fact it isn't even true. What fooled people was the governer's empty rhetoric. As I said, I support the rape argument, & I was not fooled.
-
Uh, it changes a lot actually, because while it doesn't make it more logical, it makes it more likely to be taken seriously. Why do you think the right is so dead set on portraying homosexual rights advocates as a vocal minority who want "special rights"? If a narrow majority agrees with them, & the right doesn't do anything about it, the changes will likely pass.
Also, to "Why correct incorrect things," I say, "Why say incorrect things to begin with?"
Then why call it rape if you don't think we should not say incorrect things to begin with?
No it's not more likely to be taken seriously. You have a group of people here that know it is not rape. You are going to have a larger group of people outside this forum who are going to here the that argument and think you are over-blowing the issue and tune you out. It is the same thing as the pro-life side calling abortion murder, do you think that has helped their side?
You've said hundreds of contradictory things this whole damn thread. Or did you forget when you said, "Calling it that scares away many more people who would otherwise support you"?
How is that contradictory? You will scare people away that may want to argue against the bill but do not agree that it is rape. Those people might not what to get called things like rape apologist.
Hey, look at that, the VA Governer & Legislature were threatened enough by the rape claim to at least make it look like they were fixing something. That has not happened with any of these other abortion bills. That alone proves it's pretty damn effective. Now, if the portion of the rape argument who was not fooled convinces the portion who was fooled that they were fooled, they can regain their original numbers & keep the pressure up.
Also, what has NOT arguing that it's rape gotten? I don't see the bill being overturned citing privacy & slut-shaming. As much as you claim the rape argument isn't working, your own arguments are at least as ineffective, & evidence suggests that they are actually being LESS effective.
Look like, is the are the key words. In doing so they got a whole bunch of people to think the worst is over.
Really what evidence? The bill is still alive, with little change and is still likely to pass.
Are you seriously suggesting that every poster here who says it's rape is just "calling it" that? No, it's important because we believe rape is an important issue!
Rape is an important issue, it is just not this issue. Yes, I think a lot of people are calling it rape just because rape is horrible and so is this bill, not because it is really rape.
Yeah. 'Cause it's a major issue. No one says that slut-shaming, waste of legislation, & privacy violations aren't bad, but you yourself admitted that rape is more of a concern than inconvenience. And if we believe it is rape, doesn't it logically follow that we think that's a bigger concern?
You don't need to call it rape for it to be a major concern.
No, that is not what I said, in fact it isn't even true. What fooled people was the governer's empty rhetoric. As I said, I support the rape argument, & I was not fooled.
...and what allowed that empty rhetoric?
-
You stopped saying reasonable things, so it's time for another Direct Question:
Can you point to any actual instances where the bill has gotten farther from passing specifically because of the portion of the critics who are not saying it's rape?
-
You stopped saying reasonable things, so it's time for another Direct Question:
Can you point to any actual instances where the bill has gotten farther from passing specifically because of the portion of the critics who are not saying it's rape?
No, but that is because the argument has been not about the bill as a whole, or how it is an invasion of privacy or anything else except how it is or is not rape.
Now I will ask you a question again, do you think calling abortion murder has helped the pro-life side.
-
Now I will ask you a question again, do you think calling abortion murder has helped the pro-life side.
Yes, it helped them like goddamn crazy! In order to establish any sort of pro-choice position, you have to argue your way around that; either by proving that abortion is not murder, or by proving that some other facet of the situation is more important. There is, in fact, a difference between what is logical, what is ethical, & what is effective in a debate.
Is this to be a Duel of the Direct Questions? I'm cool with that. Here's my next one:
Do you know what the self-serving bias is?
-
^Calling abortion murder really shut off the pro-life case for me. If they dealt with health hazards or psychological backlash related abortion, I might sympathize, but their whole murder gimmick makes me think of them as a joke.
-
^Calling abortion murder really shut off the pro-life case for me. If they dealt with health hazards or psychological backlash related abortion, I might sympathize, but their whole murder gimmick makes me think of them as a joke.
You are an individual. Obviously, it didn't work on me either. By & large, it has been extraordinarily effective. It has been an uphill battle going against "we eez keeleeng beebeez!"
Actually, that's not entirely true. I used to think abortion should not be available beyond the formation of the central nervous system, because then THAT would be "murder," for want of a better word. FSTDT has caused me to reconsider that a bit.
-
Yes, it helped them like goddamn crazy! In order to establish any sort of pro-choice position, you have to argue your way around that; either by proving that abortion is not murder, or by proving that some other facet of the situation is more important. There is, in fact, a difference between what is logical, what is ethical, & what is effective in a debate.
Is this to be a Duel of the Direct Questions? I'm cool with that. Here's my next one:
Do you know what the self-serving bias is?
