PDA

View Full Version : The Transvaginal Probe: another new low for Republicans and the US Taliban



SoonerPride
2/20/2012, 04:55 PM
Virginia mandates men who want Viagra get a urethra probe!

oh, I'm sorry, I had that backwards. They'd never dream of doing something that outrageous to men. Heaven forfend!

But, sorry ladies, your privates are about to get invaded. By the state. Hooray for Virginia!

Virginia is close to passing a law which mandates state sponsored rape for all women who choose to have an abortion. (Texas already has this great law)

Since they can't outlaw abortion (Roe v Wade is still the law of the land, boys), they can do the next best thing and shame women by mandating a probe be inserted into the vagina. No medical reason. Just because. That's right, a state is going to mandate rape.

Just because they want to shame and punish women for exercising their legal right. Nice.

Surely there is an easier way of persuading women not to have abortions than shoving a probe inside them?

This is sick and twisted.

Shame on Virginia. Shame on Texas. Shame.


In America, the war on women is being led by Republicans, and driven by Christian extremists. The so called “pro-life,” anti-abortion forces are determined to humiliate and abuse any woman who dares to challenge their religious convictions.

Whether it is Muslims in Egypt, or Christians in Virginia, the tactics are the same. Virginity tests or vaginal probes, forcing a woman to have something put inside her vagina against her will is rape. It makes no difference if the state sponsored sexual assault is motivated by Muslim or Christian conservative values, either way it is wrong, and unacceptable.

http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/state-sponsored-rape-vaginal-probes-virginia-virginity-tests-egypt

okie52
2/20/2012, 05:14 PM
LOL

State sponsored rape? Is that the PC term for it?

XingTheRubicon
2/20/2012, 05:14 PM
How 'bout don't f*ck so much if you don't like the consequences when you want to selfishly kill your kid.

KantoSooner
2/20/2012, 05:21 PM
How about growing up and accepting what is now settled science: Recreational Sex is natural, irrepressible and good for you.
You can use birth control or not. And, if you (ladies) decide to terminate a pregnancy, under the terms of RvW, you have that option. Considering that something like 50% of all conceptions result in natural abortion (aka miscarriage, though some is so soon after conception that it's questionable whether it counts).
Or you can take the pregnancy to term.
Up to you.
Just not up to religiously motivated whack jobs to tell other people what to do.

XingTheRubicon
2/20/2012, 05:38 PM
Just not up to religiously motivated whack jobs to tell other people what to do.

I don't know what every other Christian thinks, but I'd never concern myself with another family's decision on abortion. I'm just not interested in paying for them to fulfill their desires of killing their kids.

LiveLaughLove
2/20/2012, 06:40 PM
This is a flat out lie. I can't link here on my phone, but anyone can look up the law. It does not specify that transvaginal must be used. It doesn't specify at all. There are other sonograms that can be used.


Step back from the dem talking points SP.

Incedently, by this definition of rape the abortion doctor will be raping these women also, and have been for quite some time. Funny, I never heard a hew and cry before about instrumentation rape.

C&CDean
2/20/2012, 06:58 PM
The #1 Bonerphone player is coming mighty close to getting a vacation. Reason? The sheer volume/level of his idiocy. I've given the other loudmouth zealots from the other side of the aisle time off when they were being uber-retarded/redundant and methinks this tool is pushing the limit of my patience.

SoonerPride
2/20/2012, 07:07 PM
The #1 Bonerphone player is coming mighty close to getting a vacation. Reason? The sheer volume/level of his idiocy. I've given the other loudmouth zealots from the other side of the aisle time off when they were being uber-retarded/redundant and methinks this tool is pushing the limit of my patience.

Don't bother.

I'll stick to the football board.

Thanks.

TUSooner
2/20/2012, 07:10 PM
I didn't read that because I didn't want to wade through knee-deep bull**** just to find out what the law really is.

C&CDean
2/20/2012, 07:11 PM
Don't bother.

I'll stick to the football board.

Thanks.

No, thank you.

KABOOKIE
2/20/2012, 08:20 PM
When you want a gun you have to get a permit and a background check. Seems fair to me.

cleller
2/20/2012, 08:31 PM
To clear up some fallacies. The Virgina proposal would require women wanting an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Obviously, an anti-abortion measure, and not something that seems necessary.

How anyone could equate the word "rape" with the procedure, however, is just stupid.

SCOUT
2/20/2012, 09:29 PM
Since they can't outlaw abortion (Roe v Wade is still the law of the land, boys)

Dean has already addressed the overall post, but I do have an honest question about this piece. Which legislators voted for this law so I can vote them out?

okie52
2/20/2012, 09:37 PM
No, thank you.

Lol.

sappstuf
2/20/2012, 09:53 PM
No, thank you.

http://www.firstgiving.com/images/UserImages/EGG/2e2ee19e-8340-4b15-af3d-aa877a291b8c.jpg

soonercruiser
2/20/2012, 10:44 PM
Thansvaginal probe???
I though the French had launced another satellite.
:playful:

Sooner98
2/21/2012, 11:30 AM
Don't bother.

I'll stick to the football board.

Thanks.

Hallelujah! Rejoice, Soonerfans!

SoonerAtKU
2/21/2012, 11:35 AM
Incedently, by this definition of rape the abortion doctor will be raping these women also, and have been for quite some time. Funny, I never heard a hew and cry before about instrumentation rape.

Just to clarify, you do understand the difference between a procedure that is requested by the patient and one forced upon her by legislature via her doctor, yes? If a doctor was forcing women to undergo abortions they did not want, then that's pretty monstrous by any measure.

