Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4705

Sorry about having to highlight half the damn thing
The Tuesday passage in Virginia of two of the strictest anti-abortion bills in the country has sparked fierce debate over abortion rights the battleground state, with Democrats decrying the acts as an unprecedented encroachment on women's rights as Republicans push to move the legislation forward.

One bill, Republican Del. Bob Marshall's House bill 1, would define personhood at conception and "provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth." The second bill requires that women be required to undergo an ultrasound procedure prior to having an abortion.
...
The personhood bill, which passed by 66-32 in the Virginia state House, does not ban abortions, the legality of which are protected under the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. It would, however, make illegal certain types of contraceptive measures, including emergency contraception. Women's health advocates say it could also open the door to banning birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUD).
...
One issue that has come under the microscope with relation to the ultrasound bill is its requirement that some women undergo a transvaginal ultrasound probe, which is considered more physically invasive than other procedures.

While the bill does not explicitly mandate the use of transvaginal ultrasounds, many women would inevitably be required to undergo them; in the early stages of pregnancy, that procedure is often the only form of ultrasound that can detect a fetus' heartbeat.

Republicans argue that the ultrasound bill will protect women from complications during abortion procedures, and that providing a woman with the gestational age of the fetus is crucial to her "informed consent" to have an abortion.
...
The Virginia state Senate has already passed an ultrasound bill, and Republican Governor Bob McDonnell is expected to sign the legislation when it lands on his desk. He does not have a formal position on the personhood bill.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … -virginia/

I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about this. He has called himself an "unshakeable foe" of abortion and has helped get laws through that make abortions harder to get. He also thinks life begins at contraception. But he is such an honorable man and lover of freedom I'm sure he doesn't agree with this.

So is making women get tubes stuck up their vaginas in order to hear a fetus heartbeat before they get an abortion the right thing to do or the wrong thing? I think it's the wrong thing.
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|5829|Oklahoma City
Some of these laws have floated around other states in the last few years.

Lots of big debates...

1) The big thing is the contradictions... If someone is a full person with full rights at conception, but abortion is still legal, then wouldn't killing your 13 year old then have to be legal?

2) If making a mom hear a heartbeat before an abortion is "cruel," then how can the abortion itself NOT be cruel? I don't know about you, but they have made me look at X-Rays, MRIs, ultrasounds, and everything else, along with long detailed description of what they are going to do before they did surgeries on me... Is that a law, or a policy, or just a comfort level thing? I don't know. I never asked... But if they HAVE to do it for removing a tumor, then they should HAVE to do it for removing a living being.

Blah blah blah...

Just ways for politicians to say "We don't agree with you being allowed to have abortions, but there really isn't anything we can do about it, so we will harass you with the law..."

Instead, my opinion, they need to fight against abortion itself, OR leave it the frick alone and quit wasting time, and money on a non-issue.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,937|5891|USA

There are a lot of constituents who think it's anything BUT a non-issue.
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|5829|Oklahoma City
It is a non-issue for them to approach it the way they are, I mean. Either go after what you think you should be going after, or don't... Otherwise, it is comparable to bulling. "We can't stop you from doing what you have a protected right to do... And if we tried to get THAT changed, we would just piss off a lot of people... So instead, we are going to make it harder, and less convenient for you to get those protected rights..."

By the way, all miscarriages are now going to be a tax-deductible, FMLA protected, death in the family, correct? Or have they thought about that yet?
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4821|College Park, MD
well there's one thing Maryland beats Virginia on...
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4378|foggy bottom
immigrants?
Tu Stultus Es
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+647|5410|Washington St.
Thinking life begins the second you get pregnant = fine.

If that's what you want to think, fine. I don't agree but I understand you think that.

Wanting to ban people from having sex unless it's to have a child = not fucking fine.

Why do I know these fucks are trying to impart their religious ideas into the government to control people?
(side note: didn't we have a document freeing us from mixing church and state? oh yeah the declaration of independence.)

banning birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUD).
THE SPERM NEVER REACHES THE GODDAMN EGG




disclaimer: some iud's are hormonal so my rant doesn't fully apply. but i had a shitty day.

edito: also, i can't spell

Last edited by pirana6 (2012-02-16 23:24:20)

Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|5812
As long as a majority of women in Virginia want this bill passed to law then let them do so. A cell is a living thing. Whether or not that cell/zygote contains consciousness yet is the true question. Of course given time that cell will grow into a conscious human. But who's to say that the conscious "spirit" that would have occupied an aborted cell cluster will not find another medium through which to know the universe (another as yet unborn life-form).
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|5564|The Land of Scott Walker

Macbeth wrote:

So is making women get tubes stuck up their vaginas in order to hear a fetus heartbeat before they get an abortion the right thing to do or the wrong thing? I think it's the wrong thing.
Right.  It's certainly no worse when compared to the surgical instruments that will enter the same location to kill and remove her child.  Shouldn't a woman be fully informed before the final decision?
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4705

I think she is informed enough about being pregnant if she is in a abortion clinic.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-02-15 21:59:10)

Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|5812
This may be my imagination but it seems like the point of vaginal probing is to discourage the woman from aborting once she hears the heartbeat.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|5564|The Land of Scott Walker
Informed, perhaps, but not fully.
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+647|5410|Washington St.

Superior Mind wrote:

This may be my imagination but it seems like the point of vaginal probing is to discourage the woman from aborting once she hears the heartbeat.
Of course.

