Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GOP Brings Back Ultrasounds Before Abortion  
User currently offlineken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Here we go again - first Ohio in a very quiet signing a budget that includes anti-abortion elements (including the vaginal probe) and now The Infamous Gov. Walker has signed a bill requiring ultrasounds. I thought the national embarrassment of their last effort would be sufficient to keep the vaginal probes off the table.

Sadly it looks like the Old White Men are back at it. Maybe next they will want it done in public so they can charge admission to watch.

Quote:

Gov. Scott Walker quietly signed a contentious Republican bill Friday that would require women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound and ban doctors who lack admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from performing the procedures.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...uiring-ultrasound-93762.html?hp=l2

I find it amazing when conservatives are so strong on rights to privacy (especially from the "government") and here are conservative state governments having no concerns about "privacy" when they dictate a probe has to be rammed up a woman's vagina.

That's the most impressive lesson on privacy I've ever seen. I wonder how long it will be before responsible Republicans gag on these laws and get rid of them.

115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8710 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Ultrasounds are normally done from the outside.



Nothing in the article or the bill mentions vaginal probes. Your language is blatantly inflammatory, and I have asked the Mods to correct your thread title.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2561 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

So if I were a woman and knocked up, why should I have to look at an ultrasound?

Shouldn't that be between the woman and her doctor?


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

I suppose the government would pay for these medical procedures as well? This from the party that does not want government paying for medical care of any kind?


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting ken777 (Thread starter):
before responsible Republicans gag on these laws and get rid of them.

There aren't many left anymore. All the Rockefeller Republicans--my type--got voted out of office or are on the line; nothing can be done...

And then they wonder why they don't win elections that matter.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

What makes for an interesting juxtaposition is the Texas abortion shenanigans with another current issue:

"Texas, whose lax regulatory climate has come in for scrutiny in the aftermath of the West explosion, went into a special session of its state legislature on Monday to push through an omnibus abortion bill designed to regulate 37 abortion clinics out of existence. But the 2013 session will come to a close without any significant action to impose safeguards on the 74 facilities in the state that contain at least 10,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

Lawmakers in Austin have a handy excuse for punting on new fertilizer regulations: That would be intrusive. State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate.""



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2630 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

I laugh like hell watching the US debate over abortion. While Americans seem to fear any of the Mideast countries becoming Islamist theocracies, a large segment seems to want the Republicans to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. Real problems that need solving are being pushed aside for the continual fixation on controlling what a woman does with her body. Her body.... her choice!!!!

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

From what I understand an ultrasound early in the pregnancy doesn't show much from the outside, hence the vaginal probe.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Maybe some of the opposition party and woman legislators should put up bills banning the sales of Viagra and other 'erectile dysfunction' drugs in the state, require men to get anal probe ultrasounds every year to look for prostrate and bladder cancer, or mandate all men over the age of 14 must have condoms with them at all times. Perhaps too a special tax on the churches so the holy rollers who demand these ultrasounds and anti-abortion 'talks', would have to pay for it, as well as a special assessment to pay for the medical, social services, educational and other costs of the non-aborted children.

I bet more than a few doctors would nudge-nudge-wink-wink to their patients that they have done the ultrasounds and gave their patients 'the talk', bill for it (or to prevent insurance fraud not bill for it). Problem is that enough would 'obey' such an unjust law and those caught not doing the states' mandate would face further sanctions on their practice.

I wish the anti-abortion crowd, far too often seeking a easy way to 'heaven' would worry about far worse ways they encourage death like wars, the death penalty and taking away government benefits from the poor.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Your language is blatantly inflammatory,

So's your picture, since most places effectively prohibit abortion that far along in a pregnancy. And since vaginal probes are indeed part of the deal, let's try and keep this factual. Thanks.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 3):
I suppose the government would pay for these medical procedures as well? This from the party that does not want government paying for medical care of any kind?

Oh, no, not at all. If there's a way to tack that surcharge onto whatever the woman in question must pay for this, they will find it, rest assured. See below...

Quoting ken777 (Thread starter):
Maybe next they will want it done in public so they can charge admission to watch.

These rules won't pay for themselves!

I know we're being facetious there, but I would not put it past social conservative lady-haters to at least try that out.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 5):
"Texas, whose lax regulatory climate has come in for scrutiny in the aftermath of the West explosion, went into a special session of its state legislature on Monday to push through an omnibus abortion bill designed to regulate 37 abortion clinics out of existence. But the 2013 session will come to a close without any significant action to impose safeguards on the 74 facilities in the state that contain at least 10,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

There is not a phrase sharp enough, nor font large enough to describe the epic facepalm this represents. Way to go, TX, way to go...