StoopTroup
2/21/2012, 12:31 PM
Just to clarify, you do understand the difference between a procedure that is requested by the patient and one forced upon her by legislature via her doctor, yes? If a doctor was forcing women to undergo abortions they did not want, then that's pretty monstrous by any measure.

Like Guardasil?

Gotta love fexas.

soonercruiser
2/21/2012, 12:33 PM
Virginia mandates men who want Viagra get a urethra probe!

Shame on Virginia. Shame on Texas. Shame.


Ever had a sigmoidoscopy???
I have had several. Invasive...requires sedation......and keeps me from having to abort my colon!
Just consider "no abortion" without all the information like......"No Smoking"!
(The gobment is already into our medical lives! Get over it!)
:playful:

soonercruiser
2/21/2012, 12:34 PM
Just to clarify, you do understand the difference between a procedure that is requested by the patient and one forced upon her by legislature via her doctor, yes? If a doctor was forcing women to undergo abortions they did not want, then that's pretty monstrous by any measure.

Kinda sounds like the argument for being forced to even buy health insurance in the first place.

LiveLaughLove
2/21/2012, 03:25 PM
Just to clarify, you do understand the difference between a procedure that is requested by the patient and one forced upon her by legislature via her doctor, yes? If a doctor was forcing women to undergo abortions they did not want, then that's pretty monstrous by any measure.

I do. I also understand demogoguery when I see it. This is it.

I also understand a baby being forced to be butchered when said baby doesn't want to be butchered is monstrous.

And R v W is not the law of the land. Its never been a law. It was a trumped up right "found" by an activist court that was "found" 200 years after the document it was "found" in was written.

"oh lookie there! Well, I never. How did we miss this? It says right here in the constitution, butcher your babies. It's cool."

SoonerAtKU
2/21/2012, 04:58 PM
Let me be very clear about what I'm stating here. An invasive medical procedure performed on a patient against that patient's will is a bad thing, in my opinion. I'm not aware of any that would blur the lines on that. If any of you know of any that are routinely performed against a patient's wishes, please let me know. That was the extent of my position, and I wanted to clarify that a patient asking for and receiving an abortion is a completely separate issue and should not be equated to the situation proposed here.

Beyond that, it's the same discussion on abortion that has been going on since time immemorial. I don't care to hash that one out again, as I'm sure we all know how that ends.

I have my beliefs and you have yours, and we'll likely never agree. That's fine. I don't need you to see my side of that issue. I would like you to acknowledge that it's improper to force a patient to undergo a procedure like this. There are a million other ways that anti-abortion activists can try to prevent abortion. This is a very, very dangerous and bad one from my perspective.

MR2-Sooner86
2/21/2012, 05:14 PM
When you want a gun you have to get a permit and a background check. Seems fair to me.

Which is why I stick to buying at gun shows.

SoonerAtKU
2/21/2012, 05:16 PM
Kinda sounds like the argument for being forced to even buy health insurance in the first place.

I would actually agree with you 100%. I think the system as proposed is antithetical to personal freedom, as is the system by which subsidized care is spread out over all care receivers and paid for via those who can.

AlboSooner
2/21/2012, 09:31 PM
No, thank you.

Haha

Midtowner
2/21/2012, 09:39 PM
And R v W is not the law of the land. Its never been a law. It was a trumped up right "found" by an activist court that was "found" 200 years after the document it was "found" in was written.

That's rich. Well, I guess if you can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus Christ flew around on Pterodactyls, then you can believe that Roe v. Wade is not good law. And you're partially right there... to be fair, it's Planned Parenthood v. Casey which is the controlling case, but it's based on the privacy doctrine found in Roe. It just tweaks it, but it's still the law of the land.

That said, I've stayed out of this because the whole rape argument is just retarded. It does a huge disservice to anyone who has really been raped and further, if ladies think inserting a little probe into the vagina is a big deal, just wait until they have an abortion! That's really an emotional BS argument.

The real argument here is that state legislators are prescribing what needs to happen between a physician and a patient and prescribing medical procedures which are occurring for no medical reason. That's where I think these laws are most vulnerable.

The rape crap is hyperbolic nonsense and distracts from the stuff the adults should be talking about.

AlboSooner
2/21/2012, 09:43 PM
One has to be completely heartless, regardless of their world view, to think that a law that has led to the termination of 50 million human lives, has been good.

The intolerance towards children, especially from the "tolerant" side is unbelievable.

Midtowner
2/21/2012, 09:48 PM
Also, you wouldn't have to consent to the transvaginal ultrasound. Just don't have the abortion. They aren't going to stick the probe up there without consent.

Well that's bullcrap too. You can consent to an abortion but not want to have your doc forced to read from a script while placing a probe in the nether regions.


Every woman of child bearing age gets tested for pregnancy before surgery at some places. Women are free to not get tested, but they have to get their surgery elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

Midtowner
2/21/2012, 09:52 PM
One has to be completely heartless, regardless of their world view, to think that a law that has led to the termination of 50 million human lives, has been good.

The intolerance towards children, especially from the "tolerant" side is unbelievable.

This whole "tolerance" nonsense the Right keeps spouting is funny. Is this the kind of stuff you discuss with your friends/coworkers while you circle jerk to right wing fantasies? The middle and left are no more tolerant of your ideas than you are of theirs. Sure, we want you to treat all the races fairly and to not discriminate against people for things they have no control of.

Does that mean that we're going to sit down and shaddap when you start prattlling on about the Earth being flat, 6,000 years old, and made by a Christian God to be inherited by your specific brand of Christianity?

I would hope you would be smarter than that.

