BF2S Forums Virgina about to pass law that may force vaginal probe for abortion

Jaekus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

LRN2NOTSTRAWMAN.

FEOS wrote:

If you believe that life begins at conception, then your position is to protect that life...not harass someone who wants to take it.

wat

Not a strawman, Jaek. A response to someone else's strawman.

FEOS wrote:

I get that. But rejecting something out of hand simply because you disagree with it is just...not open-minded or tolerant. Isn't that what we get preached to about all the time? Being open-minded and tolerant? I guess only in the cases where you agree with what you think people should be open-minded and tolerant about...

rejecting something out of hand?  not open minded or tolerant?  what the fuck are you talking about?  I disagree with the pro-life stance, which means I reject it.  What the fuck am I missing?  Am I supposed to reassess my position ever time it's brought up?  I'm 30 years old, nothing has been "rejected out of hand".  As far as laws that unnecessarily physically violate women, yes, I am intolerant.  It's bullshit, and they are assholes for passing such a law.  Transvaginal ultrasounds, in this situation, are medically unnecessary and serve only as an attempt to appeal some kind of emotinal response on the part the patient.  If these people have a problem with abortion, why don't they deal with it in a courtroom?  oh, they already tried that 39 years ago.  or better yet, they could choose not to have abortions and let everyone else make their own legal decision.     

I read what you wrote. You put words in my mouth to make a weak-assed argument. You took a small minority of the population involved and made the entire argument about that, even though I never made that argument. Millions of women who weren't raped and aren't in a medical crisis because of the pregnancy choose to end that pregnancy. Some view that as ending a human life. Many (if not the majority) of pro-lifers believe in the exception for rape or medical crisis--some don't.

And I never actually put words in your mouth,  except to note your dismissal of a forced, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound as no big deal because the woman obviously doesn't mind stuff being shoved up her vagina.

feos wrote:

But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.

yep, that's what you said.  my reference to rape was in the context of your suggestion that forcibly inserting something into a woman was no big deal.  Hence the act of rape is no big deal.  I wasn't commenting on the relationship between rape and abortion.  I'm not sure how that could have even been construed.  It's an entirely separete issue that I'm also closed-minded about, at least compared to someone like Rick "make the best of a bad situation" Santorum.

Perspective: transvaginal ultrasound wand vs speculum. The woman is making a choice in both cases. Making that choice in VA simply now involves an ultrasound...then the speculum and vacu-suck 2000 shoved up there. But it's the ultrasound wand that's sooo invasive? Oh, that's right...we have to view this emotionally, rather than objectively.

the Virginia government passes a bill requiring forced, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds prior to a legal medical proceedure, and I'm the one being emotional?  I dismiss their obvious and literally physical intrusion into a womens legally sanctioned, private medical decision, and I'm the one being emotional?

Reciprocity wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I get that. But rejecting something out of hand simply because you disagree with it is just...not open-minded or tolerant. Isn't that what we get preached to about all the time? Being open-minded and tolerant? I guess only in the cases where you agree with what you think people should be open-minded and tolerant about...

rejecting something out of hand?  not open minded or tolerant?  what the fuck are you talking about?  I disagree with the pro-life stance, which means I reject it.  What the fuck am I missing?  Am I supposed to reassess my position ever time it's brought up?  I'm 30 years old, nothing has been "rejected out of hand".  As far as laws that unnecessarily physically violate women, yes, I am intolerant.  It's bullshit, and they are assholes for passing such a law.  Transvaginal ultrasounds, in this situation, are medically unnecessary and serve only as an attempt to appeal some kind of emotinal response on the part the patient.  If these people have a problem with abortion, why don't they deal with it in a courtroom?  oh, they already tried that 39 years ago.  or better yet, they could choose not to have abortions and let everyone else make their own legal decision.

Are you a doctor? How do you know they are medically unnecessary? Wouldn't you rather confirm a pregnancy before performing an even more invasive procedure like an abortion?

But of course not. That would mean being objective and thinking of reasons for the test other than emotionally charged ones.

I read what you wrote. You put words in my mouth to make a weak-assed argument. You took a small minority of the population involved and made the entire argument about that, even though I never made that argument. Millions of women who weren't raped and aren't in a medical crisis because of the pregnancy choose to end that pregnancy. Some view that as ending a human life. Many (if not the majority) of pro-lifers believe in the exception for rape or medical crisis--some don't.