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
While Americans seem to fear any of the Mideast countries becoming Islamist theocracies, a large segment seems to want the Republicans to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. Real problems that need solving are being pushed aside for the continual fixation on controlling what a woman does with her body.

Trust that many Americans are deeply concerned about this. Though the probability of conservative christian religious remaining relevant is declining every day, thankfully, it seems that there will always be some very vocal and ill-intentioned political minority factions to deal with. If it makes you feel better, part of why this type of legislation gets the press time it does is because it is so out there, and not representative of the majority.

But yes, in principle I do agree that these are usually the same people who hate islam and muslims because "they're all terrorists who hate us for our freedom". Indeed, the hypocrisy could be cut with a knife here.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2670 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval. I want to come back in a year or so and ask how the re-branding effort is going.


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):
I bet more than a few doctors would nudge-nudge-wink-wink to their patients that they have done the ultrasounds and gave their patients 'the talk', bill for it (or to prevent insurance fraud not bill for it). Problem is that enough would 'obey' such an unjust law and those caught not doing the states' mandate would face further sanctions on their practice.

What may also end up happening is the doctors performing the abortion/termination/D&E will just simply have an ultrasound at bedside before performing the procedure.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):

I wish the anti-abortion crowd, far too often seeking a easy way to 'heaven'

It's been my experience that when people start worrying about others' road to heaven they are typically either sheep who are just regurgitating what their preacher tells them, or they are somehow of the opinion that if they save everyone else their own spiritual short comings will be overlooked.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8710 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 9):
So's your picture, since most places effectively prohibit abortion that far along in a pregnancy. And since vaginal probes are indeed part of the deal, let's try and keep this factual. Thanks.

From my limited reading on the subject, vaginal probe ultrasound is more useful in diagnosing the health of the woman's reproductive organs, cysts etc. For having a look at a fetus, the exterior method is the usual method. Maybe DocLightning will chime in.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):

I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval.

Well the pro-abortion crowd could use a few PR lessons as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...battle-heats-activists-hail-satan/

Quote:
Pro-choice protesters shouted, “Hail Satan!” as an attempt to drown out pro-lifers’ rendition of “Amazing Grace.”

Seriously? Hail Satan?

http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):
Maybe some of the opposition party and woman legislators should put up bills banning the sales of Viagra and other 'erectile dysfunction' drugs in the state, require men to get anal probe ultrasounds every year to look for prostrate and bladder cancer, or mandate all men over the age of 14 must have condoms with them at all times.

As I have explained here before, I am pro-choice, but am open to a reasonable compromise, such as strict limits on abortions in the third trimester.

The radical pro-abortion crowd is not doing itself any favors by statements like the above, where they continue to insist that the fetus, right up to the moment of birth, is nothing more than a tumor or a cancer. After 20 weeks or so, the fetus is viable outside the womb, and without question can feel pain, dream dreams etc. You'd better have a damned good reason for an abortion that late is my position. At that point, it is more than a lump of hamburger, and I wish the pro-choice crowd would be willing to admit that point.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7925 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

What I don't understand with the so-called pro-life crowd is that as soon as the unwanted child who's right to life they have ensured is born, they do everything they can to ensure it's actual life is miserable and short, by getting rid of any healthcare that won't cost them a fortune, and slashing education and other social benefits. Pro-life? Well how about taking care of the living?


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Ultrasounds are normally done from the outside.

When the baby is as large as the one in your picture. In the initial stages you need that vaginal probe.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
I have asked the Mods to correct your thread title.

You asked them to change it. SInce the vaginal probes will be required in early pregnancies the title was correct.

Quoting johnboy (Reply 2):
Shouldn't that be between the woman and her doctor?

In a country where privacy is considered important it would. In the US privacy counts when the government wants to store phone records in a database - that's a real scary invasion of privacy, As for telling a woman to spread em so they can ram a probe up her vagina in order to satisfy a bunch of holy rollin Christians - well, privacy really isn't that important.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 3):
I suppose the government would pay for these medical procedures as well?

        

There will probably be so regulation requiring that only ultra strong Pro-Life ultrasound operators will be allowed to

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
From what I understand an ultrasound early in the pregnancy doesn't show much from the outside, hence the vaginal probe.

Correct. The GOP learned that simple lesson when they tried this law. It's was a major embarrassment for the party, but it looks like the party is now beyond embarrassment.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 13):
Pro-life? Well how about taking care of the living?

        

All these Do Good Christian Conservatives are more concerned about their tax cuts - which is why we rate right down there with Cuba in terms of infant mortality.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
After 20 weeks or so, the fetus is viable outside the womb, and without question can feel pain, dream dreams etc.