Calling a non-viable fetus a "child" is just silly. You're redefining words to play to your argument. I'm fine with a woman having control over her own body. That fetus is part of her body until it is able to live on its own. That's the law. Get over it.

8timechamps
2/21/2012, 10:33 PM
Let me be very clear about what I'm stating here. An invasive medical procedure performed on a patient against that patient's will is a bad thing, in my opinion. I'm not aware of any that would blur the lines on that. If any of you know of any that are routinely performed against a patient's wishes, please let me know. That was the extent of my position, and I wanted to clarify that a patient asking for and receiving an abortion is a completely separate issue and should not be equated to the situation proposed here.

Beyond that, it's the same discussion on abortion that has been going on since time immemorial. I don't care to hash that one out again, as I'm sure we all know how that ends.

I have my beliefs and you have yours, and we'll likely never agree. That's fine. I don't need you to see my side of that issue. I would like you to acknowledge that it's improper to force a patient to undergo a procedure like this. There are a million other ways that anti-abortion activists can try to prevent abortion. This is a very, very dangerous and bad one from my perspective.

Annual "colon check" (aka: finger in ***). Although I guess it wouldn't fall under the "against my will" heading. But, every year, I really, really, REALLY, don't want it to happen. Is there a category for "Against my will, but I guess if you have to..."?

LiveLaughLove
2/22/2012, 06:25 AM
W
That's rich. Well, I guess if you can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus Christ flew around on Pterodactyls, then you can believe that Roe v. Wade is not good law.

Why do you people keep trying to put words in my mouth? First I'm told I simply spew hannity talking points and now this. Find for me where I said these things you just ascribed to me.

Or is this just your way of saying I'm too stupid to debate on your level?

For the record, Jesus didn't fly on pteradactyls (and I've never heard any Christian say this), and I don't agree on the earths age with young earthers, and gosh, I know the earth isn't flat.

Abortion sucks as law because it denies basic human rights to the child. It may eventually get overturned and when it does then I guess you'll be the one that has to "deal with it".

Try toning your arrogance down. It doesn't help your debate.

Mississippi Sooner
2/22/2012, 06:54 AM
Annual "colon check" (aka: finger in ***). Although I guess it wouldn't fall under the "against my will" heading. But, every year, I really, really, REALLY, don't want it to happen. Is there a category for "Against my will, but I guess if you have to..."?

As ol' Clayton Williams once said, "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."

SicEmBaylor
2/22/2012, 07:33 AM
How about growing up and accepting what is now settled science: Recreational Sex is natural, irrepressible and good for you.
You can use birth control or not. And, if you (ladies) decide to terminate a pregnancy, under the terms of RvW, you have that option. Considering that something like 50% of all conceptions result in natural abortion (aka miscarriage, though some is so soon after conception that it's questionable whether it counts).
Or you can take the pregnancy to term.
Up to you.
Just not up to religiously motivated whack jobs to tell other people what to do.
This. I find the idea of abortion to be abhorrent, but it is a woman's right and anti-abortion advocates should focus their attention and efforts on reducing the number of legal abortions rather than bash their head against the walls of the Supreme Court in hopes the precedent will come tumbling down.

I didn't read that because I didn't want to wade through knee-deep bull**** just to find out what the law really is.
'Atta boy, counselor! ;)


When you want a gun you have to get a permit and a background check. Seems fair to me.
Not fair at all. It's none of the government's damned business what firearms I buy or in what quantities. If I used those firearms to harm another human being or someone's property THEN you can prosecute me. Registration runs counter to the right of personal privacy that happens to be the bedrock of Roe v. Wade.



I also understand a baby being forced to be butchered when said baby doesn't want to be butchered is monstrous.
I'm not sure anyone can say what the baby wants or doens't want.


And R v W is not the law of the land. Its never been a law. It was a trumped up right "found" by an activist court that was "found" 200 years after the document it was "found" in was written.
Rights are not "found." Rights are inherent. All rights are reserved to the individual unless or until the state regulates that right. The US Constitution explicity reserves all rights to the individual and to the states meaning that until the state legislature acts on an issue, a right is reserved to the individual. Roe v. Wade is wrong not because it "trumps up" a right, but because it took away a power rightfully reserved to the states. The wisdom of the states restricting abortion can be debated until the cows come home, but that is the issue I have with Roe v. Wade.


"oh lookie there! Well, I never. How did we miss this? It says right here in the constitution, butcher your babies. It's cool."
Again, you clearly have not read the Constitution. Evidently you seem to believe that unless a right or liberty is explicitly granted to the individual then that individual does not have that right. This is a very very scary interpretation of the Constitution and it's factually, legally, and historically incorrect. The purpose of the US Constitution is to establish the framework of our federal system and to restrict the powers of the Federal government by explicitly enumerating the powers of that government. If you read the Constitution, you would (hopefully) understand that all rights are reserved to the individual and all powers (aside from those reserved to the Federal government) are reserved to the states.

It isn't a hard document to understand.


Which is why I stick to buying at gun shows.
'atta boy!

That's rich. Well, I guess if you can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus Christ flew around on Pterodactyls, then you can believe that Roe v. Wade is not good law. And you're partially right there... to be fair, it's Planned Parenthood v. Casey which is the controlling case, but it's based on the privacy doctrine found in Roe. It just tweaks it, but it's still the law of the land.
I forget the name of the case, but wasn't the basis for Roe v. Wade an earlier finding that the individual has a right to privacy? The right to privacy case had nothing to do with abortion, but it was applied to Roe v. Wade. I may be wrong about that...

The point being that conservatives need to be careful in how they attack Roe v. Wade. I would think that most conservatives would applaud the court's finding that the individual has a right to a certain degree of privacy. That right can be applied to all sorts of cases that have nothing to do with abortion.