And I never actually put words in your mouth,  except to note your dismissal of a forced, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound as no big deal because the woman obviously doesn't mind stuff being shoved up her vagina.

feos wrote:

But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.

yep, that's what you said.  my reference to rape was in the context of your suggestion that forcibly inserting something into a woman was no big deal.  Hence the act of rape is no big deal.  I wasn't commenting on the relationship between rape and abortion.  I'm not sure how that could have even been construed.  It's an entirely separete issue that I'm also closed-minded about, at least compared to someone like Rick "make the best of a bad situation" Santorum.

Your assessment of my argument (in bold) is evidence of you putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied those things. Again, remove your emotion from the subject and actually read what is written.

And where did I dismiss it? Oh, that's right...I didn't. You're letting your emotions on the topic cloud your judgment and argument. Youi made the illogical leap that "rape is no big deal". I'm guessing you've never actually seen a transvaginal ultrasound wand, or been present when the test is performed, have you? But, good lord, you sure do have an unwavering opinion on how bad it is...

It would've been a much better argument to point out the relationship between rape and abortion. It's not nearly as outlandish as what you've clarified your argument to be. Perhaps I gave you too much benefit of the doubt.

Perspective: transvaginal ultrasound wand vs speculum. The woman is making a choice in both cases. Making that choice in VA simply now involves an ultrasound...then the speculum and vacu-suck 2000 shoved up there. But it's the ultrasound wand that's sooo invasive? Oh, that's right...we have to view this emotionally, rather than objectively.

the Virginia government passes a bill requiring forced, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds prior to a legal medical proceedure, and I'm the one being emotional?  I dismiss their obvious and literally physical intrusion into a womens legally sanctioned, private medical decision, and I'm the one being emotional?

Read your posts. Of course you're the one being emotional about this issue. I don't even agree with the legislation or reversing Roe v. Wade. You and I are on the same side of the issue...but you're the one flipping out and jumping to fail conclusions because you can't remove your emotional tie to the issue from your analysis of it.

feos wrote:

Your assessment of my argument (in bold) is evidence of you putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied those things. Again, remove your emotion from the subject and actually read what is written.

right, you never typed this:

feos wrote:

But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.

but keep at it.  maybe you'll dig yourself out.

Meh having a wank kills "potential" life. Being turned down for a date kills "potential" life.

Therefore I should be able to sleep with whoever I want, whenever I want to save any "potential" life from being wasted as you know we are really struggling to keep our race going.

Forcing somebody to undertake an unnecessary procedure in the name of choice is absurd. If it is necessary then fine go ahead but otherwise no. The person in question should have the choice of whether they want to hear a heartbeat or not. If you want to champion choice then fine, but you have to always champion choice, not just when you like the results.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Meh having a wank kills "potential" life. Being turned down for a date kills "potential" life.

Neither of those results in a fertilized embryo, which is the "potential" life under discussion.

Forcing somebody to undertake an unnecessary procedure in the name of choice is absurd. If it is necessary then fine go ahead but otherwise no. The person in question should have the choice of whether they want to hear a heartbeat or not. If you want to champion choice then fine, but you have to always champion choice, not just when you like the results.

One of the best arguments so far.

FEOS wrote:

It is absolutely the government's job to decide if certain people can't be a viable part of society. Social order is a key function of government. You just don't agree with some of their methods, which is fine.

I don't think that's true.  Why is there such a thing as life in prison, then?  Surely anyone in prison for life is not deemed as a viable part of society, yet they're not executed. 

And--again--the pro-life movement isn't about "tell(ing) women what to do with their private parts." It's about believing that the unborn child is a human being--just like its mother. If the baby came out of somewhere other than a woman's "private parts," the pro-life argument would be the same. Hence, it has nothing to do with a woman's "private parts." That is another strawman argument.

I would absolutely be with you on this, were it not for the fact that religious people of all stripes and colors have historically used their "faith" as a tool of social oppression.  Just look at the Catholic Church, and the Middle East.  You described the theory behind being "pro-life", but in practice it also has many other implications.  This is why it's hypocritical for pro-lifers to be pro-death penalty -- to argue for the sanctity of life and then to just completely forget that when the government executes someone (many of them as innocent as a fetus, except these grown up fetuses have wives and children of their own).  Whereas, the anti-death penalty crowd is consistent in it's insistence that the government should not have that right. 

So in summary -- one side is fighting for rights, the other, is fighting for life.  And I think the latter also has ulterior motives. 



It doesn't take a genius to realize these guys use these hot button issues to play to their base.  I doubt these politicians truly give a fuck about social issues.

Or perhaps they are arguing on a position that is fighting for that unborn baby's right to live without being killed for the sake of convenience.