If a baby is viable outside the womb then give the mother the option of turning the baby over to the state. A large number of these babies will be "special needs", but funds can be found to take care of them with simple tax increases.

That way the Christian Conservatives can adopt as many as they want.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8710 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
SInce the vaginal probes will be required in early pregnancies the title was correct.

Source?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
In a country where privacy is considered important it would.

When will it get into your head that this has nothing to do with privacy, but with the life of a viable child?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Correct. The GOP learned that simple lesson when they tried this law. It's was a major embarrassment for the party, but it looks like the party is now beyond embarrassment.

Hail Satan!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...battle-heats-activists-hail-satan/

Both side have their idiots.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
If a baby is viable outside the womb then give the mother the option of turning the baby over to the state.

Are you advocating the return of state orphanages? I am not against the idea - but let's make it clear.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

These are the same people who scream about personal responsibility but deny anyone access to the pill, condoms, or the morning after pill, in case of rape.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
I am pro-choice, but am open to a reasonable compromise, such as strict limits on abortions in the third trimester.

The radical pro-abortion crowd is not doing itself any favors

For someone who claims they are "pro-choice" you sure do spend a lot of time and effort supporting the anti-choice side!

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
where they continue to insist that the fetus, right up to the moment of birth, is nothing more than a tumor or a cancer.

Except you are wrong. A HUGE HUGE HUGE majority of pro-lifers are fine with no late-term abortions. That same HUGE HUGE HUGE majority of pro-choice people know and understand that there is a point where aborting the fetus is not an option. But, the anti-choice crowd has controlled the conversation for so long the only option is for a woman to carry the fetus to term because anything else is a sin.

That's another thing: Why are a small group of people imposing their morals on everyone else? How is that working in Iran with the mullahs controlling morality or in Saudi Arabia with the morality police? That's how I see the ultra right wing who are very vocal. They go on and on about keeping government out of everyone's lives but they want to impose strict moral codes. Not only for abortion but they insist America is a "Christian" nation and we all must live heterosexual lives. They have no idea what "walk the talk" means. They just want the Christian equivalent of Sharia law in this country.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2580 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
They have no idea what "walk the talk" means. They just want the Christian equivalent of Sharia law in this country.

Indeed they would love it until they actually had to live by it themselves. They are perfectly fine with pointing at others' actions and sins but act completely surprised when the same is done to them.

In the South we joke that the only difference between a Methodist and a Baptist is that a Methodist will speak to you at the liquor store.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8710 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
For someone who claims they are "pro-choice" you sure do spend a lot of time and effort supporting the anti-choice side!

Because there are very few people on this board who are totally anti-abortion - a position I disagree with but I can respect from a moral position, but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever - a position I find even more distasteful as it is completely devoid of any sort of compromise or moral compass as it relegates the unborn fetus to the status of a tumor - which we scientifically know is false. We know for a fact that a fetus in the third trimester is viable. All the bits and pieces are there and functional. The extremist wing of the pro-choice movement simply refuses to acknowledge this fact.

As we recently saw with the House bill to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, the reaction from the pro-choice movement (at least the vocal extremists within it) was the 'Slippery Slope' argument - that no restrictions can be accepted because it might justify future restrictions. No interest in compromise or negotiation whatsoever. That is what offends me. They accuse the pro-life movement of wanting Christian Sharia, but they are just as fundamentalist and uncompromising in their positions - the hypocrisy is outrageous.

Polls show that the majority want a compromise. Abortion allowed, but with restrictions. (look at the Gallup poll.)

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

My position is that abortion must remain an option, in the first trimester definitely, but with increasing thought given to the developing human life thereafter. I think it is a reasonable compromise in line with what most people want.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
Source?

OK, here are a few:

Quote:

Question: What is a transvaginal ultrasound or sonogram?

Answer: Transvaginal ultrasound is an ultrasound that is used to help determine many things about a pregnancy. A transvaginal ultrasound is performed by using an ultrasound wand that is actually inserted into the vagina. This can be very helpful in early pregnancy as it is able to provide a better view.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/ultrasounds/f/transvaginal.htm

Quote:

Ultrasound is commonly used during pregnancy to provide information about the developing baby. During an ultrasound, reflected sound waves are used to form a visual image of the baby in the womb. While several types of ultrasounds are available, a transvaginal ultrasound is more common during the early stages of the baby’s development.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/17...nsvaginal-ultrasound-in-pregnancy/

Quote:

Most prenatal ultrasound procedures are performed topically, or on the surface of the skin, using a gel as a conductive medium to aid in the image quality. However, a transvaginal ultrasound is an alternative procedure in which a tubular probe is inserted into the vaginal canal. This method of ultrasound produces an image quality that is greatly enhanced, but it is not a common prenatal procedure. However, it may be used early in pregnancy to get a clearer view of the uterus or ovaries if a problem is suspected. It may also be used early in pregnancy to determine how far along you are in your pregnancy (gestational age).
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ultrasound

There is 3 that indicate trans vaginal ultrasound early in pregnancy. You'll probably have little problem finding hundreds of others.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
When will it get into your head that this has nothing to do with privacy,

Of course not. Forcing woman to spread her legs so a probe can be rammed up her vagina has nothing to do with privacy. After all she's only a woman. Woman haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years, why should a bunch of holy rollers worry about other women's rights?