One has to be completely heartless, regardless of their world view, to think that a law that has led to the termination of 50 million human lives, has been good.

The intolerance towards children, especially from the "tolerant" side is unbelievable.
Good and right are two separate issues. I'm not sure how many people would argue Roe v. Wade has been "good", but I think most would agree that the case has been "right" in the sense that it upholds the right to privacy for women. I oppose the case on the issue of states' rights, but I do believe a woman has a right to privacy.

sappstuf
2/22/2012, 07:41 AM
I guess the monsters at Planned Parenthood in Virginia have been raping women for years...


Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.

Mississippi Sooner
2/22/2012, 07:45 AM
I'm getting confused here. Since when did getting an ultrasound involve having any sort of probe stuck into your body?

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 07:51 AM
I forget the name of the case, but wasn't the basis for Roe v. Wade an earlier finding that the individual has a right to privacy? The right to privacy case had nothing to do with abortion, but it was applied to Roe v. Wade. I may be wrong about that...

Griswold v. Connecticut is what you're thinking of. The state of Connecticut passed a law banning the use of contraceptives. The original law was passed in 1879, but no one tried to enforce it until the 1960s. There were a couple of challenges filed before that. Justice Harlan wrote a pretty famous dissent to the dismissal of one of those challenges because it was not yet ripe.


"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints."

And I think that pretty well sums up the idea behind this right to privacy, and that pretty much sums up why these laws which seek to impose on the private physician-patient relationship are likely not going to be upheld.


The point being that conservatives need to be careful in how they attack Roe v. Wade. I would think that most conservatives would applaud the court's finding that the individual has a right to a certain degree of privacy. That right can be applied to all sorts of cases that have nothing to do with abortion.

True enough. Griswold and progeny stand for the proposition that our Constitution guarantees a certain level of autonomy and privacy in society. With technology evolving as it has, that should give a measure of solace in that we'll not all have CCD devices installed in our homes so that those in the Ministry of Love can make sure we're acting rightly.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 07:52 AM
I'm getting confused here. Since when did getting an ultrasound involve having any sort of probe stuck into your body?

For most early term abortions, the simple 'jelly on the belly' sorts of ultrasounds won't be detailed enough to show the things the doctors are required to show here, heartbeat, etc.

Mississippi Sooner
2/22/2012, 07:54 AM
For most early term abortions, the simple 'jelly on the belly' sorts of ultrasounds won't be detailed enough to show the things the doctors are required to show here, heartbeat, etc.

Ahhh. Well, as a dude, I'm glad that I've never had a reason to need an ultrasonic probe inserted into any part of me.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 08:06 AM
Or is this just your way of saying I'm too stupid to debate on your level?

If you can't acknowledge which facts are facts, then no, you're not going to be able to debate on my level. That's not arrogance, that's truth.

And if Roe and progeny are overturned, as discussed earlier, it will be a bad omen for freedom in general because such a ruling would have to dispense with our right to privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusions. And as much as the right likes to whine about judicial activism, it seems it's only a problem when they disagree with it.

sappstuf
2/22/2012, 08:21 AM
If you can't acknowledge which facts are facts, then no, you're not going to be able to debate on my level. That's not arrogance, that's truth.

And if Roe and progeny are overturned, as discussed earlier, it will be a bad omen for freedom in general because such a ruling would have to dispense with our right to privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusions. And as much as the right likes to whine about judicial activism, it seems it's only a problem when they disagree with it.

I hope that doesn't happen.. Otherwise we might have the government intruding on stuff like our healthcare.

Oh wait.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 08:37 AM
I hope that doesn't happen.. Otherwise we might have the government intruding on stuff like our healthcare.

Oh wait.

If you think that's an apt point, you don't understand the rights/powers in question. The "point" you are making is not an intelligent one.

sappstuf
2/22/2012, 09:24 AM
If you think that's an apt point, you don't understand the rights/powers in question. The "point" you are making is not an intelligent one.

Neither is yours when Planned Parenthood in Virginia conducts ultrasounds before all abortions and then another after surgical abortions.

I will be waiting for the Planned Parenthood rapes women thread...

SoonerAtKU
2/22/2012, 09:30 AM
Annual "colon check" (aka: finger in ***). Although I guess it wouldn't fall under the "against my will" heading. But, every year, I really, really, REALLY, don't want it to happen. Is there a category for "Against my will, but I guess if you have to..."?

To be honest, I haven't had to have that procedure yet. Is it something you can decline? I know it's part of a routine physical at some point, but if you decline that portion, does the doctor have to stop the entire physical and ask you to leave? I'm pleading ignorance on this one. Also not looking forward to making this part of my schedule in the future...

Mississippi Sooner
2/22/2012, 10:14 AM
To be honest, I haven't had to have that procedure yet. Is it something you can decline? I know it's part of a routine physical at some point, but if you decline that portion, does the doctor have to stop the entire physical and ask you to leave? I'm pleading ignorance on this one. Also not looking forward to making this part of my schedule in the future...

I just had my first one last year. It's not as bad as it sounds, but don't expect the doctor to call you the next day. That will only lead to heartbreak.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 11:31 AM
Neither is yours when Planned Parenthood in Virginia conducts ultrasounds before all abortions and then another after surgical abortions.

I will be waiting for the Planned Parenthood rapes women thread...

Like I said, the intrusiveness of the procedure isn't at issue. I agree, that argument is dumb since the procedure to follow up and as you pointed out, the post-op care involve the same sort of procedure.