The avid pro-lifers feel that unborn baby has just as many inherent, inalienable rights as the mother--and that the mother doesn't have the "right" to kill it.

You are operating under the assumption that the pro-life position is more morality-based and more emotion-based than the pro-choice position. The bottomline is that both are based in morals and rights...just differing perspectives on who's rights are more important.

I understand the argument but to me the pro-life argument smacks of a religiously based political move -- it's too convenient and the people supporting it are too whacko for me to believe in their argument.  Do they also want to ban pornography, like Santorum does?

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The avid pro-lifers feel that unborn baby has just as many inherent, inalienable rights as the mother--and that the mother doesn't have the "right" to kill it.

Why don't these pro-lifers set up adoption centres, and take 10 crack babies each themselves then? That would be productive.

But the outcry over how horrible a transvaginal ultrasound is is ridiculous. It's less intrusive than the sex the girl had to get pregnant in the first place.

Which is as dumb as saying rape is as intrusive as consensual sex so that makes rape OK.

JFC, are you really that dense? It's nothing at all like saying that. Read the other posts ref comparison of transvaginal ultrasounds and the very procedure the woman is going in there for.

To use your logic (not mine, even though you ascribed it to me), forced abortions would be OK because they aren't any more mentally damaging (and only slightly more physically damaging) than rape.

I never said rape was OK because of the physical intrusiveness of it. I fully recognize that two instances of the same act (intercourse) could be completely different, due to the emotional trauma associated with one.

But the woman is going in for an abortion. It is far more physically and emotionally damaging than putting a thumb-sized ultrasound wand in there immediately before she has a speculum and instruments/vacuums put in the same place. It's even smaller than the penis that the vast majority of women who go to get abortions had put in there by choice. Notice the emphasis on choice there. Hence, it has nothing to do with rape. It has everything to do with intrusiveness, which is a physical trait, not an emotional one, and to which I was referring.

So what? According to this logic if a woman agrees to sleep with a man the govt should be able to force her to service someone else at the same time?

The govt shouldn't be passing laws mandating that things must be inserted into people against their will, whether or not they happen to choose to have similar things done to them.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The avid pro-lifers feel that unborn baby has just as many inherent, inalienable rights as the mother--and that the mother doesn't have the "right" to kill it.

Why don't these pro-lifers set up adoption centres, and take 10 crack babies each themselves then? That would be productive.

Which is as dumb as saying rape is as intrusive as consensual sex so that makes rape OK.

JFC, are you really that dense? It's nothing at all like saying that. Read the other posts ref comparison of transvaginal ultrasounds and the very procedure the woman is going in there for.

To use your logic (not mine, even though you ascribed it to me), forced abortions would be OK because they aren't any more mentally damaging (and only slightly more physically damaging) than rape.

I never said rape was OK because of the physical intrusiveness of it. I fully recognize that two instances of the same act (intercourse) could be completely different, due to the emotional trauma associated with one.

But the woman is going in for an abortion. It is far more physically and emotionally damaging than putting a thumb-sized ultrasound wand in there immediately before she has a speculum and instruments/vacuums put in the same place. It's even smaller than the penis that the vast majority of women who go to get abortions had put in there by choice. Notice the emphasis on choice there. Hence, it has nothing to do with rape. It has everything to do with intrusiveness, which is a physical trait, not an emotional one, and to which I was referring.

So what? According to this logic if a woman agrees to sleep with a man the govt should be able to force her to service someone else at the same time?

The govt shouldn't be passing laws mandating that things must be inserted into people against their will, whether or not they happen to choose to have similar things done to them.

And I agree with that. It's that logic that makes sense. Going to ridiculous extremes with it and saying that one is OK with rape doesn't.

If people want to get upset about government overreach, that's fine. If people want to get upset about how horrible the actual ultrasound procedure is...well, then they're just talking out their ass.

Not sure if anyone is actually pro-abortion...

FEOS wrote:

If people want to get upset about government overreach, that's fine. If people want to get upset about how horrible the actual ultrasound procedure is...well, then they're just talking out their ass.

Doesn't matter the detail of the procedure, the govt shouldn't be forcing medical procedures on people - thats Stalinist.

Turquoise wrote:

However, there are a few cases where the crimes committed are so awful and the case is so obvious that the death penalty makes sense.

Tim McVeigh deserved to die.  There really was no point to keeping him in prison for the rest of his life.

Whenever people use the word 'obvious' it shows they haven't really thought about something.

Death clearly wasn't a deterrent, and it wasn't really a punishment since McVeigh went willingly in an effort to become a martyr.
"I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face."

Not sure how its 'obvious' in that context, or any other context really.