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
Are you advocating the return of state orphanages?

I'm saying that if a woman is denied an abortion then the state should have full responsibility for that baby - including all financial responsibilities. Obviously some can be adopted out. Some can spend their childhood in foster care and some will simply have to be warehoused until they die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly shows one medical condition that shows a need for warehousing. If you can get into an anatomical museum you can probably find a lot of other medical conditions that fall into that same group. You might even come to the conclusion that, tragic as it is, there are situations where an abortion is the correct approach for some medical conditions.

State orphanages? Probably. If the decision to deny an abortion is a state decision then they need to take the responsibility and that may well include state orphanages. Pretty costly, but new taxes can take care of that - maybe taking away the tax exemption of religious properties, like churches. Great source of tax revenues there.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8710 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Most prenatal ultrasound procedures are performed topically, or on the surface of the skin, using a gel as a conductive medium to aid in the image quality. However, a transvaginal ultrasound is an alternative procedure in which a tubular probe is inserted into the vaginal canal

There you go. Topical is the norm. transvaginal is if you want to see more detail, but is not a requirement. In the context of the proposed law, no such invasive ultrasounds are required or mandated.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Of course not. Forcing woman to spread her legs so a probe can be rammed up her vagina has nothing to do with privacy.

The concept really seems to turn you on, you keep harping on it in such graphic detail. I shudder to think of you as a gynecologist.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1776 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

The party of smaller government wants to table even more regulations? Who woulda thunk it! The GOP continues to be an embarrassment to conservatism.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
Both side have their idiots.

Except the pro-life side elects theirs into office...

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
I laugh like hell watching the US debate over abortion.

  

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval.

They don't think, that's why Obama won a second term. I didn't think he would be re-elected, but then the Republicans did that thing where they open their mouths and stupid things come out.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 11):
It's been my experience that when people start worrying about others' road to heaven they are typically either sheep who are just regurgitating what their preacher tells them

Indeed. I happened upon the Pride Parade in Toronto last weekend and the particular street corner I was on was also the same street corner all the Christian groups decided to set-up shop. I noticed that their campaign is based on the "we don't hate gays, we just love them so much that we want to stop them from sinning" argument.

As an aside: It was quite interesting that the Muslim group who usually sets up an information table on that particular corner (Dundas & Yonge) was absent on the day of the parade. It seems even they know it's a hopeless cause and just decided to steer clear of confrontation.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever

Alright Dreadnought, I think it's "put up or shut up" time. Please provide a single example of somebody on this forum suggesting zero restrictions on abortion. Every single abortion thread, you whip out the same lines about people here claiming that they want abortions even in the final month of pregnancy (referring to fetuses as "hamburger" is a favourite of yours I've noticed). Well, I've read every single thread on abortion since become a member on A-net two years ago and I cannot a recall a single time anybody has taken that position. I know that because I personally do not support third trimester abortions, and I would have said something if anybody proposed that.

I look forward to being proven wrong.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 20):
Topical is the norm.

For general OB medical care, or because mothers-to-be want to see "their baby".

As the references I provided indicate, the vaginal probes are generally for early in the pregnancy when topical scans are not that effective. People who don't believe that women, including rape victims, will be forced to endure a vaginal probe in the early part of their pregnancy probably believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I can just see the rape victims, laying there thinking "here we go again".

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 20):
In the context of the proposed law, no such invasive ultrasounds are required or mandated.

What about those women very early in their pregnancy where the topical approach doesn't let the holy rollers deliver aggressive arguments agains the pregnancy? Think those women will get off easy? Only if they have a doctor who isn't afraid of the religious freaks who are going to be watching over them.

In terms of a topical scan, it is still FAR more invasive in terms of Constitutional Rights To Privacy that conservatives are so concerned about when it comes to phone logs.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 20):
The concept really seems to turn you on

Actually the forced procedure makes me want to gag. Just like the last time the GOP tried to ram that law through.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8710 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2484 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
Except the pro-life side elects theirs into office...