The point is that the government is dictating what goes on between patients and doctors for no medical reason whatsoever. That's the real issue here. The rape argument is just dumb though.

C&CDean
2/22/2012, 12:18 PM
This whole "tolerance" nonsense the Right keeps spouting is funny. Is this the kind of stuff you discuss with your friends/coworkers while you circle jerk to right wing fantasies? The middle and left are no more tolerant of your ideas than you are of theirs. Sure, we want you to treat all the races fairly and to not discriminate against people for things they have no control of.

Does that mean that we're going to sit down and shaddap when you start prattlling on about the Earth being flat, 6,000 years old, and made by a Christian God to be inherited by your specific brand of Christianity?

I would hope you would be smarter than that.

Calling a non-viable fetus a "child" is just silly. You're redefining words to play to your argument. I'm fine with a woman having control over her own body. That fetus is part of her body until it is able to live on its own. That's the law. Get over it.

Dude, c'mon. If you choose to believe your "it ain't human" nonsense at least be courteous enough to not act like cruiser or soonerpride with your idiotic "flat earth" bull**** and similar childish insults. It completely destroys whatever itty bitty bit of substance you might have had in your post.

And yes, I've sat around and discussed with others the horrors of the genocide that you and yours commit and celebrate. I even have/had a dog in the fight being party to a couple aboritions when I was young and uber naive/stupid. I am infinitely qualified to comment on the emotional damage killing an unborn child lays on the folks who choose to do it. I will say this about it: if you have killed your child, and you have no guilt/remorse and would consider doing it again...and again...then you are a sociopath; or perhaps even psychopath, of the highest order. If you believe that it ain't human till it's outside the womb, then you're just being obtuse and ignorant. Choosing to believe that is much worse than one choosing to believe there is a God.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 05:31 PM
And yes, I've sat around and discussed with others the horrors of the genocide that you and yours commit and celebrate. I even have/had a dog in the fight being party to a couple aboritions when I was young and uber naive/stupid. I am infinitely qualified to comment on the emotional damage killing an unborn child lays on the folks who choose to do it. I will say this about it: if you have killed your child, and you have no guilt/remorse and would consider doing it again...and again...then you are a sociopath; or perhaps even psychopath, of the highest order. If you believe that it ain't human till it's outside the womb, then you're just being obtuse and ignorant. Choosing to believe that is much worse than one choosing to believe there is a God.

I understand that's how you feel, but how something had an emotional impact on you is not an excuse to intervene into the private relationship between the patient and physician with folks who don't feel the same way you do. I didn't say anything about when a fetus becomes human, although that's a philosophical point, not a scientific one. It has human DNA at conception, but I'm not going to say a mass of replicating cells is the same as a newborn babe.

The law recognizes, and I agree, that there is a line up to which, the decisions about what goes on in mom's body are distinctly mom's. After the point of viability, not birth, the state does have the power to totally proscribe abortion absent a threat to the health of the mother.

soonercruiser
2/22/2012, 07:27 PM
Dude, c'mon. If you choose to believe your "it ain't human" nonsense at least be courteous enough to not act like cruiser or soonerpride with your idiotic "flat earth" bull**** and similar childish insults. It completely destroys whatever itty bitty bit of substance you might have had in your post.

And yes, I've sat around and discussed with others the horrors of the genocide that you and yours commit and celebrate. I even have/had a dog in the fight being party to a couple aboritions when I was young and uber naive/stupid. I am infinitely qualified to comment on the emotional damage killing an unborn child lays on the folks who choose to do it. I will say this about it: if you have killed your child, and you have no guilt/remorse and would consider doing it again...and again...then you are a sociopath; or perhaps even psychopath, of the highest order. If you believe that it ain't human till it's outside the womb, then you're just being obtuse and ignorant. Choosing to believe that is much worse than one choosing to believe there is a God.

I will not comment on this, merely in respect for the second part of the post.
Otherwise, rant on!
You've hit a insult nerve.

8timechamps
2/22/2012, 09:34 PM
To be honest, I haven't had to have that procedure yet. Is it something you can decline? I know it's part of a routine physical at some point, but if you decline that portion, does the doctor have to stop the entire physical and ask you to leave? I'm pleading ignorance on this one. Also not looking forward to making this part of my schedule in the future...

It's more the anxiety leading up to the moment that's bad. I'm sure you could decline it, but if you're at all like me (and just about every other guy), you'll grit your teeth and bear it. I'd rather be safe than sorry. In the end (no pun intended), it's really not bad, and something you should do when you hit the magic age.

Plus, this was all a lame attempt to jack this thread.

AlboSooner
2/22/2012, 10:44 PM
This whole "tolerance" nonsense the Right keeps spouting is funny. Is this the kind of stuff you discuss with your friends/coworkers while you circle jerk to right wing fantasies? The middle and left are no more tolerant of your ideas than you are of theirs. Sure, we want you to treat all the races fairly and to not discriminate against people for things they have no control of.

Does that mean that we're going to sit down and shaddap when you start prattlling on about the Earth being flat, 6,000 years old, and made by a Christian God to be inherited by your specific brand of Christianity?

I would hope you would be smarter than that.

Calling a non-viable fetus a "child" is just silly. You're redefining words to play to your argument. I'm fine with a woman having control over her own body. That fetus is part of her body until it is able to live on its own. That's the law. Get over it.

When you don't have any coherent arguments, I guess you retort to assuming, cliches, and insults. I could bring facts here to dismantle by science and reason every infantile argument you have mumbled, but you are so intolerant, and incessantly militant, that it would be futile.