Is arguing that it is not murder that hard? No, it isn't. Plus it has gotten them in trouble a number of times. I doubt it helps them when some nut job takes that empty rhetoric seriously and kills and abortion doctor, a woman commits suicide because they think they are a murderer. When that happens the left are the first to scream about how the pro-life side presents it's arguments.
Self-serving bias, is taking credit for successes but blaming others for failures.
-
^Calling abortion murder really shut off the pro-life case for me. If they dealt with health hazards or psychological backlash related abortion, I might sympathize, but their whole murder gimmick makes me think of them as a joke.
Actually, that's not entirely true. I used to think abortion should not be available beyond the formation of the central nervous system, because then THAT would be "murder," for want of a better word. FSTDT has caused me to reconsider that a bit.
"Euthanasia"
-
Is arguing that it is not murder that hard? No, it isn't.
I guess I must have imagined all of the anti-abortion legislation that's still going through, despite it "not being that hard."
Self-serving bias, is taking credit for successes but blaming others for failures.
Yeah. It's what you're doing, with these arguments.
"Euthanasia"
Euthanasia suggests a "mercy killing." What I am looking for is a word that is like murder, but not defined in terms of being unlawful. "Killing" also does not work, because there are many types of killing--euthanasia, accidental death, suicide, murder, execution, etc.
-
I guess I must have imagined all of the anti-abortion legislation that's still going through, despite it "not being that hard."
There are two main types of anti-abortion laws that are being passed. The first is ones such as the VA law that requires ultra-sounds. Those fall under the argument of informed consent. The second are increased regulations on abortion providers, sometimes making it harder for new providers to open. Those fall under a few different argument including safety regulation. That argument that abortion is murder does not enter into these. That is why bills that giver fetuses person-hood or the like have not been as successful.
Yeah. It's what you're doing, with these arguments.
You might be right, if I was claiming any successes. I'm not saying that if people drop the whole rape argument they would win in the end.
-
That argument that abortion is murder does not enter into these.
It gives them support to pull that shit, & it motivates them to make those moves. They don't exactly try to hide it. Every time one of their resolutions passes, they start talking about how it was "a victory for life."
I'm not saying that if people drop the whole rape argument they would win in the end.
...Yet you expect me to magically pull a dropped bill out of my ass, or else my argument is worthless? What the fuck is this horseshit? Are you literally high right now?
-
It gives them support to pull that shit, & it motivates them to make those moves. They don't exactly try to hide it. Every time one of their resolutions passes, they start talking about how it was "a victory for life."
It may from the religious right which believe that it is murder. However in the arguments for these laws it does not come up. That is part of the reason legislation such as this can get passed, but we don't see enough support to get even tougher legislation or even start looking as a constitutional amendment. When those arguments come up some people who support making an abortion harder to get back off.
...Yet you expect me to magically pull a dropped bill out of my ass, or else my argument is worthless? What the fuck is this horseshit? Are you literally high right now?
I never said that. I do expect you to show how it has actually helped. So far it hasn't. Yes the original bill was backed off of, but the new one with very little change is marching along with the Governor saying how he supports women's rights. Plus if they need to they could backpedal even a bit more and put the bill that under not circumstances is a TV ultra-sound required. That would look very much like a win for the left, but when that bill is passed women would still have to get go though and external ultra-sound. Which was the major intent of the bill to start with.
-
I never said that. I do expect you to show how it has actually helped. So far it hasn't. Yes the original bill was backed off of, but the new one with very little change is marching along with the Governor saying how he supports women's rights. Plus if they need to they could backpedal even a bit more and put the bill that under not circumstances is a TV ultra-sound required. That would look very much like a win for the left, but when that bill is passed women would still have to get go though and external ultra-sound. Which was the major intent of the bill to start with.
And something I'd oppose equally strongly.
-
And something I'd oppose equally strongly.
As would I, but that is a tough fight to win. At the end of the day abortion providers still might preform ultra-sounds to establish fetal age so they can be sure of which methods of abortion are an option. That is unless there is another way to do it.
-
When those arguments come up some people who support making an abortion harder to get back off.
Not because they don't agree. Because they know they'll lose if they do it that way. Now, if the bill becomes law, trying to support the rape argument in court might become more problematic. Then again, it might still work, by appealing to higher level courts.
I do expect you to show how it has actually helped.
Are you really going to quibble over the details of what, precisely, it is that you expect me to do when you cannot?
That would look very much like a win for the left, but when that bill is passed women would still have to get go though and external ultra-sound. Which was the major intent of the bill to start with.
So long as they were not forced to wait, it WOULD be a win. Furthermore, you seem to think that I'm saying you have to EITHER argue that it is rape OR argue that it is an unnecessary procedure meant to make it harder to get an abortion. That is not the case. Once that small victory is achieved, there is nothing stopping people from going for the Grand Prize, which is shitcanning the entire bill. But that might not be reasonable to expect to happen, & something is better than nothing. The problem comes when you attempt to sabotage your own side by comparing a huge amount of your support base to Godwin's Law!