Really? Last I checked Abortion was less restrictive in this country than in most others.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
Alright Dreadnought, I think it's "put up or shut up" time. Please provide a single example of somebody on this forum suggesting zero restrictions on abortion. Every single abortion thread, you whip out the same lines about people here claiming that they want abortions even in the final month of pregnancy (referring to fetuses as "hamburger" is a favourite of yours I've noticed). Well, I've read every single thread on abortion since become a member on A-net two years ago and I cannot a recall a single time anybody has taken that position. I know that because I personally do not support third trimester abortions, and I would have said something if anybody proposed that.
House Approves New Abortion Restrictions (by WarRI1 Jun 18 2013 in Non Aviation)

Read all the posts of the people who were against this bill in all its forms, and/or who where against any sort of negotiations on the issue.

WarRI1
einsteinboricua
AeroWesty
seb146

and others.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
As the references I provided indicate, the vaginal probes are generally for early in the pregnancy when topical scans are not that effective.

Who said it has to be particularly effective? Look, I don't particularly approve of the idea. If you want an abortion and it's early in the pregnancy, not much will talk you out of it. I see this as a useless extra regulation and extra cost. But your reaction is that of a chicken-little. The law requires an ultrasound. I 5-second quick topical swipe probably satisfies the requirement - even if you can's see anything. So I agree with you that it should not pass, but I abhor your inflammatory rhetoric.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21085 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 5):
State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate.""

Sure, there's a point at which you overregulate. But when your state is one of the most dangerous states in which to work, you haven't reached it.   

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever - a position I find even more distasteful as it is completely devoid of any sort of compromise or moral compass as it relegates the unborn fetus to the status of a tumor - which we scientifically know is false.

Or maybe we just don't want to put women through the unintended consequences of making certain types of abortion illegal.

Whenever you start introducing exceptions into an abortion law, you open up a whole can of worms. That's true whether you're talking about an exception for rape in a complete ban or an exception for something dangerous to the mother in a late-term abortion ban. Let's take the case of a woman who has been told by her doctor that there is a problem with her pregnancy that could endanger her health and recommends an abortion. She goes for a second opinion, and the second doctor disagrees and thinks that the pregnancy could continue safely. She's past the cutoff date for an abortion, and so will have to qualify for an exception. If she has the abortion, she'd be opening herself up to prosecution by the state (and don't think for a second that there aren't pro-life attorney generals out there who would be happy to do so) for having an abortion when there was an opinion that it wasn't medically necessary. If she tries to sort things out beforehand that there's a more solid case for her having an abortion if she wants to go that direction, the process gets delayed, and if the abortion ends up happening later in the term than it should, which is something nobody wants to have happen. And, of course, during that time the pregnancy could take a turn for the worse and she could get sick and die (as happened in Ireland fairly recently) - obviously that's not a desirable outcome for anyone either. She's in a no-win situation - she's either at risk of being a criminal (and possibly going to jail) or at risk of putting her life in danger. And she's done nothing wrong. How is that fair to her? Yet that's the situation that implementing any sort of abortion ban would put her in.

If you're going to advocate putting people in that position, you'd better show that the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. If women are going around having late-term abortions of convenience like it's no bigger deal than getting their hair or nails done, then that's despicable and disgusting and wrong and I'd say that getting rid of that would be worth it. But I've never seen anything from the anti-abortion crowd to indicate that that's the case - it seems to be a lot of anger about a problem that doesn't really exist. And it's not right to put well-meaning people in criminal jeopardy over a phantom problem.

I certainly don't view a fetus as nothing more than a tumor, and I certainly have no love for late-term abortions, but I have even less love for legislatures making decisions on what is medically necessary and what isn't. That's an unacceptable government intrusion into what should be someone's personal decision about their health. Not only do legislatures lack the expertise to make such a determination, but legislatures are inherently political, and politics has no place anywhere near such decisions.

Also, it should be said that what angers me the most about the sorts of abominable bills that Ohio has passed, and that Texas tried to pass (and thankfully failed to, at least for now), is not the limit on when you can do an abortion. It's all the other stuff, like how the bills require abortion clinics to adhere to such strict standards that almost all of them in the state would be forced to close, thus imposing a severe hardship on women who want to get even early-term abortions. Ohio's law requires abortion clinics to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, then prohibits a public hospital from entering into such a transfer agreement, leaving mostly religious hospitals as possible candidates (and you can guess how willing they'd be to work out a deal). That's not about protecting women's health at all, that's about trying to impose a complete abortion ban by making it too impractical to get an abortion. If the bills just banned abortion after a certain time period and left everything else intact, I think you'd see far less opposition to them (though I'd still feel uncomfortable with them for the reasons I mentioned above). But that's not the direction the GOP has decided to take.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
As we recently saw with the House bill to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, the reaction from the pro-choice movement (at least the vocal extremists within it) was the 'Slippery Slope' argument - that no restrictions can be accepted because it might justify future restrictions. No interest in compromise or negotiation whatsoever. That is what offends me.