AlboSooner
2/22/2012, 10:54 PM
Good and right are two separate issues. I'm not sure how many people would argue Roe v. Wade has been "good", but I think most would agree that the case has been "right" in the sense that it upholds the right to privacy for women. I oppose the case on the issue of states' rights, but I do believe a woman has a right to privacy.

We who oppose the annihilation of human lives, are not opposed to the privacy of a woman. We do not want women to stay at home while we work. We do want women to be independent, successful, earn as much as their male colleagues. However, the life of a child it surpasses mere privacy, and it goes into the arena of human rights. I don't know how anyone can be pro-abortion when 95% of them are done because the parents are just not ready for a child.

Any law that goes against reason, and against human rights, is a bad law, it's not a right law, regardless which high court passed it. Roe V Wade was passed during a time when America was trying to throw off the shackles of religion/ establishment once and for all, and the people being under the influence of LSD, and disenchanted with the war in Vietnam, actually thought that the termination of a human life was just a women privacy issue.


I don't want people to worship Jesus by force, and pray in school by legislation, and I couldn't care less if the Ten Commandments are shown in public; just don't kill that un-born baby. Give them a chance to enjoy life, and the freedoms of this great country.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 11:02 PM
Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks the GOP really wants to ban abortions is naive. They could have outlawed abortions on several occasions and they failed to do so. This is their wedge issue and it is something they want to hang around the necks of most Democrats. If they get abortions outlawed they become irrelevant and they know it. That is why some Christian leaders have abandoned the Republican party and have decided to go at it alone.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 11:06 PM
We who oppose the annihilation of human lives, are not opposed to the privacy of a woman. We do not want women to stay at home while we work. We do want women to be independent, successful, earn as much as their male colleagues. However, the life of a child it surpasses mere privacy, and it goes into the arena of human rights. I don't know how anyone can be pro-abortion when 95% of them are done because the parents are just not ready for a child.

Any law that goes against reason, and against human rights, is a bad law, it's not a right law, regardless which high court passed it. Roe V Wade was passed during a time when America was trying to throw off the shackles of religion/ establishment once and for all, and the people being under the influence of LSD, and disenchanted with the war in Vietnam, actually thought that the termination of a human life was just a women privacy issue.


I don't want people to worship Jesus by force, and pray in school by legislation, and I couldn't care less if the Ten Commandments are shown in public; just don't kill that un-born baby. Give them a chance to enjoy life, and the freedoms of this great country.

I guess this begs the question who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies.....especially the black ones?

AlboSooner
2/22/2012, 11:06 PM
Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks the GOP really wants to ban abortions is naive. They could have outlawed abortions on several occasions and they failed to do so. This is their wedge issue and it is something they want to hang around the necks of most Democrats. If they get abortions outlawed they become irrelevant and they know it. That is why some Christian leaders have abandoned the Republican party and have decided to go at it alone.

I agree with this.

AlboSooner
2/22/2012, 11:10 PM
I guess this begs the question who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies.....especially the black ones?


You are saying that it's ok to allow abortions because we have no way to take care of unwanted black babies. I know you don't think that. So I would consider re-phrasing your question.

We could educate people to abstain, if not then have sex safely without getting pregnant, and if you do get pregnant, then give up the child for adoption.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 11:40 PM
You are saying that it's ok to allow abortions because we have no way to take care of unwanted black babies. I know you don't think that. So I would consider re-phrasing your question.

We could educate people to abstain, if not then have sex safely without getting pregnant, and if you do get pregnant, then give up the child for adoption.

albo:

I am against abortion and I agree with abstinence and birth control. But there is a practical reality that everyone misses in this argument. Between 1973 and 2005 there were 50,000,000 abortions. All of those are unwanted babies. So that begs the question what do we do with 50,000,000 babies? You are only going to adopt out 20% of them if you are lucky and getting black babies adopted at the same rate is not going to happen. So over the course of that time frame the US would have had to come up with a plan to take care of all those children. A conservative estimate would be a cost of about $200,000 per kid to raise including education. Multiply that out by 40,000,000 children and you get to $8,000,000,000,000 (I think my math is right). We can do some discounting for inflation and dollar value and you would still come in at about $2-$3 trillion dollars and I bet I am way low on my guess. I mean it is mind bogglingly expensive to do the right thing. If you went to the American people and said that they would have support and raise 50,000,000 babies they would tell you to take a hike. And to be perfectly honest I think both parties have done the math and they know the cost and that is why neither one of them wants to over turn Roe v Wade.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 11:55 PM
Not to change the subject...but while we are on babies....Jessica Simpson really put on the weight during her pregnancy.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/va_4GQcuIv_cfV8O1WU6CQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTI2NA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/423/2012/02/22/blog-JessicaSimpson-preggars-jpg_195758.jpg

KantoSooner
2/23/2012, 11:24 AM
Those Daisy Duke shorts are a mere memory now.
<sniff, wipes a tear>

XingTheRubicon
2/23/2012, 12:21 PM
albo:

I am against abortion and I agree with abstinence and birth control. But there is a practical reality that everyone misses in this argument. Between 1973 and 2005 there were 50,000,000 abortions. All of those are unwanted babies. So that begs the question what do we do with 50,000,000 babies? You are only going to adopt out 20% of them if you are lucky and getting black babies adopted at the same rate is not going to happen. So over the course of that time frame the US would have had to come up with a plan to take care of all those children. A conservative estimate would be a cost of about $200,000 per kid to raise including education. Multiply that out by 40,000,000 children and you get to $8,000,000,000,000 (I think my math is right). We can do some discounting for inflation and dollar value and you would still come in at about $2-$3 trillion dollars and I bet I am way low on my guess. I mean it is mind bogglingly expensive to do the right thing. If you went to the American people and said that they would have support and raise 50,000,000 babies they would tell you to take a hike. And to be perfectly honest I think both parties have done the math and they know the cost and that is why neither one of them wants to over turn Roe v Wade.