-
Not because they don't agree. Because they know they'll lose if they do it that way. Now, if the bill becomes law, trying to support the rape argument in court might become more problematic. Then again, it might still work, by appealing to higher level courts.
...and why would they lose, oh because they would not have the support.
Are you really going to quibble over the details of what, precisely, it is that you expect me to do when you cannot?
You said yourself a bunch of people think the bill really changed. They think they got a win, when they did not. Plus it has give room for the supporters of the bill to maneuver.
So long as they were not forced to wait, it WOULD be a win. Furthermore, you seem to think that I'm saying you have to EITHER argue that it is rape OR argue that it is an unnecessary procedure meant to make it harder to get an abortion. That is not the case. Once that small victory is achieved, there is nothing stopping people from going for the Grand Prize, which is shitcanning the entire bill. But that might not be reasonable to expect to happen, & something is better than nothing. The problem comes when you attempt to sabotage your own side by comparing a huge amount of your support base to Godwin's Law!
You can try an argue both, but in the end the rape argument is going to get more attention, just as it has. Yes, after a small victory you could go to get that whole bill thrown out, but it will be that much harder. It makes it seem as if your side is unwilling to compromise. You got your main argument and now you what more? That is what the other side will say. Not to mention how many people will stop paying attention because they think a victory means they won and the fight is over.
I'm going to call BS when I see it. I don't like heated empty rhetoric from any side, even if it is the side I think is right. This kind of thing takes away from any true debate on issue. Following along when your side does it will not help that problem.
-
I love how you're noting that the supporters of the bill are going to fight against everything the critics do, yet somehow, we made them do it.
-
And something I'd oppose equally strongly.
As would I, but that is a tough fight to win. At the end of the day abortion providers still might preform ultra-sounds to establish fetal age so they can be sure of which methods of abortion are an option. That is unless there is another way to do it.
Counting the date from end of last period has been perfectly adequate for the past few centuries.
-
Will you two just get it over already and fuck?
Ironbite-jesus.
-
Seriously, take it to the thread in AM. That's why it's there.
-
Seriously, take it to the thread in AM. That's why it's there.
Technically, though, what they're arguing is on topic and not de-railing the thread... :-/
-
Seriously, take it to the thread in AM. That's why it's there.
If you really think we need to take it there we will. We are however not discussing if the bills is rape or not, but we're discussing the affects of calling it so.
-
Counting the date from end of last period has been perfectly adequate for the past few centuries.
Yes, but it is not as accurate. A difference of a week or so can mean a difference in what options are available, even early on. It should be noted that even planned parenthood used ultrasounds before abortion procedures.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp)
Click on "What Happens During a Medication Abortion?" to expand.
-
"Euthanasia"
Euthanasia suggests a "mercy killing." What I am looking for is a word that is like murder, but not defined in terms of being unlawful. "Killing" also does not work, because there are many types of killing--euthanasia, accidental death, suicide, murder, execution, etc.
If it is like murder, then why decriminalize it?
-
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5462/screenshot0226201201114.png)
Use it.
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnxwpxcw3W1qgs87f.gif)
I can't believe we're still arguing this crap.
-
I think this is relevant. Not in Virginia, but Alabama.
http://www.care2.com/causes/discomfort-is-the-point-of-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill-sponsor-says.html (http://www.care2.com/causes/discomfort-is-the-point-of-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill-sponsor-says.html)
When Alabama Republican Clay Scofield introduced a mandatory ultrasound proposal for women seeking abortions, he stated that he assumed most of the ultrasounds would be abdominal, since they could be used at six weeks or earlier. His obvious misinformation was an attempt to shield himself from the accusation that he wanted to force all women seeking abortions to be manually probed in the process.
Now, he’s is much less concerned about appearing concerned about the feelings, both physically and emotionally, of the women involved. As the debate over the transvaginal ultrasound proposal continues, Scofield says it’s good for women to feel some discomfort if they are trying to terminate a pregnancy. WAAYTV reporter Rebecca Shlien writes, “[Bill opponent on Scofield constituent Tristin] Basinger says this invasive ultrasound would be a physical and emotional discomfort: ‘I think they should see what they’re getting rid of, but I don’t think they should go through the whole humiliation. Because I feel like they’re already humiliated enough as it is.’ But Scofield, the bill’s sponsor, feels that discomfort is the point, and this clearer sonogram would help women second guess the decision to end their pregnancy.”
-
WHICH IS ANOTHER ATTACK ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS YOU IDIOTS!
Ironbite-god....an unborn child can't vote, why the fuck do you even give a shit?