May I assume, then, that you were offended when the pro-gun lobby raised hell about a background check law because it was a slippery slope to total confiscation of weapons?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 seb146 : Again: Why legislate morality? Why is that for one small group to do? Actually, they don't. The reason you think that is what MSM has told you. Excep
26 BMI727 : Rockefeller Republicans were neoconservatives from the other side of the aisle, although they predate them by a few years. Or just a Limousine Libera
27 DocLightning : It does not but it is common in early pregnancy to have to do one if the goal is to find the heartbeat. In my opinion, It is laughable at best and he
28 dreadnought : I agree I would prefer the much simpler approach, such as the abortion bill passed by the House the other week. Yes, and I have said so. I have nothi
29 AeroWesty : Eh? Wanna quote us from the other thread where I took up that position, Clem?
30 dreadnought : Your reply #21, where WarRI1 claimed that any law limiting abortion "is the opening rounds of a much larger fight to overturn Roe versus Wade which w
31 AeroWesty : LOL! I was agreeing that it was the opening round to overturn Roe v. Wade, and what overturning Roe v. Wade would mean in legal terms. No where did I
32 dreadnought : Oh stop BSing. We are (mostly) adults here. That is a completely bogus argument. A new law cannot overturn Roe v Wade. That was a judicial decision.
33 AeroWesty : Correct! And it is my opinion that overturning Roe v. Wade is exactly what the anti-abortionists want. You can BS around all you want in your posts i
34 dreadnought : You never took Logic in school, did you?
35 Post contains images AeroWesty : Part B of your pattern is to start with the personal attacks when you get frustrated with your lack of ability to get out of the hole you've built fo
36 seb146 : So, feeding the hungry (who need to be working before they can get food stamps) and making sure the poor have a reliable way to get to work and helpi
37 BMI727 : No, I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. Yes. You're getting it. No, but I think that if you're going to be against legislating moral
38 seb146 : The right-wing (AKA Republicans) claim they follow the Bible to the letter and claim they are the party of Christianity. They stand up and tell every
39 dreadnought : A bit off topic, but you are very, very wrong about this. You are supposed to help the poor with your own money (or effort). Requiring others to do i
40 Ken777 : You tend to forget that part of your taxes that goes to Defense, the VA, law enforcement (like the FBI) CDC and other health related departments, inf
41 BMI727 : I don't think I've ever seen them do that. Democrats believe that it isn't the government's place to enforce Christian values, "family values" or wha
42 luckyone : Have you been paying attention, because they most certainly do on the local level.
43 WarRI1 : When a child is born out of wedlock, or in wedlock, but impoverished, in ill health, where in the world do you think the money for the child is comin
44 BMI727 : There are those two people responsible for bringing the kid into the world. And nobody is proposing outlawing charity. But, let's remember that pregn
45 Post contains images Ken777 : Republicans are the party that plays lap dog to the big companies and the wealthy. They never saw a political contribution they didn't like. Look how
46 BMI727 : The way some of them talk, it certainly seems like a disease. Not as bad as actually being a socialist though. So tyranny of the majority then. It's
47 Post contains images StarAC17 : What is the biggest hypocrisy of all of this is that in many of the states that are passing these kind of laws have no problem with capital punishmen
48 BMI727 : ...until the woman shows up with a court order for child support payments. It wouldn't be a demand. Just an opt out of parenthood similar to what wom
49 seb146 : They also call themselves Republicans. Yes, but with low wage jobs they had to take after all the good jobs they were promised were shipped overseas.
50 BMI727 : Who was ever "promised" a good job? And don't forget that plenty of Americans do have "good jobs" but they had to work and become educated to get the
51 WestJet747 : ...and this thread is about your country becoming far more restrictive. Besides, even the least restrictive countries on abortion have an elected off
52 BMI727 : Perhaps, but if they want an opt out of pregnancy and parenthood, men should have the same option. It's still the government stepping in to regulate
53 WestJet747 : Indeed, but there has to be a more equitable way than what has so far been proposed. As mentioned, signing a document does not equate to a serious an
54 Post contains images Ken777 : As opposed to the rabid right wingers on the right? How many times have the rabid right in the house voted to overturn Health Care Reform? About 40 t
55 BMI727 : That's not what socialism is. But, setting that aside, I am not and never have been an anarchist. I'm not interested in abolishing the government, ju
56 Ken777 : If minimum wage was over the poverty line then you can spend less on welfare programs. To simply cut welfare spending without eliminating poverty wag
57 BMI727 : You can spend less on welfare anyway. I'd rather pay cops who went to school and actually do something than pay people to sit around and exist. But I
58 seb146 : Medicare? The VA system? Both are government run and both are wildly popular and successful. The one that isn't? Part D which was enacted by the righ
59 BMI727 : Yes. There's nothing wrong with government run education or private social services though. The government taking tax revenue for entitlements is a p
60 seb146 : I get the whole "supply and demand" thing as far as programming goes, but what about things like the actual assembly of computers or computer repair
61 Post contains images StarAC17 : When you do this you will get a revolution that may be very violent and it has happened countless times in history and is currently happening in plac
62 Ken777 : When you look at "entitlements" start with those entitlements that were earned, or prepaid. Earned entitlements? Military retirement pay is a good st
63 johnboy : Well, that just about says it all right there.....
64 BMI727 : And yet you keep on saying things like: This is going to be a shock to you, but you're not that special. Nor are Americans in general. There is nothi
65 seb146 : Here's what I see: Every sperm is sacred, every life is precious. But, if the woman is raped, the fetus has grave, serious defects, there is no way th
66 BMI727 : If you're going to come out against the government legislating morality or enforcing "Christian values" then you should be against it even if it mean
67 DeltaMD90 : I actually agree with you there, it's a double standard in my mind. I mean I can see their reasoning and all, I just don't agree. Basically, in their
68 DocLightning : The more I think about it, the more I think that this is inevitable in the USA. I am very worried about the consequences if it happened.
69 Post contains links WestJet747 : Well, at least the US hasn't stooped to Chile's level: Chile's President: Pregnant Girl Shows 'Maturity'
70 seb146 : I didn't select the whole thing, but: So, your whole argument is "you can't pick and choose" and "if you can do X but not Y then I can too". I don't b
71 BMI727 : You don't get to pick and choose what "Christian values" the government enforces. If only the people so adamant about giving women control of their b
72 seb146 : Yet, "Christians" pick and choose their way through the Bible all the time and choose what Biblical laws to make state or federal law. I agree that C
73 BMI727 : I'm not talking about Congress, I'm talking about normal people. Vote for the liberal, because he will raise taxes on someone else (many people pay n
74 Ken777 : And this may be a shock to you, but neither are you. You can get hit with the traditional "young guy's" cancer (testicular cancer) and you'll discove
75 BMI727 : Then address those issues and leave my money alone. I'd do pretty well. ..because it's a Ponzi scheme. If my bank accepted no new deposits from anyon
76 WarRI1 : Maybe, just maybe, with a few years of reality under your belt, you will realize by nature people are greedy. If someone is not forced to pay, they w
77 Ken777 : Odd thing about this country - people vote politicians into office and they pass laws, as well as raising taxes to fund those programs. It's a mandat
78 BMI727 : This is only true because Social Security is not a true investment. If nobody ever makes another deposit at my bank after I do, my account can still
79 seb146 : Like health care? For people who make $1200 a month but are charged $1500 a month because their "secure" job is shipped overseas? That works out so w
80 BMI727 : ...many of whom get it all back come refund time. I think people should have all those things. They should just pay for them. Go to school and learn
81 seb146 : So, bankers get Congress to get rid of laws so the bankers can make tons of money off bad loans. The bankers convince people who do not have enough m
82 BMI727 : Oh the banks lost tons because they wrote bad paper. Without knowing the costs, I can't say. Jesus also wasn't the government. Giving money to charit
83 WarRI1 : We had debtors prisons, and poor farms when there was no unions and government safety nets and SS and Medicare to help people. Probably according to
84 seb146 : Because they found a way to dupe a lot of people and, in the mean time, make billions of dollars. ummmm... what? What does this have to do with anyth
85 DeltaMD90 : Um, aren't you doing the same thing by saying "well Republicans are against food stamps so yada yada ya?" Anyway, I agree, "well _____ do this" is a
86 BMI727 : Oh? Is that why the banks needed to be bailed out? Because they made too much money? It's a cliche, albeit a completely true one, to say that if you
87 DarkSnowyNight : And just how does that wind up supporting the issue of making abortions more difficult than they already are?
88 Post contains links windy95 : http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2...pport-for-Abortion-Ban-at-20-Weeks
89 seb146 : Let me make this clear for the economically retarded: Lenders make money by gaming the system! What the lenders did was make and find huge loop holes
90 zckls04 : Well you're both half right. Lenders make money when they price risk correctly. Risk itself is NOT inherently bad, providing it is priced and managed
91 cws818 : Those who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones. Also, can you actually point to a pro-choice (note: not pro-abortion - there is a difference) p
92 bhill : "...lenders don't make money when loans default....." That's REALLY rich!!! So not a SINGLE bonus was being given out, bank CEO's were being fired lef
93 BMI727 : Making billions is exactly why Lehman went bankrupt. Your lack of basic economic intelligence means that you'll probably be on the welfare rolls for
94 Post contains images n229nw : Just...wow. Yes, and don't forget some of these are also the same people who try to block some of those unwanted kids from being adopted into a lovin
95 BMI727 : I'm dead serious. I'm all for giving people access to education. But when they decide they'd rather sleep in, or stay out late, or drop out at 15 and
96 Flighty : The GOP should keep its ashamed, dirty, molesting hands off women's bodies.
97 dreadnought : Oh my, what an adult contribution. How about a response like, "Only if the Democrats keep their bloody, murderous hands off of babies"? Not very cons
98 Ken777 : Fortunately it is not the basic market investment, or insurance investment that we have in the US. Look at the massive loss from the Bush/Cheney Grea
99 DeltaMD90 : To be fair, I don't think BMI727 is for that. That's like saying you are for every single action taken by the Democrat Party (which we both know is f
100 BMI727 : Democrats should do the same for my money. And unlike a fetus, there is no case to be made that may money has rights of its own. Compared to when? My
101 seb146 : Where to start.... So, the girl who was raped by her father (or raped period) has zero choice. The woman who has a high probability of dying has zero
102 BMI727 : Obviously. Actually banks make money by banking. Whose fault is that? For God's sake, information is so easy to come by these days that there is no e
103 DocLightning : Ask him what he does for work. Yes, it's ad-homiem, but it's relevant ad-homiem. He doesn't work. He lives with his mommy and daddy. Yet he rails aga
104 Ken777 : That baby would legally be the result of rape so the girl can either have an abortion or simp;ly turn the baby over to the state for care. Raising ta
105 seb146 : This is all very interesting. You say there is no official religion in the United States, yet you still claim to stand for religion dictating law. Bu
106 Post contains links AeroWesty : I don't know why everyone keeps saying 'get a job', last we heard he was working. See reply #139: Obama Wants To Raise Minimum Wage Part 2 (by jetblu
107 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Where did he say that? Definitely not in the 3 quotes you just quoted of him, nor any of his posts on this thread. Me and BMI have our disagreements,
108 Flighty : Thanks. I somewhat agree -- although I don't consider it a human right to keep _all_ of your money. We live in a majority-rule civilized country, whi
109 BMI727 : Raising taxes for services that benefit me is fine. Roads are nice, as is having police and a military. Welfare is not a useful service and I don't b
110 seb146 : Since you are a right-wing extremist, you will probably understand this: An army marches on it's stomach. If people are starving, they have little wil
111 DeltaMD90 : Again, Seb, stop it! "Right wing extremist" isn't some defined list of attributes. You have right wing extremists of different flavors. You are a lib
112 BMI727 : That's not true, thank God. If it were, then this country is no better than a trailer park queen working on a Natty Ice and a bag of Funyuns. If you
113 seb146 : They all walk in lock step. As a free thinker, you should surely see this. I know you are more conservative than I, but you must see that the right-w
114 DeltaMD90 : Lock step... no. I'd consider BMI pretty heavily right wing, I'd consider Bachmann pretty far right, and I'd consider Rand Paul pretty far right. Let
115 BMI727 : My solution to abortion is to not knock up women. Actually, that's the solution to a lot of things. I couldn't care less, it's just noise to me excep
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
GOP Puts Lott Back In Leadership posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:41:55 by Falcon84
Are You Parking "Back-in, Head-out"? posted Sat Jun 29 2013 08:50:28 by AeroWesty
My Blood Work's Back - Or,Airstud Vs Quello Clinic posted Thu Jun 20 2013 18:10:40 by Airstud
Welcome Back, Norman! (1979) posted Mon Jun 3 2013 16:54:33 by Goldenshield
GOP Outreach Director Calls GOP Racist posted Tue May 14 2013 11:01:02 by blueflyer
I'm Back From NY - Thoughts posted Tue Apr 30 2013 01:29:52 by sebolino
Will Maybach Be Back Again One Day? posted Tue Apr 23 2013 00:36:17 by United Airline
NH GOP Pol Refers To Women As "Vagina's" In Email posted Wed Apr 17 2013 12:03:39 by Revelation
GOP Roadmap: Immigration Reform, Minority Outreach posted Mon Mar 18 2013 13:10:27 by tugger
Iran Claims To Send Monkey To Space And Back posted Mon Jan 28 2013 15:17:42 by RussianJet