Honestly, very good points...and ironically, if those 50MM little bastards were carried to term, every sector of American politics would be overwhelmingly dominated by liberals.

LiveLaughLove
2/23/2012, 07:22 PM
We were able to handle them before the sacrifices at the altar of convenience started. We could handle them again. Of course, government would have to get out of the way, and let church sanctioned adoption agencies back in. Doubt they would be willing to give up even some of that power, so it would be harder, but not impossible.

I'm sure the kids would appreciate us trying.

diverdog
2/23/2012, 11:15 PM
We were able to handle them before the sacrifices at the altar of convenience started. We could handle them again. Of course, government would have to get out of the way, and let church sanctioned adoption agencies back in. Doubt they would be willing to give up even some of that power, so it would be harder, but not impossible.

I'm sure the kids would appreciate us trying.

No, we were not able to handle them before nor were the churches confronted with this many babies. Do you honestly think they could raise the trillions of dollars to take care of all these children?

yermom
2/24/2012, 12:45 AM
how many of those 50MM would have been conceived if Sally and Johnny saw their friends saddled with kids that they now had to take care of? or knew they didn't have a convenient way to take care of their little "problem" if it arised?

Midtowner
2/24/2012, 07:52 AM
how many of those 50MM would have been conceived if Sally and Johnny saw their friends saddled with kids that they now had to take care of? or knew they didn't have a convenient way to take care of their little "problem" if it arised?

That depends.... is contraception legal?

diverdog
2/24/2012, 08:06 AM
how many of those 50MM would have been conceived if Sally and Johnny saw their friends saddled with kids that they now had to take care of? or knew they didn't have a convenient way to take care of their little "problem" if it arised?

yermon you sort of hit the nail on the head. Abortion is not the problem it is personal responsibility which has been lacking for a long time.

SoonerAtKU
2/24/2012, 10:13 AM
how many of those 50MM would have been conceived if Sally and Johnny saw their friends saddled with kids that they now had to take care of? or knew they didn't have a convenient way to take care of their little "problem" if it arised?

Uh, that happens now, and it doesn't solve the problem. Come to Missouri, my friend. My wife's old high school was on Oprah for their insane % of teen pregnancies. They were nicknamed the "Fertile Fort" and there's a daycare in the basement. Little Sally sees a baby as attention and guaranteed love. A 14 year old doesn't have the emotional or mental capacity in most cases to make an informed decision on something this important.

LiveLaughLove
2/24/2012, 10:15 AM
yermon you sort of hit the nail on the head. Abortion is not the problem it is personal responsibility which has been lacking for a long time.

Exactly. There are 50mm abortions because people can abort.

There wouldn't be that many children if the consequence of unprotected sex was an actual child, instead of a $300ish (I have no idea how much it costs) fine.

SoonerAtKU
2/24/2012, 10:31 AM
The saddest thing to me is that people who oppose abortion tend to also oppose safe sex education and contraceptives being readily available to those who need them. This is the worst idea, in my opinion. We can all agree that abortion is a terrible thing, and an infinitely worse choice than safe sex. Why would we not support programs and education that would lead to less abortions?

The combination of the two always reeks of slut-shaming to me. Those who feel that way seem to want there to be negative consequences for a woman engaging in unmarried sex. She either runs the risk of disease or pregnancy, but either way, the slut gets put in her rightful place of being ashamed of sex. It happens here, too. "Should have kept her legs shut"

It implies a moral or foundational weakness of the woman involved and it's a sincere problem. The fact that there are readily identifiable and undeniable consequences for unprotected sex for women doesn't make the choice any worse for them than it does for the man involved. The moral and ethical responsibility should lie with both, but because she's the one with the tummy bump having to decide whether she wants to keep a child or make the hardest decision you can make, she's a slut and the guy skates with a covert nod of approval for "getting his".

diverdog
2/24/2012, 10:47 AM
The saddest thing to me is that people who oppose abortion tend to also oppose safe sex education and contraceptives being readily available to those who need them. This is the worst idea, in my opinion. We can all agree that abortion is a terrible thing, and an infinitely worse choice than safe sex. Why would we not support programs and education that would lead to less abortions?

The combination of the two always reeks of slut-shaming to me. Those who feel that way seem to want there to be negative consequences for a woman engaging in unmarried sex. She either runs the risk of disease or pregnancy, but either way, the slut gets put in her rightful place of being ashamed of sex. It happens here, too. "Should have kept her legs shut"

It implies a moral or foundational weakness of the woman involved and it's a sincere problem. The fact that there are readily identifiable and undeniable consequences for unprotected sex for women doesn't make the choice any worse for them than it does for the man involved. The moral and ethical responsibility should lie with both, but because she's the one with the tummy bump having to decide whether she wants to keep a child or make the hardest decision you can make, she's a slut and the guy skates with a covert nod of approval for "getting his".

I think the issue needs to be attacked at every level. Highly educated women tend to have fewer children and fewer abortions. Education is the real key.

okie52
2/24/2012, 10:49 AM
The saddest thing to me is that people who oppose abortion tend to also oppose safe sex education and contraceptives being readily available to those who need them. This is the worst idea, in my opinion. We can all agree that abortion is a terrible thing, and an infinitely worse choice than safe sex. Why would we not support programs and education that would lead to less abortions?

The combination of the two always reeks of slut-shaming to me. Those who feel that way seem to want there to be negative consequences for a woman engaging in unmarried sex. She either runs the risk of disease or pregnancy, but either way, the slut gets put in her rightful place of being ashamed of sex. It happens here, too. "Should have kept her legs shut"

It implies a moral or foundational weakness of the woman involved and it's a sincere problem. The fact that there are readily identifiable and undeniable consequences for unprotected sex for women doesn't make the choice any worse for them than it does for the man involved. The moral and ethical responsibility should lie with both, but because she's the one with the tummy bump having to decide whether she wants to keep a child or make the hardest decision you can make, she's a slut and the guy skates with a covert nod of approval for "getting his".

You are right...education is the key...really about everything.

TUSooner
2/24/2012, 10:49 AM
We were able to handle them before the sacrifices at the altar of convenience started. We could handle them again. Of course, government would have to get out of the way, and let church sanctioned adoption agencies back in. Doubt they would be willing to give up even some of that power, so it would be harder, but not impossible....

What? Do you think there were no abortions (legal or not) before Roe v Wade? There are unwanted, unadopted kids right now. And the GOVERNEMNT is to blame? SO if the GOVT just went away all the babies would be adopted?! That's taking libertarian dogma a bit too far. I think abortion is the wrong choice, but let's not dream and make up facts.

SoonerAtKU
2/24/2012, 11:03 AM
You are right...education is the key...really about everything.

Agreed. More safe options and better education is the way to get to the root of this issue. Once it comes to abortion or no abortion, we've failed.

Mississippi Sooner
2/24/2012, 12:57 PM
For what it's worth, the bill in Virginia is dead.

http://news.yahoo.com/ridicule-helped-doom-va-ultrasound-130802643.html

StoopTroup
2/24/2012, 03:52 PM
PIITB Virginia.

yermom
2/24/2012, 04:35 PM
Uh, that happens now, and it doesn't solve the problem. Come to Missouri, my friend. My wife's old high school was on Oprah for their insane % of teen pregnancies. They were nicknamed the "Fertile Fort" and there's a daycare in the basement. Little Sally sees a baby as attention and guaranteed love. A 14 year old doesn't have the emotional or mental capacity in most cases to make an informed decision on something this important.

well, abortion/sex ed isn't really a factor in that case... and yeah, i don't get the whole abstinence only thing either.

SoonerAtKU
2/24/2012, 04:43 PM
Well, my point was more that seeing a bunch of your peers with kids doesn't really work as a deterrent, sadly. Some of them see the attention it brings and actively seek it out. It's pretty disheartening.

Not to mention that we're in a part of St. Louis that's pretty firmly Christian Conservative and doesn't support most forms of sex ed or contraception publicly. Privately, of course, it's a different matter, but you're a bad Catholic if you vote to provide any contraception. ;)

yermom
2/24/2012, 08:04 PM
yeah, but it's not like sex ed is going to help if they are getting pregnant on purpose

SicEmBaylor
2/24/2012, 08:20 PM
I do not understand the purpose of sex-ed. Is this really that difficult a lesson to learn?

Having unprotected sex can lead to disease and/or pregnancy. Lesson over.

What else is there to be educated about??

AlboSooner
2/24/2012, 11:11 PM
albo:

I am against abortion and I agree with abstinence and birth control. But there is a practical reality that everyone misses in this argument. Between 1973 and 2005 there were 50,000,000 abortions. All of those are unwanted babies. So that begs the question what do we do with 50,000,000 babies? You are only going to adopt out 20% of them if you are lucky and getting black babies adopted at the same rate is not going to happen. So over the course of that time frame the US would have had to come up with a plan to take care of all those children. A conservative estimate would be a cost of about $200,000 per kid to raise including education. Multiply that out by 40,000,000 children and you get to $8,000,000,000,000 (I think my math is right). We can do some discounting for inflation and dollar value and you would still come in at about $2-$3 trillion dollars and I bet I am way low on my guess. I mean it is mind bogglingly expensive to do the right thing. If you went to the American people and said that they would have support and raise 50,000,000 babies they would tell you to take a hike. And to be perfectly honest I think both parties have done the math and they know the cost and that is why neither one of them wants to over turn Roe v Wade.

I have thought these things. I am the kind of person who says "Do the right thing, and let the chips fall where they may." I understand your position, but I can't morally support it. If abortion were illegal, and people had sex in a smarter way, maybe there would have not been 50 million un-born babies aborted. I understand that even if abortion were illegal, people would still do it, but we have to discourage this behavior as much as possible. The outcomes and the logical underpinnings of making abortion illegal are huge, but like I said, do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.

One could take your figures and apply it to any underprivileged group of people.

There are enough food and clothes to feed those 50 million babies. We have this phobia in the US of not having in excess. It's not a fear of not having enough, but a fear of not having in excess.

T

yermom
2/25/2012, 02:23 AM
I do not understand the purpose of sex-ed. Is this really that difficult a lesson to learn?

Having unprotected sex can lead to disease and/or pregnancy. Lesson over.

What else is there to be educated about??

"your mouth can't get pregnant"

SoonerAtKU
2/27/2012, 12:17 PM
C'mon Sic. You know how retarded kids are. If you're not sure, go to a Yahoo Answers page regarding some basic sex-ed question. Look at the question, then look at the variety of idiotic answers. This stuff isn't new or special in a "kids these days" sense, but it's documented and stored forever on the internet now.

And to add to mom..."No, jumping jacks afterward isn't going to help".

C&CDean
2/28/2012, 10:04 AM
"your mouth can't get pregnant"

Ah, Texas birth control.

SoonerAtKU
3/1/2012, 11:58 AM
I'm also a fan of Catholic birth control, which is slightly different.