Stingray24 wrote:

Informed, perhaps, but not fully.
What's "not fully informed" as opposed to normal informed when you're referring to someone who knows their pregnant?
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|4298|Sydney
I'm sure the people who are pushing for this would surely be offended if it was being put to becoming law that you must witness the animal being killed in front of you before you can purchase the meat to cook it at home. Yeah I know, it's only an animal vs. a human. But life is life, no?

Is there evidence a foetus at the early stages (ie. <first trimester) has any consciousness? I don't believe there is, and I don't believe a foetus does. To abort at that early stage is terminating a life that has not even begun yet, and has no awareness of its own existence is hardly cruel.

People are pro-choice, no one is pro-abortion.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|5272|what

Why are Republicans so interested in what should be the private lives of people?

They are against big government controlling your lives, but want to control everything you do in your own bedroom.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
bf2gammer
Member
+14|5340

HITNRUNXX wrote:

It is a non-issue for them to approach it the way they are, I mean. Either go after what you think you should be going after, or don't... Otherwise, it is comparable to bulling. "We can't stop you from doing what you have a protected right to do... And if we tried to get THAT changed, we would just piss off a lot of people... So instead, we are going to make it harder, and less convenient for you to get those protected rights..."

By the way, all miscarriages are now going to be a tax-deductible, FMLA protected, death in the family, correct? Or have they thought about that yet?
Fucking right a miscarriage should be fmla protected and considered death in the family.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5530|'Murka

Superior Mind wrote:

This may be my imagination but it seems like the point of vaginal probing is to discourage the woman from aborting once she hears the heartbeat.
Because if she's pregnant, she clearly has an issue with vaginal probing.

My wife has had dozens of those types of ultrasounds during the course of one child and two miscarriages.

It's far less intrusive/unpleasant than a DNC (abortion), which she also had to have during the two miscarriages.

But the government shouldn't be forcing it on doctors and patients. If the doctor thinks it's required to verify pregnancy or determine the state of the pregnancy before performing an abortion, then the doctor will do it. Seems to me to be something that should be standard medical practice (verification of pregnancy/condition of pregnancy) in order to prevent potential problems during or after the procedure...but not specifically to discourage it. Pre-procedure imaging (X-rays, MRIs, etc) aren't used to discourage other medical procedures, but to verify the need and to help the doctors determine exactly what needs to be done.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5530|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:

Why are Republicans so interested in what should be the private lives of people?

They are against big government controlling your lives, but want to control everything you do in your own bedroom.
Mischaracterization of the issue, Reap. It's not about controlling what happens in one's bedroom. It's about preventing what some feel is the intentional taking of a human life. The proposed law (and others like it) have zero language regarding what it took for the woman to get pregnant (what happens in the bedroom/back seat) or the patient's "private life".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5225|eXtreme to the maX
As long as Catholic hospitals aren't forced to give advice on contraception it'll all be fine.
#Freed Britney !
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|5809|Tampa Bay Florida
Girls would still get abortions regardless of the legality of it (like they did before it was legal).  That's the real reason people are pro-choice.  It's just an ugly fact of life, kind of like drunks on skid row.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5794|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Why are Republicans so interested in what should be the private lives of people?

They are against big government controlling your lives, but want to control everything you do in your own bedroom.
Mischaracterization of the issue, Reap. It's not about controlling what happens in one's bedroom. It's about preventing what some feel is the intentional taking of a human life. The proposed law (and others like it) have zero language regarding what it took for the woman to get pregnant (what happens in the bedroom/back seat) or the patient's "private life".
And in one word the whole reason why I am pro-choice is summed up.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4477|London, England
Anti-abortion advocates always rant about how precious life is and how babies should be given up for adoption rather than aborted. The best way to silence them is to ask them how many of these unwanted children they have adopted.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|5829|Oklahoma City

Spearhead wrote:

Girls would still get abortions regardless of the legality of it (like they did before it was legal).  That's the real reason people are pro-choice.  It's just an ugly fact of life, kind of like drunks on skid row.
SOME would... I think it would be a small percentage though... That is a horrible argument though. (Not you, tons of people say that). Every law gets broken by SOME people, so we might as well not have any. If it were legal to take what ever you wanted from whereever you wanted, without paying for it, it would probably cut down on armed robberies and other violent crimes/related deaths... Not a good reason to legalize stealing though.

There is a large group making the same argument right now to legalize all drugs. Afterall, the people that would do drugs are going to do them anyway, right? And they aren't controlled, so people die and stuff... And we don't get to tax those sales... No, that is such an awful argument...  That is why alcohol uses are such a high percentage of the population, but even little ol' harmless marijuana is comparatively rare. I know too many people who have said "I am really curious about XYZ-Drug, and would like to try it just once, but can't risk jail/losing job/etc."

I understand the point of the argument... No one wants girls and their boyfriends doing abortions in the back alley with a coat hanger and wet-vac... But legalizing something because they would do it anyway is not a good mindset to move forward as a country, whether you are for or against abortion...
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4477|London, England
How about: it's already legal. So your comparison of it to drugs is flawed. Drug advocates are trying to remove restrictions. Abortion advocates are trying to add restrictions. They're trying to control the behavior of others. Y'all bitch when libruls go after your guns and make you take down nativity scenes on public property, yet you do the same shit in turn.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5794|Canberra, AUS
What annoys me most (given my background) is how easily this has hijacked and subverted what should be a very interesting and supremely complex issue - the definition of life itself.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard